# MMSLP thread jack



## UpsideDownWorld11

This includes related books like 'The Rational Male' trifecta that teach men where to find their sack. Fire away ladies and gents!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sure! I'll be talking about the radical feminist books that teach women how to game men out of their money and souls, just to keep things in balance and relevant on both sides.


----------



## oldshirt

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> This includes related books like 'The Rational Male' trifecta that teach men where to find their sack. Fire away ladies and gents!


That is not much to go on or much of a discussion starter.

Do you have a question about MMSL or a point you are wanting to make?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> Sure! I'll be talking about the radical feminist books that teach women how to game men out of their money and souls, just to keep things in balance and relevant on both sides.


As long as the proponents are upfront about it, I have no problem with that.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

oldshirt said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This includes related books like 'The Rational Male' trifecta that teach men where to find their sack. Fire away ladies and gents!
> 
> 
> 
> That is not much to go on or much of a discussion starter.
> 
> Do you have a question about MMSL or a point you are wanting to make?
Click to expand...

Just wanted to get opposition opinions without clogging up other threads.


----------



## arbitrator

Faithful Wife said:


> Sure! I'll be talking about the radical feminist books that teach women how to game men out of their money and souls, just to keep things in balance and relevant on both sides.


*I honestly think that my RSXW is lead instructor in the course teaching the methodology of gaming men out of both their money and their souls!*


----------



## oldshirt

Well for starters, like all self-help and relationship books, I think there is a niche market that it can help and others that it cannot. 

Carrying over from the other thread, I do disagree with @Faithful Wife assertion that it is manipulative and intended to dupe unsuspecting wives into bed (my words, not hers) 

The niche market that I believe MMSL can help is men who have basically been socialized to believe that if they have a steady job, provide a safe and secure home and do what Oprah and women tell them, that their wives will desire them sexually and are then completely flumaxed and befuddled that their wives won't have sex with them after 10 years of marriage and children and have put on 50 lbs and have a hedgerow of hair growing out their ears and noses. 


MMSL can give those men the kick in their pants that they need to see the light that their wife still needs a man that looks sharp, is fit and vigorous and is still ambitious and proactive in his professional and personal life to be sexually attractive and desirable. 

And while the word "game" is used in the MMSL books and materials, it really is not intended as a subterfuge and deceptive ploy to get women into bed. The concept of MMSL is for men to make the actual self-improvement and change in themselves to become the man that their wife can respect, admire and desire again. 


MMSL does not tell men to play-act or puff their chests and pretend to be something they aren't. It does not tell men to lie or deceive or manipulate to get unsuspecting or naïve damsels into bed. It tells men to put the beer and donuts away and get to the gym and bust their azzes to lose the spare tire and gut rolls and develop some muscle. It tells men get off the couch and out of the sweat pants and update the wardrobe into stylish, new, well-fitting clothes. It tells men to put their heart and soul back into their career and pursue promotions and better career and professional opportunities. 

It encourages men to become the man that his wife can respect and desire again. 

That is why I disagree with those that say it is a PUA manual with pick up lines and parlor tricks to dupe women into bed. 

It doesn't tell me to look, talk and act like a sexy, attractive man. It provides guidance and coaching on how to become a sexy, attractive man again and get back their masculinity and passion that many a man has lost or let slide after years of marriage and parenthood. 

The purpose and target audience of MMSL is not dudes hustling and picking up chicks in bars. The purpose is to help married men who may have gotten fat and lazy and complacent after years of marriage to get their balls back and become the man that their wives fell in love with in the first place again. 

For the life of me I do not see the harm or the shame in that. 

I think there are some things that bother some people. One is that Athol Kay did take some things from the PUA community and integrated it into his material. I think that sits badly for some people. 

And even though no one has come out and said, I think some people have an issue with one of the tenets of MMSL is that if your wife still has no attraction or desire for you after making the changes, then giving her the ultimatum of stepping up and addressing the issues or get left behind and getting replaced by a younger and prettier woman.

I think MMSL has it's place within a certain market. 

I do understand that some people are always going to have an issue with it because there are some things in it that are inconvenient truths in the world and some things that aren't what Oprah and many of the other politically correct proponents want the world to be.


----------



## OnTheFly

Rollo Tomassi at the Rational Male blog is very insightful. Those men out there who are married to a unicorn have no need for him. The other 99.9% of married men do.


----------



## farsidejunky

Thanks for moving the discussion. I appreciate it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## OnTheFly

oldshirt said:


> I think MMSL has it's place within a certain market.


Agreed.

It has it's place. Life experience has taught me that virtually all advice from women about how to live with women is useless. Is Athol 100% right? No, he doesn't need to be. I glean from him what I need, I glean from Rollo what I need. I glean from other men of the redpill/manosphere what I need. I stay away from those preaching from the feminine imperative. Women use shaming language and tactics to suppress this. They need to because their truer nature is being exposed. Does this make me a misogynist? No. The better you understand a problem, the easier it is to navigate it or avoid it altogether.


----------



## oldshirt

OnTheFly said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Life experience has taught me that virtually all advice from women about how to live with women is useless. .


Oh contraire, Women give great advice on how to live with them.

The problem is much of that advice is on how to be a good girlfriend and roommate and good coparent - not necessarily on how to keep things active and satisfying sexually.


----------



## OnTheFly

oldshirt said:


> Oh contraire, Women give great advice on how to live with them.
> 
> The problem is much of that advice is on how to be a good girlfriend and roommate and good coparent


Exactly!! Useless

lol


----------



## shortbus

No More Mr. Nice Guy and The Manipulated Man should also be required reading.


----------



## uhtred

Hmm, I'm wondering that if I could change my personality in order to have a great sex life, would I? I'm not so sure - is sex really worth becoming someone else? It seems better to be the person you want to be, rather than the person who gets all the hot babes. 

The other issue is that there is a difference between becoming someone who is attractive to "women", and becoming someone who is attractive to the women that you *want*.


----------



## Personal

I haven't read it myself and can't imagine any reason why I would bother reading it.

That said I've never been in any ongoing sexual relationship with any woman, where sex wasn't frequent, varied, fun, enthusiastic and abundant.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

To me, it sounds like this book has useful advice to attract a certain kind of woman but women aren't all attracted by the same thing.


----------



## Chaparral

Faithful Wife said:


> Sure! I'll be talking about the radical feminist books that teach women how to game men out of their money and souls, just to keep things in balance and relevant on both sides.


This post sounds like you’re thinking about the books that tell men how to Pick up women and how to pick up married wives. MMSLP has nothing to do with that. It’s basically just about self respect and not being a house boy, Butler, babysitter etc.

Think about the difference in John Wayne and James Bond.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Chaparral said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure! I'll be talking about the radical feminist books that teach women how to game men out of their money and souls, just to keep things in balance and relevant on both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> This post sounds like you’re thinking about the books that tell men how to Pick up women and how to pick up married wives. MMSLP has nothing to do with that. It’s basically just about self respect and not being a house boy, Butler, babysitter etc.
> 
> Think about the difference in John Wayne and James Bond.
Click to expand...

I have read the book. I know what it is about.


----------



## oldshirt

Faithful Wife said:


> I have read the book. I know what it is about.


So please add to the discussion by saying why you have such a negative view of it. Share specific examples of what it says that you believe is in error. Provide some useful critique and criticism to support your position that it is not a useful resource. 


Just saying, "it is crap" provides no useful feedback and doesn't give anyone any reason to either read it or not read it. Pretend this is a position paper for English or speech class and offer useful information and examples of why you do not think this book has merit.


----------



## oldshirt

PigglyWiggly said:


> To me, it sounds like this book has useful advice to attract a certain kind of woman but women aren't all attracted by the same thing.


Yes and no. 

For the most part women are all attracted to the same general traits, characteristics and behaviors. (just as men are all attracted to roughly the same traits, characteristics and behaviors in women) 


But while people find the same general things attractive, everyone has their own little quirks, kinks and nuances that are unique to them. 

Women are attracted to tall, handsome men; but some will find a tall, handsome blond a bit more attractive than a tall, handsome man with dark hair. Some women will find 6' tall is just right but 6'4" is too tall and some will find 6' isn't tall enough. 

All women find ambitious, motivated, passionate men attractive but to some that will mean a corporate titan with a penthouse apartment on the top floor of his corporate skyscraper and to others it will be the passionate but starving artist living in his makeshift studio with a fold out cot above his mother's garage. 

MMSL does not promote one particular style or dress or set of behaviors and say that that is the end all be all of attracting women. It coaches developing your own personal character and style and being the best 'you' that you can be and either your wife will respond sexually or she won't. 

If she doesn't, then there is someone else out there that will.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

oldshirt said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> For the most part women are all attracted to the same general traits, characteristics and behaviors. (just as men are all attracted to roughly the same traits, characteristics and behaviors in women)
> 
> 
> But while people find the same general things attractive, everyone has their own little quirks, kinks and nuances that are unique to them.
> 
> Women are attracted to tall, handsome men; but some will find a tall, handsome blond a bit more attractive than a tall, handsome man with dark hair. Some women will find 6' tall is just right but 6'4" is too tall and some will find 6' isn't tall enough.
> 
> All women find ambitious, motivated, passionate men attractive but to some that will mean a corporate titan with a penthouse apartment on the top floor of his corporate skyscraper and to others it will be the passionate but starving artist living in his makeshift studio with a fold out cot above his mother's garage.
> 
> MMSL does not promote one particular style or dress or set of behaviors and say that that is the end all be all of attracting women. It coaches developing your own personal character and style and being the best 'you' that you can be and either your wife will respond sexually or she won't.
> 
> If she doesn't, then there is someone else out there that will.



Thanks for that info! 

At 6'3, that puts me in the sweet spot!

When younger had sandy blond hair from being in the sun so much. Normally light brown. Had shaggy hair in HS, long and pony tail option in college.

Had motorcycle hair on most days, my first blow dryer.

Although now shot with gray. But hair is still all there!


&#55357;&#56846;&#55357;&#56846;


----------



## BluesPower

uhtred said:


> Hmm, I'm wondering that if I could change my personality in order to have a great sex life, would I? I'm not so sure - is sex really worth becoming someone else? It seems better to be the person you want to be, rather than the person who gets all the hot babes.
> 
> The other issue is that there is a difference between becoming someone who is attractive to "women", and becoming someone who is attractive to the women that you *want*.





Personal said:


> I haven't read it myself and can't imagine any reason why I would bother reading it.
> 
> That said I've never been in any ongoing sexual relationship with any woman, where sex wasn't frequent, varied, fun, enthusiastic and abundant.


Two ends of the spectrum here. No offense to either, just examples...
@uhtred does not seem to value sex that much. Maybe he has not had good experiences but I don't know.
@Personal is more like me, I have never been in a relationship without sex, and I have never been out of a relationship and gone without sex. 

Now, a book that tells me how to make a woman want to have sex with me, to me, sounds silly. I have no shortage of women or sex, even now that I am in a committed relationship. 

I LOVE women, and sex, I keep myself looking as good as I can. I treat women like queens whether I am sleeping with them or not. 

I was taught to treat women well, of course I treat my partners particularly well, and expect the same treatment back. I expect them to want to have sex with me, I expect them to expect me to want to have sex with them.

If a relationship ever went south sexually, it would end, almost immediately.

However, based on these and other boards, lots of men let themselves go, crawl inside TV, computers, or video games, and retreat from the world, and their wives. 

While I don't understand why these types of things happen, I understand that they do. I am sure that some women do the same types of things. 

So if any of these books wake either gender up so they and their partners can have a happier relationship, I am all for it and them. 

I guess I don't always understand how it get like this for people, but I am trying to learn and understand more...


----------



## oldshirt

uhtred said:


> Hmm, I'm wondering that if I could change my personality in order to have a great sex life, would I? I'm not so sure - is sex really worth becoming someone else? It seems better to be the person you want to be, rather than the person who gets all the hot babes.
> 
> The other issue is that there is a difference between becoming someone who is attractive to "women", and becoming someone who is attractive to the women that you *want*.


This is all exactly right. These exact things are addressed in the MMSL material as well. 

If you have to twist yourself into a pretzel and do back flips through burning hoops to turn some chick on, is it really worth it to you? Only you can answer that. It may be better for you to walk away from someone you can't attract and move on to the next that does like you without the back flips and burning hoops. 

And as another poster mentioned, MMSL isn't PUA and is not about picking up volumes of chicks. It is about being sexually desirable to your spouse and maintaining a healthy, monogamous, marital sex life. 

The catch is you cannot always attract one, specific person no matter what you do. 

One of the tenets of MMSL that I think some women (and perhaps some men as well) have a problem with is the concept of dissolving a relationship/marriage due to lack of sexuality and finding someone else. 

MMSL is probably one of the first sex/relationship books that comes right out and says to make yourself as attractive and desirable as you can and if your spouse still doesn't want you - someone else will and you can decide if you want to continue the relationship or move on to someone else who will want you. 

That is probably a somewhat bitter pill for the, "...till death so us part..." crowd to swallow. 

One of the things that Athol Kay probably did take from the PUA community was that there really is no special snowflake out there and if Cindy doesn't like you, Sally probably will so why waste any more time and energy banging your head into the wall with Cindy when you can be living it up with Sally.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

oldshirt said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> For the most part women are all attracted to the same general traits, characteristics and behaviors. (just as men are all attracted to roughly the same traits, characteristics and behaviors in women)
> 
> 
> But while people find the same general things attractive, everyone has their own little quirks, kinks and nuances that are unique to them.
> 
> Women are attracted to tall, handsome men; but some will find a tall, handsome blond a bit more attractive than a tall, handsome man with dark hair. Some women will find 6' tall is just right but 6'4" is too tall and some will find 6' isn't tall enough.
> 
> All women find ambitious, motivated, passionate men attractive but to some that will mean a corporate titan with a penthouse apartment on the top floor of his corporate skyscraper and to others it will be the passionate but starving artist living in his makeshift studio with a fold out cot above his mother's garage.
> 
> MMSL does not promote one particular style or dress or set of behaviors and say that that is the end all be all of attracting women. It coaches developing your own personal character and style and being the best 'you' that you can be and either your wife will respond sexually or she won't.
> 
> If she doesn't, then *there is someone else out there that will*.


Not everyone wants that someone else that will. It sounds more like a book for single men and that I can understand. I hope it has been helpful to many and has brought them the relationship that they were looking for. The "best" you is subjective and that is my point.


----------



## oldshirt

Responses in bold below




BluesPower said:


> @uhtred does not seem to value sex that much. Maybe he has not had good experiences but I don't know.
> 
> *I am going to assume that he has had some good experiences and wishes he could have more. What I suspect separates men like Uhtred and In Absentia from men like you and Personal is uhtred and in absentia don't leave even though they are dying on the inside. Some people take " 'till death do us part" and turn it into a walking death while they are still breathing. *
> 
> 
> @Personal is more like me, I have never been in a relationship without sex, and I have never been out of a relationship and gone without sex.
> 
> 
> *I'm going to bet that you have some relationships that weren't that great sexually, but they only lasted a matter of days or a matter of dates. When people put a premium on sexual chemistry, they tend to terminate the relationship quickly if the chemistry isn't there. *
> 
> .
> 
> 
> . I expect them to want to have sex with me, I expect them to expect me to want to have sex with them.
> 
> *I'm going to touch on this more a few lines down, but many men have been raised and taught to NOT expect sex and have been socialized that women do not want or like sex and that it is male oppression and imposition to expect sex from women. Many men today have been raised to believe that male sexuality and masculinity are evil forces that are to be suppressed and quelled. *
> 
> If a relationship ever went south sexually, it would end, almost immediately.
> 
> 
> *BINGO!!!!*
> 
> 
> However, based on these and other boards, lots of men let themselves go, crawl inside TV, computers, or video games, and retreat from the world, and their wives.
> 
> *Yes, and MMSL addresses this and hold men accountable for their own sexual attractiveness and desirability.*
> 
> .
> 
> So if any of these books wake either gender up so they and their partners can have a happier relationship, I am all for it and them.
> 
> I guess I don't always understand how it get like this for people, but I am trying to learn and understand more...
> 
> *I do get it and I do know where some of these guys are coming from. Many men (myself included, so I get it) were raised and socialized to suppress their sexuality and that it was disrespectful and offensive to women to be sexually assertive with them and show sexual desire towards them. Many men were also raised that if they were 'nice', not drunk and had a good, stable job that they would be desirable to women and that they would get a good woman by their side in partnership. Many of us were taught that "it is on the inside that counts" and that male 'beauty' was something to ridicule and scorn.
> 
> Many of us were taught that if we treated women with deference and put them on the pedestal and never did anything to upset or make them uncomfortable, that in the end he pretty girl would see us for our goodness and we would win the girl and ride off into the sunset.
> 
> I eventually caught on in my early-mid 20s but many guys don't. Many guys do get the girl in their late teens/early 20s, marry their high school or college sweetheart, have a good honeymoon and then the kids start coming and 10 years later after they have put on 50lbs and are living as an office droid to pay the bills and coming home to Xbox, they realize their wife hasn't touched them in 2 years and is screwing her trainer at the gym.
> 
> 
> Those are the men that MMSL can help. Those are the guys that need the kick in the pants that things like appearance and physical fitness do matter..... A LOT and that your wife is not going to love and sexually desire you just because you go to work and come home and pay bills. *


----------



## oldshirt

PigglyWiggly said:


> Not everyone wants that someone else that will. It sounds more like a book for single men and that I can understand. .


If that is what you are coming away with, then I am not explaining it well enough. 

I'm assuming that you have not read the book or any of the other MMSL material because it is not geared towards single men at all. 

However one of the inconvenient truths of the world is some times in long term marriages the sex life simply dies (and in many of those cases it was never really there to begin with) and cannot be resuscitated. 

When that happens and you have done all you can to be an attractive man and good husband, you are left with two options -

-live out the rest of your days in frustration and dissatisfaction and celibacy.

or

- find someone else that does desire you sexually. 


That applies to married men just as much as single man. A married man is just going to pay a higher cost in divorce court.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

oldshirt said:


> If that is what you are coming away with, then I am not explaining it well enough.
> 
> I'm assuming that you have not read the book or any of the other MMSL material because it is not geared towards single men at all.
> 
> However one of the inconvenient truths of the world is some times in long term marriages the sex life simply dies (and in many of those cases it was never really there to begin with) and cannot be resuscitated.
> 
> When that happens and you have done all you can to be an attractive man and good husband, you are left with two options -
> 
> -live out the rest of your days in frustration and dissatisfaction and celibacy.
> 
> or
> 
> - find someone else that does desire you sexually.
> 
> 
> That applies to married men just as much as single man. A married man is just going to pay a higher cost in divorce court.


I get what you are saying. Keeping yourself F'able seems like common sense to me so maybe that's where I am blind to other perspectives. To quote Silence of the Lambs, "I'd F me".....if I wouldn't, I wouldn't expect you to either.


----------



## Rowan

I will say I haven't read all of MMSLP, or most of the other books in the manosphere. However, it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with what I see as the basic message of MMSLP: Be who your partner fell in love with. I think that's excellent advice. And it's good advice not just for men, but also for women. 

At the core, most marriage help books advise much the same thing. Even Dr. Harley's oft-recommended _His Needs, Her Needs_, is basically advising both men and women to go back to being the person their partner fell in love with. Go back to meeting his needs for sex, for a fun companion, for an attractive woman on his arm. Go back to meeting her needs for good conversation and communication, for lots of cuddling and affection, for a driven vibrant man she can admire. If you weren't meeting one another's most important needs at some point in the beginning, you probably wouldn't have fallen in love and gotten married. So if things have gone off the rails, it's more than likely time to go back to meeting those needs again - to being the person your partner fell in love with in the first place. If you can't or won't be who your partner fell in love with, then it's reasonable that they may eventually fall out of love with you. If your partner can't or won't be who you fell in, then it's reasonable that you may eventually fall out of love with them. 

Being married to someone you don't love and who doesn't love you is miserable, but you really can't fix or change another person. So the choices are to remain miserable, or to fix whatever went wrong on your end and see if it wakes your partner up. If it doesn't wake your partner up and get them working on putting the relationship back on track, then it's absolutely reasonable to think about moving on. An unwillingness by your partner to meet your most important emotional needs, whether for sex or any other need that's important to you, is a huge point of incompatibility in a romantic relationship. I always think it's reasonable to reconsider a relationship with someone with whom you clearly have a major incompatibility.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

PigglyWiggly said:


> Not everyone wants that someone else that will. It sounds more like a book for single men and that I can understand. I hope it has been helpful to many and has brought them the relationship that they were looking for. The "best" you is subjective and that is my point.


Single men or married men, if your wife is a woman, the same traits that attracted her to you when you were single, attracts her now when you both are married. The problem often arises is when your 'alpha' traits that women gravitate towards sexually go dormant during marriage. Thats not to say those beta traits are not important to a marriage, but when you go pure beta, there is no sexual desire in the marriage anymore. You can do laundry all day, rub her feet, fetch her coffee and write her love poems and she will stay dry as the Sahara. 

That is the crux of what Kay is trying to get across. The stuff that PUA, red pill and others in that sphere espouse is important to understand and keep in mind especially in marriage. Game is just simply a knowledge of the buttons that turn the vast majority of women on and yes it probably turns your wife on. Most of it is simply hardwired into our genetic code from 'before the time of writing' as Kay often says. You aren't duping them, you aren't playing mind games or being deceptive.... You are just displaying a higher Sexual Market Value than the sniper talking to the girl about her a$$hole boyfriend which he is secretly pining over . You need to always have options, even if you have no intention of acting on those options, she will always know that you could replace her if it came down to it. Usually 'it' being lack of sex or cheating. Often times, both.

How many men come on here every day complaining about lack of sex? Then everyone talks about mismatched sex drive that does no one any good. If she was riding you like a mechanical bull during the dating stage and now after 5 or 10 years of marriage she won't touch you, I seriously doubt its a case of mismatched sex drive. That is where books like MMSL comes into play. It teaches men stop being a lazy turd and go lift weights, cuz muscles turn on women. Trade in the dad jeans and oversized shirts for a new wardrobe. Raise your SMV, and get her hampster wheel spinning. All the while learning game, being assertive and dominant, because guess what women respond to it.


----------



## Tiggy!

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> That is where books like MMSL comes into play. It teaches men stop being a lazy turd and go lift weights, cuz muscles turn on women. Trade in the dad jeans and oversized shirts for a new wardrobe. Raise your SMV, and get her hampster wheel spinning. All the while learning game, being assertive and dominant, because guess what women respond to it.


How the heck do people need a book to tell you the more physically attractive you are the more people will be sexually attractive you become. That's so obvious.


----------



## BluesPower

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Single men or married men, if your wife is a woman, the same traits that attracted her to you when you were single, attracts her now when you both are married. The problem often arises is when your 'alpha' traits that women gravitate towards sexually go dormant during marriage. Thats not to say those beta traits are not important to a marriage, but when you go pure beta, there is no sexual desire in the marriage anymore. You can do laundry all day, rub her feet, fetch her coffee and write her love poems and she will stay dry as the Sahara.
> 
> That is the crux of what Kay is trying to get across. The stuff that PUA, red pill and others in that sphere espouse is important to understand and keep in mind especially in marriage. Game is just simply a knowledge of the buttons that turn the vast majority of women on and yes it probably turns your wife on. Most of it is simply hardwired into our genetic code from 'before the time of writing' as Kay often says. You aren't duping them, you aren't playing mind games or being deceptive.... You are just displaying a higher Sexual Market Value than the sniper talking to the girl about her a$$hole boyfriend which he is secretly pining over . You need to always have options, even if you have no intention of acting on those options, she will always know that you could replace her if it came down to it. Usually 'it' being lack of sex or cheating. Often times, both.
> 
> How many men come on here every day complaining about lack of sex? Then everyone talks about mismatched sex drive that does no one any good. If she was riding you like a mechanical bull during the dating stage and now after 5 or 10 years of marriage she won't touch you, I seriously doubt its a case of mismatched sex drive. That is where books like MMSL comes into play. It teaches men stop being a lazy turd and go lift weights, cuz muscles turn on women. Trade in the dad jeans and oversized shirts for a new wardrobe. Raise your SMV, and get her hampster wheel spinning. All the while learning game, being assertive and dominant, because guess what women respond to it.


I agree with a lot of this...

And along with what @oldshirt says, I say this. 

Now maybe since, even at my age, I have been "out in the wild" the last few years I am even more aware of some of this. My kids are mostly grown, career winding down but in a management role and have been there for a while... so whatever. 

But things like, keeping yourself looking good, I mean that is kind of common sense in so many ways. I am also a musician, part time now, so I don't want to go up and play looking like a slob. 

Things like, letting your woman know that you think she is hot, and you desire her and that you in fact pursue her, I mean this is kind of what you do, or at least it is for me. 

You know what, I always make and bring coffee, snuggle in bed in the morning, right before I have sex with her, and she always seems ready to go and kind of likes to start her day off that way when we are together. 

So I don't know, for some of us, I don't think that we ever forgot to do those things, but I am probably over simplifying it...


----------



## PigglyWiggly

BluesPower said:


> I agree with a lot of this...
> 
> And along with what @oldshirt says, I say this.
> 
> Now maybe since, even at my age, I have been "out in the wild" the last few years I am even more aware of some of this. My kids are mostly grown, career winding down but in a management role and have been there for a while... so whatever.
> 
> But things like, keeping yourself looking good, I mean that is kind of common sense in so many ways. I am also a musician, part time now, so I don't want to go up and play looking like a slob.
> 
> Things like, letting your woman know that you think she is hot, and you desire her and that you in fact pursue her, I mean this is kind of what you do, or at least it is for me.
> 
> You know what, I always make and bring coffee, snuggle in bed in the morning, right before I have sex with her, and she always seems ready to go and kind of likes to start her day off that way when we are together.
> 
> So I don't know, for some of us, I don't think that we ever forgot to do those things, but I am probably over simplifying it...


I don't think you are oversimplifying it. If you make sex and sexual attraction a priority, it will show. If not, no soup for you


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Tiggy! said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is where books like MMSL comes into play. It teaches men stop being a lazy turd and go lift weights, cuz muscles turn on women. Trade in the dad jeans and oversized shirts for a new wardrobe. Raise your SMV, and get her hampster wheel spinning. All the while learning game, being assertive and dominant, because guess what women respond to it.
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck do people need a book to tell you the more physically attractive you are the more people will be sexually attractive you become. That's so obvious.
Click to expand...

Obviously, he spends very little time on physical attraction part because its not a fitness book or a book on what shoes turn women on the most. He does say, if you do nothing else, go get a gym membership. 99% of the book is focused on why, when and how you become more attractive by using game or upping the Alpha. You can learn quite a bit from charting your old lady's cycle. I had no idea!


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> You can learn quite a bit from charting your old lady's cycle. I had no idea!


Wow, you needed Athol to tell you this? Ok I guess some of you guys do need his tripe if you also needed basic female anatomy lessons.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Man, who doesn't know his W or girlfriend's "cycle" dates?

That's a given to learn, early. Me, I don't have to keep track anymore. 

C'mon ya'll!!


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> Wow, you needed Athol to tell you this? Ok I guess some of you guys do need his tripe if you also needed basic female anatomy lessons.


Is it common sense that a woman prefer masculine, deep voice, confident guys (Alpha) during the 14 days leading up ovulation when they are horny af. And then prefer a softer featured, dependable (Beta) guy that last 14 days (when her sex drive drops significantly)?

This was mind blowing stuff.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Is it common sense that a woman prefer masculine, deep voice, confident guys (Alpha) during the 14 days leading up ovulation when they are horny af. And then prefer a softer featured, dependable (Beta) guy that last 14 days (when her sex drive drops significantly)?
> 
> This was mind blowing stuff.


It is common sense that you shouldn't marry someone who doesn't want to have sex with you unless you game them.


----------



## Buddy400

Personal said:


> I haven't read it myself and can't imagine any reason why I would bother reading it.
> 
> That said I've never been in any ongoing sexual relationship with any woman, where sex wasn't frequent, varied, fun, enthusiastic and abundant.


That's like a Fields Medal winner reviewing a basic calculus textbook and saying he doesn't see the need for remembering so many formulas; if he needs the a formula he just derives it from first principles.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'll make it really simple for some of you. I'm going to tell you the BIG SECRET from inside the women's locker room. 

Now, this only applies to women who are highly sexual like me, so apply it to yourself only if your wife is a sexual person.

Here's the secret...if she is a sexual person and she doesn't want to have sex with you, it is because you suck in bed.

It is too late for you to get better at sex, and she knows that. So she just doesn't do it with you.

Some things cannot be learned and she knows better than to try to "teach" you how to be better at sex. Besides, being a woman she can't actually teach you how to do it, the same way you could not teach her how to get her brains banged out. She has to know this herself, coming from her own body and experience. Just like guys who suck in bed can't really change, because they are doing it the only way they can.

OTOH, if your wife is not a sexual person, hey big secret, THAT is why she won't have sex with you. WHOA!!!! Your mind must be blown by that!!! A not-very-sexual person doesn't want sex!!!! WHAT?!?!?

I know, right? It is shocking.

So there you go. If she has a sexual pulse and not having sex with you, it is because you suck in bed.

If she doesn't have a sexual pulse, that's why she's not having sex with you.

You can pay me the $12.95 book price if you like.

You're welcome.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> That's like a Fields Medal winner reviewing a basic calculus textbook and saying he doesn't see the need for remembering so many formulas; if he needs the a formula he just derives it from first principles.


This is an excuse you guys make so you can continue to try to separate yourselves from "the naturals", while simultaneously revering them and scorning their advice. All of the men who write books that claim you should never listen to a "natural" are *JUST TRYING TO SELL YOU A BOOK*.

They don't want you to hear any advice that may be contrary to what they say.

But you've bought it hook line and sinker as if it is some kind of "truth" about the world.

Perhaps I should write books about marriage, even though I've been divorced twice. Maybe I'll write it for people who want to get married but so far haven't figured out how to do that. Should someone ask me how my advice would be relevant since I haven't had any track record of making a marriage last "forever", I would tell them NEVER to ask a long time married person because that person will not understand the challenges that "the rest of us" face. I'm sure it will be a best seller.


----------



## wilson

A lot of times I don't think MMSLP is the answer to a sexless marriage. In many of the stories here, the relationship didn't start with the guy being the alpha sex master in the first place. At the beginning, they had an easy and natural sexual relationship without any of the MMSLP techniques. Yes, the guy was probably a little more on his game, but I doubt if he drastically changed. He was probably never guy described in MMSLP. So then years later when sex is gone, becoming the MMSLP guy may not be the answer because he was never that guy in the first place. That's not who his wife was ever attracted to. MMSLP is probably good for relationships where the wife has some desire for sex but may not want it with her husband. But if she has no sexual desire at all, trying to apply MMSLP techniques is probably going to be counterproductive.

For relationships where the wife has lost all desire, I think it would be much better to start with a MM-Emotion-LP guide. Quite often, the guy has greatly slacked off on maintaining deep emotional intimacy as the relationship goes on for a long time. Whereas in the beginning he was attentive, attuned, eager to give time and gifts, hyper thoughtful, romantic, and all that other mushy stuff, later on he treats her much like a friend or roommate. Often the loss of that intimate emotional connection is associated with a lost of sexual interest.

So before trying to fix the sexual relationship, the H should take a close look at the emotional relationship and try to first restore it to what it was like at the beginning. If he thinks being emotionally connected is something trivial like saying "mmm-hmm" at the appropriate times when she's talking about her day, that's a contributing factor in the lack of sexual desire. He should first strive to rebuild the relationship such that she can't wait to get home to see him at the end of the day. That can be done without any sexual component. If her heart jumps for joy when she's around him, it will be so much easer to rebuild the sexual relationship.


----------



## sokillme

oldshirt said:


> I do get it and I do know where some of these guys are coming from. Many men (myself included, so I get it) were raised and socialized to suppress their sexuality and that it was disrespectful and offensive to women to be sexually assertive with them and show sexual desire towards them. Many men were also raised that if they were 'nice', not drunk and had a good, stable job that they would be desirable to women and that they would get a good woman by their side in partnership. Many of us were taught that "it is on the inside that counts" and that male 'beauty' was something to ridicule and scorn.
> 
> Many of us were taught that if we treated women with deference and put them on the pedestal and never did anything to upset or make them uncomfortable, that in the end he pretty girl would see us for our goodness and we would win the girl and ride off into the sunset.
> 
> I eventually caught on in my early-mid 20s but many guys don't. Many guys do get the girl in their late teens/early 20s, marry their high school or college sweetheart, have a good honeymoon and then the kids start coming and 10 years later after they have put on 50lbs and are living as an office droid to pay the bills and coming home to Xbox, they realize their wife hasn't touched them in 2 years and is screwing her trainer at the gym.
> 
> 
> Those are the men that MMSL can help. Those are the guys that need the kick in the pants that things like appearance and physical fitness do matter..... A LOT and that your wife is not going to love and sexually desire you just because you go to work and come home and pay bills.


I agree 100%


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> Hmm, I'm wondering that if I could change my personality in order to have a great sex life, would I? I'm not so sure - is sex really worth becoming someone else? It seems better to be the person you want to be, rather than the person who gets all the hot babes.


It doesn't require changing your personality.

In fact, it could free your personality if you had been refraining from certain actions and behaviors because you thought they were wrong or ineffective.

Trivial example: I have a dislike of phones; my wife doesn't (I will drive 30 minutes round trip to ask someone a question in person that I could easily have answered in 5 by making a phone call). It seemed like a perfectly reasonable division of duties that, when a phone call is required, my wife should do it (on anything else, I was the one most likely to take responsibility). 

I always sensed a bit of push-back from her on this. She'd say things like "why can't you call them?" even though I'd explained my feelings about this clearly multiple times. I sort of assumed that she was either dense, didn't understand or wanted to cause me discomfort. None of those were good. 

Somewhere along the line (probably on TAM), I read that many (most?) women like men who make decisions and take action. My pawning off on my wife of something that I could do myself (with minor difficultly) was a problem for her emotionally even though, logically, it made perfect sense.

Having learned this, I just sucked it up, told her that I was going to make the call and did so. Things of this nature have made a noticeable difference in the way she views me.

As in so many other areas, had I asked her if this was a problem, she would have said (and did say) "No".

If I had asked her if she wanted me to make the calls myself, she would have said (and did say) "No".

However, reality seems to indicate that her actual emotional answers were "Yes" and she was unaware of that.

So, I never would have learned this by talking to her, I had to find out about it elsewhere and give it a try.



uhtred said:


> The other issue is that there is a difference between becoming someone who is attractive to "women", and becoming someone who is attractive to the women that you *want*.


When evaluating a patient, doctors take into account data on what the problems are most often associated with certain symptoms.

Sure, *THIS* patient's problem may not be listed as displaying those symptoms. But that doesn't mean that the data has no value.

Knowing what many (a majority?) of women find attractive is a lot better than not knowing.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> I'll make it really simple for some of you. I'm going to tell you the BIG SECRET from inside the women's locker room.
> 
> Now, this only applies to women who are highly sexual like me, so apply it to yourself only if your wife is a sexual person.
> 
> Here's the secret...if she is a sexual person and she doesn't want to have sex with you, it is because you suck in bed.
> 
> It is too late for you to get better at sex, and she knows that. So she just doesn't do it with you.
> 
> Some things cannot be learned and she knows better than to try to "teach" you how to be better at sex. Besides, being a woman she can't actually teach you how to do it, the same way you could not teach her how to get her brains banged out. She has to know this herself, coming from her own body and experience. Just like guys who suck in bed can't really change, because they are doing it the only way they can.
> 
> OTOH, if your wife is not a sexual person, hey big secret, THAT is why she won't have sex with you. WHOA!!!! Your mind must be blown by that!!! A not-very-sexual person doesn't want sex!!!! WHAT?!?!?
> 
> I know, right? It is shocking.
> 
> So there you go. If she has a sexual pulse and not having sex with you, it is because you suck in bed.
> 
> If she doesn't have a sexual pulse, that's why she's not having sex with you.
> 
> You can pay me the $12.95 book price if you like.
> 
> You're welcome.


Sounds very simple. But what about the cases where you screwed like animals prior to marriage and then goes to a slow drip over the years? So by women's logic, either:

A. You progressively got worse at sex over the years even though you think you do it like you always have

B. She faked having sexual pleasure multiple times a day while you both were dating, even instigating the sex, then she got the ring and was like OK enough of that ish.

OR MAYBE (since that makes no sense)...

You became an Beta chump and she secretely wants to plow the contractor cause hes got muscles and knows how to swing a hammer unlike the Beta Bux she settled for....


----------



## sokillme

Faithful Wife said:


> It is common sense that you shouldn't marry someone who doesn't want to have sex with you unless you game them.


Common now you have read her enough to know there are women out there who are very good at making men think they are attracted to them, or that are attracted to them but in a way where they only see them as a provider and are willing to have hot passionate sex with them until they get them locked down in that role.

Lots of these men get stuck in marriages where the motives of the wife was really finding someone who would be a good financial provider and provide a wealth and stability. All of a sudden the wife has NO interest or worse is out chasing after the reckless but exciting men that they were dating before they decided to settle down.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make it really simple for some of you. I'm going to tell you the BIG SECRET from inside the women's locker room.
> 
> Now, this only applies to women who are highly sexual like me, so apply it to yourself only if your wife is a sexual person.
> 
> Here's the secret...if she is a sexual person and she doesn't want to have sex with you, it is because you suck in bed.
> 
> It is too late for you to get better at sex, and she knows that. So she just doesn't do it with you.
> 
> Some things cannot be learned and she knows better than to try to "teach" you how to be better at sex. Besides, being a woman she can't actually teach you how to do it, the same way you could not teach her how to get her brains banged out. She has to know this herself, coming from her own body and experience. Just like guys who suck in bed can't really change, because they are doing it the only way they can.
> 
> OTOH, if your wife is not a sexual person, hey big secret, THAT is why she won't have sex with you. WHOA!!!! Your mind must be blown by that!!! A not-very-sexual person doesn't want sex!!!! WHAT?!?!?
> 
> I know, right? It is shocking.
> 
> So there you go. If she has a sexual pulse and not having sex with you, it is because you suck in bed.
> 
> If she doesn't have a sexual pulse, that's why she's not having sex with you.
> 
> You can pay me the $12.95 book price if you like.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds very simple. But what about the cases where you screwed like animals prior to marriage and then goes to a slow drip over the years? So by women's logic, either:
> 
> A. You progressively got worse at sex over the years even though you think you do it like you always have
> 
> B. She faked having sexual pleasure multiple times a day while you both were dating, even instigating the sex, then she got the ring and was like OK enough of that ish.
> 
> OR MAYBE (since that makes no sense)...
> 
> You became an Beta chump and she secretely wants to plow the contractor cause hes got muscles and knows how to swing a hammer unlike the Beta Bux she settled for....
Click to expand...

Or MAYBE the fact that this happens naturally in all new relationships (check it out, it’s science!) means that she was simply in that new relationship energy phase with you and once she snapped out of it, she was like “meh” to sex with you.

Add in more “bleah” than “meh” if you gained a bunch of weight.


----------



## sokillme

Faithful Wife said:


> This is an excuse you guys make so you can continue to try to separate yourselves from "the naturals", while simultaneously revering them and scorning their advice. All of the men who write books that claim you should never listen to a "natural" are *JUST TRYING TO SELL YOU A BOOK*.
> 
> They don't want you to hear any advice that may be contrary to what they say.
> 
> But you've bought it hook line and sinker as if it is some kind of "truth" about the world.
> 
> Perhaps I should write books about marriage, even though I've been divorced twice. Maybe I'll write it for people who want to get married but so far haven't figured out how to do that. Should someone ask me how my advice would be relevant since I haven't had any track record of making a marriage last "forever", I would tell them NEVER to ask a long time married person because that person will not understand the challenges that "the rest of us" face. I'm sure it will be a best seller.


So instead of criticizing the advice why not try to give some? Seriously I am interested in what you think is going on in these situations?


----------



## sokillme

Faithful Wife said:


> Or MAYBE the fact that this happens naturally in all new relationships (check it out, it’s science!) means that she was simply in that new relationship energy phase with you and once she snapped out of it, she was like “meh” to sex with you.
> 
> Add in more “bleah” than “meh” if you gained a bunch of weight.


And your solution to that is what, get into shape? Which is the same thing lots of folks on here say.

Wives get out of shape too. 

There are plenty of stuff where one partner lets stuff go, the answer can't be well I am just not interested in working on that anymore which seems to be some spouses MO. I mean at least tell him you are not attracted maybe he can find someone else who is. It will never happen though.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> Or MAYBE the fact that this happens naturally in all new relationships (check it out, it’s science!) means that she was simply in that new relationship energy phase with you and once she snapped out of it, she was like “meh” to sex with you.
> 
> Add in more “bleah” than “meh” if you gained a bunch of weight.


And that is exactly the meh and bleah that MMSLP addresses. So whats your beef with it?


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is common sense that you shouldn't marry someone who doesn't want to have sex with you unless you game them.
> 
> 
> 
> Common now you have read her enough to know there are women out there who are very good at making men think they are attracted to them, or that are attracted to them but in a way where they only see them as a provider and are willing to have hot passionate sex with them until they get them locked down in that role.
> 
> Lots of these men get stuck in marriages where the motives of the wife was really finding someone who would be a good financial provider and provide a wealth and stability. All of a sudden the wife has NO interest or worse is out chasing after the reckless but exciting men that they were dating before they decided to settle down.
Click to expand...

And you are saying that a man whose wife wasn’t attracted to him, just wanted a provider, should try to game her into wanting sex with him now? I guess that makes sense. Apply game to a woman who doesn’t want you since she’s an unworthy woman anyway.


----------



## sokillme

Faithful Wife said:


> I'll make it really simple for some of you. I'm going to tell you the BIG SECRET from inside the women's locker room.
> 
> Now, this only applies to women who are highly sexual like me, so apply it to yourself only if your wife is a sexual person.
> 
> Here's the secret...if she is a sexual person and she doesn't want to have sex with you, it is because you suck in bed.
> 
> It is too late for you to get better at sex, and she knows that. So she just doesn't do it with you.


This point is really moot because someone like you who prioritizes this would never have married someone like this so this is obviously not a common situation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or MAYBE the fact that this happens naturally in all new relationships (check it out, it’s science!) means that she was simply in that new relationship energy phase with you and once she snapped out of it, she was like “meh” to sex with you.
> 
> Add in more “bleah” than “meh” if you gained a bunch of weight.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is exactly the meh and bleah that MMSLP addresses. So whats your beef with it?
Click to expand...

I agree the book is written for men who suck in bed. I disagree that it helps them understand how to not to suck in bed.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> This is an excuse you guys make so you can continue to try to separate yourselves from "the naturals", while simultaneously revering them and scorning their advice. All of the men who write books that claim you should never listen to a "natural" are *JUST TRYING TO SELL YOU A BOOK*.
> 
> They don't want you to hear any advice that may be contrary to what they say.
> 
> But you've bought it hook line and sinker as if it is some kind of "truth" about the world.
> 
> Perhaps I should write books about marriage, even though I've been divorced twice. Maybe I'll write it for people who want to get married but so far haven't figured out how to do that. Should someone ask me how my advice would be relevant since I haven't had any track record of making a marriage last "forever", I would tell them NEVER to ask a long time married person because that person will not understand the challenges that "the rest of us" face. I'm sure it will be a best seller.


This is nothing new or specifically related to gender relations.

Plenty of people think that the greatest baseball hitters make lousy hitting couches, math geniuses make lousy calculus teachers, etc, etc.

If you ask a star basketball player why he's so good, "he'll talk about all the training he does, his "mental toughness", the fact that he only eats Wheaties, etc, etc. 

He never says "well, while work ethic is very important, mostly it's the fact that I was born with the physical potential to be a top level basketball player and I capitalized on that".

Ask a team why they won the championship and they're not likely to respond with "because we had more good players".

It's a common point of view in many areas of life that gifted performers make bad teachers.

The theory may be right or wrong, but it's not just some misogynistic theory.


----------



## sokillme

Faithful Wife said:


> And you are saying that a man whose wife wasn’t attracted to him, just wanted a provider, should try to game her into wanting sex with him now? I guess that makes sense. Apply game to a woman who doesn’t want you since she’s an unworthy woman anyway.


Honestly God help you if you married a women like this, but haven learned and seen women like this they are more likely respond to being gamed then other stuff. 

I wouldn't stay married to a women like this nor do I think I would have gotten far enough to marry a women like this.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

sokillme said:


> Common now you have read her enough to know there are women out there who are very good at making men think they are attracted to them, or that are attracted to them but in a way where they only see them as a provider and are willing to have hot passionate sex with them until they get them locked down in that role.
> 
> Lots of these men get stuck in marriages where the motives of the wife was really finding someone who would be a good financial provider and provide a wealth and stability. All of a sudden the wife has NO interest or worse is out chasing after the reckless but exciting men that they were dating before they decided to settle down.


Its a nice way for women to game the system. Alpha seed and beta provisioning for the forseeable future. Its your job to sniff these loathsome creatures out.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make it really simple for some of you. I'm going to tell you the BIG SECRET from inside the women's locker room.
> 
> Now, this only applies to women who are highly sexual like me, so apply it to yourself only if your wife is a sexual person.
> 
> Here's the secret...if she is a sexual person and she doesn't want to have sex with you, it is because you suck in bed.
> 
> It is too late for you to get better at sex, and she knows that. So she just doesn't do it with you.
> 
> 
> 
> This point is really moot because someone like you who prioritizes this would never have married someone like this so this is obviously not a common situation.
Click to expand...

Except the book tries to make men think that it can change their wife into someone like me. And it can’t. That’s my point and it is not moot.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> sokillme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common now you have read her enough to know there are women out there who are very good at making men think they are attracted to them, or that are attracted to them but in a way where they only see them as a provider and are willing to have hot passionate sex with them until they get them locked down in that role.
> 
> Lots of these men get stuck in marriages where the motives of the wife was really finding someone who would be a good financial provider and provide a wealth and stability. All of a sudden the wife has NO interest or worse is out chasing after the reckless but exciting men that they were dating before they decided to settle down.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a nice way for women to game the system. Alpha seed and beta provisioning for the forseeable future. Its your job to sniff these loathsome creatures out.
Click to expand...

Yes sniff them out in your own living room, then try to game her into having sex with you. Excellent advice!


----------



## ConanHub

These books make my head hurt.

There are just too damn many unhealthy humans running around.

Those height statistics earlier missed me and @Personal by a mile.

We have both always been laid like tile and I'm 5'10" and he is a few inches shorter than me. I've had more than one girlfriend that was taller than me and would have married me if I asked.
@Personal married a woman a good bit taller than him unless I'm mistaken.

Maybe there are some generalities but I think men who are simply healthy and have their own life are basically attractive.

Add to that some confidence and an easy nature with a quick smile while not being neurotic or insecure and "WA LA!"

Success.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are saying that a man whose wife wasn’t attracted to him, just wanted a provider, should try to game her into wanting sex with him now? I guess that makes sense. Apply game to a woman who doesn’t want you since she’s an unworthy woman anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly God help you if you married a women like this, but haven learned and seen women like this they are more likely respond to being gamed then other stuff.
> 
> I wouldn't stay married to a women like this nor do I think I would have gotten far enough to marry a women like this.
Click to expand...

But the men who did marry a woman like this should buy MMSL and learn ninja game skills to make her want to have sex with him, according to some men here.

Ok if you want your woman who isn’t into you anyway to stick around longer just so you can try to scam some sex out of her, sure! Go for it. Then let us know when she leaves you eventually anyway.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> And you are saying that a man whose wife wasn’t attracted to him, just wanted a provider, should try to game her into wanting sex with him now? I guess that makes sense. Apply game to a woman who doesn’t want you since she’s an unworthy woman anyway.


Faithful Wife,

Do you believe in the concepts of Spontaneous Desire and Responsive Desire?

If so, do you believe that the ratio between the two is the same for men as it is for women?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an excuse you guys make so you can continue to try to separate yourselves from "the naturals", while simultaneously revering them and scorning their advice. All of the men who write books that claim you should never listen to a "natural" are *JUST TRYING TO SELL YOU A BOOK*.
> 
> They don't want you to hear any advice that may be contrary to what they say.
> 
> But you've bought it hook line and sinker as if it is some kind of "truth" about the world.
> 
> Perhaps I should write books about marriage, even though I've been divorced twice. Maybe I'll write it for people who want to get married but so far haven't figured out how to do that. Should someone ask me how my advice would be relevant since I haven't had any track record of making a marriage last "forever", I would tell them NEVER to ask a long time married person because that person will not understand the challenges that "the rest of us" face. I'm sure it will be a best seller.
> 
> 
> 
> This is nothing new or specifically related to gender relations.
> 
> Plenty of people think that the greatest baseball hitters make lousy hitting couches, math geniuses make lousy calculus teachers, etc, etc.
> 
> If you ask a star basketball player why he's so good, "he'll talk about all the training he does, his "mental toughness", the fact that he only eats Wheaties, etc, etc.
> 
> He never says "well, while work ethic is very important, mostly it's the fact that I was born with the physical potential to be a top level basketball player and I capitalized on that".
> 
> Ask a team why they won the championship and they're not likely to respond with "because we had more good players".
> 
> It's a common point of view in many areas of life that gifted performers make bad teachers.
> 
> The theory may be right or wrong, but it's not just some misogynistic theory.
Click to expand...

I promise you that men who are naturally good at sex and with women are not as rare as the top athletes in sports. There are many of them and some have lots of good advice that other men should take. 

Did you know that the whole “don’t ask a Chad for advice” crap came from the incel group? The basement dwellers that sit around and hate women because they won’t sleep with them, and hate Chads because the women will sleep with him.


----------



## ConanHub

Just how prevalent are these beta crushing wenches?

Women who hunt and seduce unwitting betas into marriage so they can have a beast of burden at home so she can hunt the alpha beast for her bedroom?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> Except the book tries to make men think that it can change their wife into someone like me. And it can’t. That’s my point and it is not moot.


No, it doesn't. He even says what he advocates won't work all the time. And at that point, you have to cut your losses and find someone better. 

His point is you can keep doing the same thing and not get laid or try something new that has been fleshed out by science and PUA types and see how that works, but at that point, you are in better shape, you gave your marriage a fair shot and now you have started lining up new prospects. 

Its not like its impossible to teach a guy what women like after they've been fed the feminine side all their lives and watch them thrive. 

And btw maybe its not the guys that suck in bed, maybe its their starfish wife.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are saying that a man whose wife wasn’t attracted to him, just wanted a provider, should try to game her into wanting sex with him now? I guess that makes sense. Apply game to a woman who doesn’t want you since she’s an unworthy woman anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Faithful Wife,
> 
> Do you believe in the concepts of Spontaneous Desire and Responsive Desire?
> 
> If so, do you believe that the ratio between the two is the same for men as it is for women?
Click to expand...

Yes I do believe in it and yes more women than men have responsive desire.

However, some men blame responsive desire for their own shortcomings. 

And many responsive desire women still regularly have sex with their husbands without being gamed into it.

The ones who don’t? Probably he sucks in bed.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the book tries to make men think that it can change their wife into someone like me. And it can’t. That’s my point and it is not moot.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. He even says what he advocates won't work all the time. And at that point, you have to cut your losses and find someone better.
> 
> His point is you can keep doing the same thing and not get laid or try something new that has been fleshed out by science and PUA types and see how that works, but at that point, you are in better shape, you gave your marriage a fair shot and now you have started lining up new prospects.
> 
> Its not like its impossible to teach a guy what women like after they've been fed the feminine side all their lives and watch them thrive.
> 
> And btw maybe its not the guys that suck in bed, maybe its their starfish wife.
Click to expand...

If she’s a starfish, why would he be reading books just to have more horrible sex?


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> Honestly God help you if you married a women like this, but haven learned and seen women like this they are more likely respond to being gamed then other stuff.
> 
> I wouldn't stay married to a women like this nor do I think I would have gotten far enough to marry a women like this.


It is entirely possible for a woman to prioritize "provider potential" over sexual attraction when looking for a partner. 

And, I don't know that prioritizing sexual attraction over everything else works well for either gender.

And, it's entirely possible for a woman who prioritizes "provider potential" to have willing, frequent, enthusiastic sex with her husband (or husband to be) in the beginning due to New Relationship Energy. 

What the woman who does this fails to understand is that the husband will have the expectation that the willing, frequent, enthusiastic sex will continue indefinitely. 

Potential husbands also need to realize that this is a possibility.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> If she’s a starfish, why would he be reading books just to have more horrible sex?



Because he wants exciting sex with an engaged partner, not boring old duty sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> If she’s a starfish, why would he be reading books just to have more horrible sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he wants exciting sex with an engaged partner, not boring old duty sex.
Click to expand...

Then why is he with her?


----------



## sokillme

Faithful Wife said:


> Except the book tries to make men think that it can change their wife into someone like me. And it can’t. That’s my point and it is not moot.


I don't agree with this completely. Fear is a great motivator for lots of people and that is a lot of what the game does. It' creates fear. Now do I think that is a healthy way to spice up your sex life? No but I am not going to say it doesn't work. I am going to say I wouldn't want to have to put the fear or insecurity in my wife to make her to have sex with me. 

I personally am not really concerned with the books as I tend to have a much more full rounded thought about marriage anyway. I don't see sex as keeping score but more as a part of the marital dialog. 

I DO think there are plenty of men and women who are just plain lazy when it comes to sex and attraction and all that. And it's just as much men as women. There is a lot of stuff in those books that address that and this is not a wife or a husband problem. 

The truth is every one of your posts about men sucking in bed could hold true to women. Just as many women just plain suck or are lazy in bed. Just as many wives just go through the motions. What's changed is in the past have been the gate keepers and society has made men think that they are really getting a good deal just to get women to want to have sex with them. You can see this in the music and culture of the time. Some of that just has to do with hormones too. Still that idea is not antiquated and frankly men should and will start to be just as demanding as women are. Times are changing and are going to change more.

Wait until the sexbots and VR. In about 50 years demand for sex with live people is going to drop off completely, because it's not going to be able to compete with virtual sex. Porn has already changed the dynamic already. It's part of the reason why men are not marrying, not even dating. Now imagine porn where it feels as real or more real then real live. Again not PC but lots of men's motivation in life is sex and I would say it's much more of a motion in general then it is for women. This means when virtual sex becomes in more demand then real sex all bets are off. 

It's a brave new world.


----------



## sokillme

Let me ask you a question. Are you sure some of your issues with this is that it DOES work? Cause Redpill for instance works right? With a subset of women it works well. Not women I would want to date but they are out there.

It's uncomfortable that some people are so easily manipulated.


----------



## BluesPower

Faithful Wife said:


> I agree the book is written for men who suck in bed. I disagree that it helps them understand how to not to suck in bed.


 @Faithful Wife, is there nothing that can be done for these guys. 

I have had plenty of women that maybe were not super great in bed that I have been able to draw out, maybe help them loosen up, no pun, and really had some good times with. 

My current GF is a natural, not a lot of great sex in her past but she never gave up, and then she met me. 

I really did not have to teach her much at all, she was responsive, knew how to have and O, just not as many as now, the first time I was with her. 

Seems like it someone should be able to help some of these guys???? NO? Yes?


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the book tries to make men think that it can change their wife into someone like me. And it can’t. That’s my point and it is not moot.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with this completely. Fear is a great motivator for lots of people and that is a lot of what the game does. It' creates fear. Now do I think that is a healthy way to spice up your sex life? No but I am not going to say it doesn't work. I am going to say I wouldn't want to have to put the fear or insecurity in my wife to make her to have sex with me.
> 
> I personally am not really concerned with the books as I tend to have a much more full rounded thought about marriage anyway. I don't see sex as keeping score but more as a part of the marital dialog.
> 
> I DO think there are plenty of men and women who are just plain lazy when it comes to sex and attraction and all that. And it's just as much men as women. There is a lot of stuff in those books that address that and this is not a wife or a husband problem.
> 
> The truth is every one of your posts about men sucking in bed could hold true to women. Just as many women just plain suck or are lazy in bed. Just as many wives just go through the motions. What's changed is in the past have been the gate keepers and society has made men think that they are really getting a good deal just to get women to want to have sex with them. You can see this in the music and culture of the time. Some of that just has to do with hormones too. Still that idea is not antiquated and frankly men should and will start to be just as demanding as women are. Times are changing and are going to change more.
> 
> Wait until the sexbots and VR. In about 50 years demand for sex with live people is going to drop off completely, because it's not going to be able to compete with virtual sex. Porn has already changed the dynamic already. It's part of the reason why men are not marrying, not even dating. Now imagine porn where it feels as real or more real then real live. Again not PC but lots of men's motivation in life is sex and I would say it's much more of a motion in general then it is for women. This means when virtual sex becomes in more demand then real sex all bets are off.
> 
> It's a brave new world.
Click to expand...

Lol. Yeah men who have great sex with actual live women are going to give it up and buy sex dolls.

Sorry, no. Just the guys who don’t have good sex with real women will go for that which is no different than now.

As a freaky sexual person, I would do it with a realistic sex doll just to try it. It would be fascinating and weird and fun. Would that ever be better than a real person (who is good at sex)? Again, lol.

It would be better than a real man who sucks in bed though, for sure. 

And for the guys who currently only have sex with a starfish, I’m sure it would be an improvement over that. Which is why yes some men undoubtedly will choose a robot if they can’t get with a real woman who isn’t a starfish. Which happens now already.

Also there will always be hookers for those guys too, which may be cheaper for a short fix but more expensive in the long run than a robot doll.

Meanwhile...the men who already have good sex with human beings will continue to do so and will be the only ones to procreate after all the others go off with their dolls. It’s called evolution.


----------



## sokillme

ConanHub said:


> Just how prevalent are these beta crushing wenches?
> 
> Women who hunt and seduce unwitting betas into marriage so they can have a beast of burden at home so she can hunt the alpha beast for her bedroom?


You don't think this exists?

Diamond's are a Girls Best Friend, why do you think they put that in a movie? There is a reason why that is a common cliche, because it's common.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BluesPower said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree the book is written for men who suck in bed. I disagree that it helps them understand how to not to suck in bed.
> 
> 
> 
> @Faithful Wife, is there nothing that can be done for these guys.
> 
> I have had plenty of women that maybe were not super great in bed that I have been able to draw out, maybe help them loosen up, no pun, and really had some good times with.
> 
> My current GF is a natural, not a lot of great sex in her past but she never gave up, and then she met me.
> 
> I really did not have to teach her much at all, she was responsive, knew how to have and O, just not as many as now, the first time I was with her.
> 
> Seems like it someone should be able to help some of these guys???? NO? Yes?
Click to expand...

Yes there are many things that can help a guy get better (then if he goes and applies them and practices and learns more from experience). MMSL isn’t such a source, IMO.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

sokillme said:


> Let me ask you a question. Are you sure some of your issues with this is that it DOES work? Cause Redpill for instance works right? With a subset of women it works well. Not women I would want to date but they are out there.
> 
> It's uncomfortable that some people are so easily manipulated.


I don't know why people think Game is manipulation... There are certain things you can do to heighten sexual energy, but its not dishonest, manipulative or anything else. It doesn't just work with sleezy women, it works with the good girls too. The only way it can be considered manipulation is if you lie to her about your relationship status or intentions. PUA or redpill guys don't hide anything, they are upfront about spinning plates because they want women to know they have plenty of options.


----------



## sokillme

Faithful Wife said:


> Lol. Yeah men who have great sex with actual live women are going to give it up and buy sex dolls.
> 
> Sorry, no. Just the guys who don’t have good sex with real women will go for that which is no different than now.
> 
> As a freaky sexual person, I would do it with a realistic sex doll just to try it. It would be fascinating and weird and fun. Would that ever be better than a real person (who is good at sex)? Again, lol.
> 
> It would be better than a real man who sucks in bed though, for sure.
> 
> And for the guys who currently only have sex with a starfish, I’m sure it would be an improvement over that. Which is why yes some men undoubtedly will choose a robot if they can’t get with a real woman who isn’t a starfish. Which happens now already.
> 
> Also there will always be hookers for those guys too, which may be cheaper for a short fix but more expensive in the long run than a robot doll.
> 
> Meanwhile...the men who already have good sex with human beings will continue to do so and will be the only ones to procreate after all the others go off with their dolls. It’s called evolution.


Wanna bet? 

If I was to tell people from the 50s about the prevalence of porn today they would tell me I am crazy. If I were to tell them that there is basically no stigma, the president is know to have payed off a porn-star and the scandal is not that she was a porn-star but that his campaign had something to do with it, again they would have thought I was crazy. Yet here we are. 

The stigma is going to go away. And it's going to be so cheap and require such little amount of effort that it really IS going to change the whole dynamic. The same way it changed for anything else that required effort at one time only to have require very little effort once technology came into play. There was a time when information was a commodity now it's basically everywhere. 

You forget this is going to be the normal way of thinking for men and women as they grow up, much like porn is now. When I was a kid if we found some Dad's playboys it was an event. Now a teenagers are 2 clicks away. It's going to work the same way. 

Babies are going to be more of a negotiation of genetics where the match is based on that and not attraction.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> sokillme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you a question. Are you sure some of your issues with this is that it DOES work? Cause Redpill for instance works right? With a subset of women it works well. Not women I would want to date but they are out there.
> 
> It's uncomfortable that some people are so easily manipulated.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why people think Game is manipulation... There are certain things you can do to heighten sexual energy, but its not dishonest, manipulative or anything else. It doesn't just work with sleezy women, it works with the good girls too. The only way it can be considered manipulation is if you lie to her about your relationship status or intentions. PUA or redpill guys don't hide anything, they are upfront about spinning plates because they want women to know they have plenty of options.
Click to expand...

Right. That’s why Athol advises doing things like buying some cookies then bringing them home and telling your wife that the hot girl in accounting made them for you. Not manipulative or dishonest at all and totally all about “heightening her sexual energy”.


----------



## sokillme

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I don't know why people think Game is manipulation... There are certain things you can do to heighten sexual energy, but its not dishonest, manipulative or anything else. It doesn't just work with sleezy women, it works with the good girls too. The only way it can be considered manipulation is if you lie to her about your relationship status or intentions. PUA or redpill guys don't hide anything, they are upfront about spinning plates because they want women to know they have plenty of options.


Yeah redpill and PUA guys are the most altruist I can think of.

Let's say that is all true, what they play against is the nature of some of these women who want to be the one who gets them to settle down. Even when they have no intention of having anything else but sex with them. It's a fine line, is that wrong? Ehh? Is it something I could do, nah. 

They seem very much like the male version of the women who is with the man for his wealth and power. I get it this is not new, but doesn't mean I don't think it's kind of crass and about manipulation.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes there are many things that can help a guy get better (then if he goes and applies them and practices and learns more from experience). MMSL isn’t such a source, IMO.


Well, if you are in a marriage, practicing and learning from experience might be looked down upon by the infidelity crowd. What these men need is an action plan. -- I will give my sexless marriage 3 more months. I will get a gym membership, get a new wardrobe, start doing the MAP (Kay's version of Game) and if my situation doesn't improve in 3 months, I will go see a divorce lawyer. I think many married men would gladly give 7 dollars to perhaps have the chance to save their marriage (cuz divorce settlements suuuuuck for most men), and if it doesn't work, what are you out? 7 bucks? What have you gained from his advise, a timeline, a better physique and some game theory to apply post divorce.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

I hate to ask, but what's a "Chad"?

Sorry.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

sokillme said:


> Yeah redpill and PUA guys are the most altruist I can think of.
> 
> *Let's say that is all true, what they play against is the nature of some of these women who want to be the one who gets them to settle down. Even when they have no intention of having anything else but sex with them. It's a fine line, is that wrong? *Ehh? Is it something I could do, nah.
> 
> They seem very much like the male version of the women who is with the man for his wealth and power. I get it this is not new, but doesn't mean I don't think it's kind of crass and about manipulation.


Well the only way that would be wrong is if he lied about his relationship status and led her on. If she is hoping she can change his mind because she is a special snowflake, that is on her. I don't understand how its playing against the nature, if you are honest. The only reason they are there is because they want to be.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> Wanna bet?
> 
> If I was to tell people from the 50s about the prevalence of porn today they would tell me I am crazy. If I were to tell them that there is basically no stigma, the president is know to have payed off a porn-star and the scandal is not that she was a porn-star but that his campaign had something to do with it, again they would have thought I was crazy. Yet here we are.
> 
> The stigma is going to go away. And it's going to be so cheap and require such little amount of effort that it really IS going to change the whole dynamic. The same way it changed for anything else that required effort at one time only to have require very little effort once technology came into play. There was a time when information was a commodity now it's basically everywhere.
> 
> You forget this is going to be the normal way of thinking for men and women as they grow up, much like porn is now. When I was a kid if we found some Dad's playboys it was an event. Now a teenagers are 2 clicks away. It's going to work the same way.
> 
> Babies are going to be more of a negotiation of genetics where the match is based on that and not attraction.


"People in the 50's" don't represent all of mankind's history. Do you think if you told the ancient greeks about such debauchery they would have batted an eyelid? 

As for porn, who cares? Here we are. The porn is here. The people who will be damaged by using it are already damaged right now, and that's a very small percentage of people. So...what exactly will the big problem be? Is it still coming? Doesn't seem to be.

There is nothing new about the robots. They will just be more lifelike which for some people will be better. It will never replace sex for people who are already having good sex with live human beings. For the ones who would have ended up incel anyway, sure, they are great! I'm actually all for the robots no matter what happens. I think it is a cool, innovative thing that humans have come up with.

I'd take your bet but we'll have to settle it in the afterlife. I'm still on though. Winner gets to wear the loser's halo as an ankle bracelet.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I hate to ask, but what's a "Chad"?
> 
> Sorry.


It's what nerds call jocks.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Chad


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, if you are in a marriage, practicing and learning from experience might be looked down upon by the infidelity crowd. What these men need is an action plan. -- I will give my sexless marriage 3 more months. I will get a gym membership, get a new wardrobe, start doing the MAP (Kay's version of Game) and if my situation doesn't improve in 3 months, I will go see a divorce lawyer. I think many married men would gladly give 7 dollars to perhaps have the chance to save their marriage (cuz divorce settlements suuuuuck for most men), and if it doesn't work, what are you out? 7 bucks? What have you gained from his advise, a timeline, a better physique and some game theory to apply post divorce.


And you'll be armed with all the douche bag tricks, so yay.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes I do believe in it and yes more women than men have responsive desire.
> 
> However, some men blame responsive desire for their own shortcomings.
> 
> And many responsive desire women still regularly have sex with their husbands without being gamed into it.
> 
> The ones who don’t? Probably he sucks in bed.


If it's a situation where the sex was good at the beginning but the wife isn't interested now, are you thinking....

1) He used to be good in bed, but changed and now he sucks?

2) He was never good in bed, but she was carried away with NRE and, now that the NRE is over his not being good in bed is matters more?

3) He was never good in bed and she just faked it at the beginning?

4) Other?

I would think that the primary drivers for a woman with responsive desire to consider having sex while not experiancing spontaneous desire would be:

1) Knowing how important it is to her husband

2) Her caring about her husband's happiness (and in many situations she's probably justified in not caring)

3) Her caring about the quality of the relationship

Personally, I think the primary mistake in this situation is the husband not letting his wife know how important it is to him, especially for maintaining his emotional attachment to her.

If a woman's sexual desire is driven by her insecurity in the relationship, I wouldn't be interested in constantly having to "game her" (doing things only for the purpose of sex) in return for sex. 

I would let her know that I'm not planning on spending the rest of my life in a sexless marriage (if true). This wouldn't to make her insecure. It would be so that she could be in a position to make informed decisions.


----------



## sokillme

Faithful Wife said:


> "People in the 50's" don't represent all of mankind's history. Do you think if you told the ancient greeks about such debauchery they would have batted an eyelid?
> 
> As for porn, who cares? Here we are. The porn is here. The people who will be damaged by using it are already damaged right now, and that's a very small percentage of people. So...what exactly will the big problem be? Is it still coming? Doesn't seem to be.
> 
> There is nothing new about the robots. They will just be more lifelike which for some people will be better. It will never replace sex for people who are already having good sex with live human beings. For the ones who would have ended up incel anyway, sure, they are great! I'm actually all for the robots no matter what happens. I think it is a cool, innovative thing that humans have come up with.
> 
> I'd take your bet but we'll have to settle it in the afterlife. I'm still on though. Winner gets to wear the loser's halo as an ankle bracelet.


I could spend a whole night debating you about why you are wrong but maybe we will talk in the afterlife. Though depending on your age I think we might not have to wait that long.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People in the 50's" don't represent all of mankind's history. Do you think if you told the ancient greeks about such debauchery they would have batted an eyelid?
> 
> As for porn, who cares? Here we are. The porn is here. The people who will be damaged by using it are already damaged right now, and that's a very small percentage of people. So...what exactly will the big problem be? Is it still coming? Doesn't seem to be.
> 
> There is nothing new about the robots. They will just be more lifelike which for some people will be better. It will never replace sex for people who are already having good sex with live human beings. For the ones who would have ended up incel anyway, sure, they are great! I'm actually all for the robots no matter what happens. I think it is a cool, innovative thing that humans have come up with.
> 
> I'd take your bet but we'll have to settle it in the afterlife. I'm still on though. Winner gets to wear the loser's halo as an ankle bracelet.
> 
> 
> 
> I could spend a whole night debating you about why you are wrong but maybe we will talk in the afterlife. Though depending on your age I think we might not have to wait that long.
Click to expand...

Your bet was that in 50 years the robots would end sex between humans. That’s why I said we’d have to settle it in the afterlife. Neither of us will make it that long and even if we do, we’ll be too old to discuss it or know how to find each other to settle the bet. So we will have to rely on our ghost powers after we are dead.

We can invite other TAM ghosts because there will be a lot of us there by then. It will be just like the old days and we can argue about why people aren’t ****ing enough.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I hate to ask, but what's a "Chad"?
> 
> Sorry.


Chad is what RP refers to the mythical alpha that is banging 80% the world's women. He probably banged your wife and half the men's wives and girlfriends at one point or another. That's how awesome he is. She will never forget about Chad...


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well the only way that would be wrong is if he lied about his relationship status and led her on. If she is hoping she can change his mind because she is a special snowflake, that is on her. I don't understand how its playing against the nature, if you are honest. The only reason they are there is because they want to be.


If he was honest, he would tell her that he hates her because she doesn't want to have sex with him. But he knows better than to do that. So he pretends to love her, then does the douche bag tricks Athol suggests, pretending to be someone he isn't. If he was honest, he would tell her that he wishes he had a different wife.

And he actually should be honest like that and he doesn't need MMSL to do that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Chad is what RP refers to the mythical alpha that is banging 80% the world's women. He probably banged your wife and half the men's wives and girlfriends at one point or another. That's how awesome he is. She will never forget about Chad...


That's right. We won't. Also we are still seeing him.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> That's right. We won't. Also we are still seeing him.


Yea, Chad doesn't discriminate with married women. He probably has a village of superhuman children, benefiting from his perfect genes. Don't worry, they need a good Beta Father to teach them how to respect and pedestal women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> If it's a situation where the sex was good at the beginning but the wife isn't interested now, are you thinking....
> 
> 1) He used to be good in bed, but changed and now he sucks?
> 
> 2) He was never good in bed, but she was carried away with NRE and, now that the NRE is over his not being good in bed is matters more?
> 
> 3) He was never good in bed and she just faked it at the beginning?
> 
> 4) Other?


First of all, my answer here depends on whether the wife actually is a sexual person or not.

If she is, then the answer is #2. 

If she is not, then she was just having sex because most people do in new relationships and then when the NRE wore off she reverted to her non sexual self.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Yea, Chad doesn't discriminate with married women. He probably has a village of superhuman children, benefiting from his perfect genes. Don't worry, they need a good Beta Father to teach them how to respect and pedestal women.


I'm not married so....bring all the Chads my way!!! Woot!!


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Faithful Wife said:


> It's what nerds call jocks.
> 
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Chad


Tx! 😍


----------



## sokillme

Faithful Wife said:


> Your bet was that in 50 years the robots would end sex between humans. That’s why I said we’d have to settle it in the afterlife. Neither of us will make it that long and even if we do, we’ll be too old to discuss it or know how to find each other to settle the bet. So we will have to rely on our ghost powers after we are dead.
> 
> We can invite other TAM ghosts because there will be a lot of us there by then. It will be just like the old days and we can argue about why people aren’t ****ing enough.


I'm in my mid 40s so I think I could make it. Besides I am not willing to discount the possibility that tech will have advanced far enough that we will live to our 120s. Though the longer I live the less I want to stay around that long.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not married so....bring all the Chads my way!!! Woot!!


eh, gross.


----------



## red oak

sokillme said:


> .
> 
> *Wait until the sexbots and VR*. In about 50 years demand for sex with live people is going to drop off completely, because it's not going to be able to compete with virtual sex. Porn has already changed the dynamic already. It's part of the reason why men are not marrying, not even dating. Now imagine porn where it feels as real or more real then real live. Again not PC but lots of men's motivation in life is sex and I would say it's much more of a motion in general then it is for women. This means when virtual sex becomes in more demand then real sex all bets are off.
> 
> It's a brave new world.


Ah, hell no! :smile2:


----------



## Betrayedone

This is the greatest book in the history of books! Discussion over........


----------



## sokillme

red oak said:


> Ah, hell no! :smile2:


Maybe not your generation or mine but it's going to be normalized. Besides it could be as simple as putting something on your head. 

You know they can read your thoughts clear enough now to reproduce images that your brain is seeing right? Where will that tech be in 20 years. It's not much of a stretch to think they will be able to put images or feelings into it.


----------



## red oak

sokillme said:


> Maybe not your generation or mine but it's going to be normalized. Besides it could be as simple as putting something on your head.
> 
> *You know they can read your thoughts clear enough now to reproduce images that your brain is seeing right? Where will that tech be in 20 years. It's not much of a stretch to think they will be able to put images or feelings into it*.


Oh yes. A lot more than that.

They have also been doing the latter, putting images and feelings in people's heads since early 70's. 5g anyone?

What they have is 20-40 years ahead of what we know.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> eh, gross.


You are the one who is an expert in how much women love Chads. Sorry that you and others are so obsessed with him that you actually write and read books about him. While you envy him and revere him and then try to tear him down and insult him, I'll be busy ****ing him.


----------



## Tiggy!

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Yea, *Chad doesn't discriminate *with married women.


That's Chads best characteristic.




> *He probably has a village of superhuman children, benefiting from his perfect genes.* Don't worry, they need a good Beta Father to teach them how to respect and pedestal women.


Yay that means the next generation will be a generation of Chads and the 80/20 curse will be broken, we should all thanks Chad's for advancing the human species and making the next generation more attractive.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tiggy! said:


> Yay that means the next generation will be a generation of Chads and the 80/20 curse will be broken, *we should all thanks Chad's* for advancing the human species and making the next generation more attractive.


I know I am!


----------



## Tiggy!

Faithful Wife said:


> I know I am!


lol I'm sure you have thanked Chad multiple times FW.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> "People in the 50's" don't represent all of mankind's history.


It's strange that people consider the 1950's the definition of "normal".

The whole idea of women sitting at home playing June Cleaver was a brief glimmer of time when there was prosperity, average women had less housework, no outside jobs and were trying to emulate the life upper class ladies of leisure had been living for a hundred years.

Same with idea of getting a job at 21, slowly moving up the ladder and retiring 44 years later from the same company. Only really lasted a period of 15 or 20 years


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> You are the one who is an expert in how much women love Chads. Sorry that you and others are so obsessed with him that you actually write and read books about him. While you envy him and revere him and then try to tear him down and insult him, I'll be busy ****ing him.


Two things that there's very good evidence to support:

Only 50% of men in history reproduced. 90+% of women did.

Women rate 85% of men as "below average".

So, although I think the Pareto principle is over-applied, I'm sure there is something to the idea that a smaller percentage of men (10%? 20%) attract far more women than the bottom 50%.


----------



## manwithnoname

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not married so....bring all the Chads my way!!! Woot!!


Faithful woman, weren't you arguing the other side early on in this thread? I'm a little confused because I'm tired and don't want to go back and re read it all.


----------



## ConanHub

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> eh, gross.


Come on.:grin2:

She is having fun and "Chads" is a silly term anyway for guys who can date.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> First of all, my answer here depends on whether the wife actually is a sexual person or not.
> 
> If she is, then the answer is #2.
> 
> If she is not, then she was just having sex because most people do in new relationships and then when the NRE wore off she reverted to her non sexual self.


That looks to me like the same answer for sexual and non-sexual women; NRE wears off and desire for sex wanes. 

This implies that NRE is the main driver of sexual desire in all women.

I would have thought that "sexual women" would continue having sex at the same rate as when the relationship was new and would only change if a formerly good lover got lazy and became a bad lover. I would think that a "sexual woman" experiencing a newly lazy lover would just speak up (since sex was important to her) or leave.


----------



## Faithful Wife

manwithnoname said:


> Faithful woman, weren't you arguing the other side early on in this thread? I'm a little confused because I'm tired and don't want to go back and re read it all.


I like to make fun of guys who are soooooooooo up in arms about how all the Chads in the world get laid and the rest of them don't. 

These guys also love to go on and on and ON about how we wimmins are out there riding the **** carousel with all the Chads. They call us ****s and *****s for having sex with any Chads. It is their mission in life to destroy Chads. The name of their problem is Chad.

Myself, I love Chads. They are tall, strong, and confident (and usually have enough athletic skill to keep up with me in bed). I love ACTUAL Chads, not poser dudes who think they can develop "other assets" to make up for their lack of tall, strong and confident.

The MMSL/PUA crowd want to tell you that all Chads are jerks and *******s and they just run through women with no feelings for them. That's fine, let them think such nonsense.

The truth is that many Chads are wonderful guys, loving, loyal, honest, etc. So on top of their good looks and rockin' bods, they are good people. There are a few of them around TAM (some posting on this thread).

It amazes me that the guys who love to go on about Chads don't understand how wimpy and low they sound while they are doing it. They think we don't see the green ooze of envy seep through their every word about Chad? They don't think they just sound like sour milk over not getting the better toys? They don't think it makes them look small and petty to try tearing down men who have the thing they want?

So anyway.....I just like making fun of them, because it is so easy. 

Chad, Chad, Chad Chad and Chad.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Two things that there's very good evidence to support:
> 
> Only 50% of men in history reproduced. 90+% of women did.
> 
> Women rate 85% of men as "below average".
> 
> So, although I think the Pareto principle is over-applied, I'm sure there is something to the idea that a smaller percentage of men (10%? 20%) attract far more women than the bottom 50%.


Yes, I'm sure mother nature has her hands in all of this. She wants a Chad too, of course.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> That looks to me like the same answer for sexual and non-sexual women; NRE wears off and desire for sex wanes.
> 
> This implies that NRE is the main driver of sexual desire in all women.
> 
> I would have thought that "sexual women" would continue having sex at the same rate as when the relationship was new and would only change if a formerly good lover got lazy and became a bad lover. I would think that a "sexual woman" experiencing a newly lazy lover would just speak up (since sex was important to her) or leave.


Nope. A sexual woman is going to leave him or cheat on him.

She tried speaking up, sees it makes no difference (because you can't tell someone how to have something they don't). She won't try forever, she'll just leave.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I promise you that men who are *naturally good at sex* and with women are not as rare as the top athletes in sports. There are many of them and some have lots of good advice that other men should take.


Here even you use the term "naturally good at sex".

If Mary was naturally good at fishing and Frank was not but became an expert fisherman; who would be more likely to help someone not naturally good at fishing improve? 



Faithful Wife said:


> Did you know that the whole “don’t ask a Chad for advice” crap came from the incel group?


Just because an undesirable group makes use of an idea doesn't mean that idea itself is bad or wrong.

If someone you despise says the sky is blue; the sky's still blue. Right?


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Nope. A sexual woman is going to leave him or cheat on him.
> 
> She tried speaking up, sees it makes no difference (because you can't tell someone how to have something they don't). She won't try forever, she'll just leave.


I did provide the "or leave" possibility at the end.

btw, how do you do the thing where you quote what you're responding to while quoting what was originally said?

I've always thought that would make things clearer (at the cost of even bigger posts).


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I'm sure mother nature has her hands in all of this. She wants a Chad too, of course.


I'm not sure how you intend for me to take this. It could be that you agree that there's something there or you could just be throwing out sarcastic zingers.

I'd like to have an actual meaningful conversation on this topic (but then that might be too much to ask of the internets)..


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Here even you use the term "naturally good at sex".
> 
> If Mary was naturally good at fishing and Frank was not but became an expert fisherman; who would be more likely to help someone not naturally good at fishing improve?


How about I will just speak for myself. If *I* want sexpert tips, I will ask someone who actually is a sexpert. Yes, that person may have come into their expertise via the help of others in their life or they may be a natural at it. I'm open to advice from anyone who has expertise that can help me.

However...if I buy a book or go to a blog or whatever and one of the main things this author wants me to know is that I should NEVER ask "such and such" group for advice, especially when the group they are speaking of is very successful at what I want to learn. I will then immediately realize that this particular author is highly threatened by the good ideas of others and would assume he's a quack.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> So anyway.....I just like making fun of them, because it is so easy.


What would be even better is to make points that make it clear that they are wrong or uninformed.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I did provide the "or leave" possibility at the end.
> 
> *btw, how do you do the thing where you quote what you're responding to while quoting what was originally said?*
> 
> I've always thought that would make things clearer (at the cost of even bigger posts).


That happens when I'm posting on my phone only. And I can only post that way from my phone if I'm quoting someone who quoted someone else.

Not sure how to do it from my PC (like I am now).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> What would be even better is to make points that make it clear that they are wrong or uninformed.


And how would I make any point, no matter how clear or true, that would convince an MMSL guy that the men they despise are actually good men and that their grouping of Chads is a clear sign of their own pettiness?


----------



## Bananapeel

I can't believe all the attention these books are getting on this forum, especially from the people that are opposed to them. I've personally read MMSLP, 3% man, rationale male, the game, how to win friends and influence people, spy the lie, 48 laws of power, 7 habits of highly effective people, she comes first, etc. as part of my post divorce recovery because I needed to refocus my life and figure out who I wanted to be going forward. I already knew who I was but didn't want to fall into old habits if there were things to improve on. The books definitely have some issues with the content and presentation and don't apply to everyone, but it's not like you read the book and have to subscribe to the entire philosophy. Instead you can just pick and choose the information that applies to you and the areas you want to change. The books for me were never about gaming women to get laid, because I've never had issues with that, but it was more about understanding myself, women, relationships, society, etc. so I was better prepared for my future. The take home message I got was to be the best version of myself, know my value so I don't settle for less than I'm worth, how to develop strong boundaries, how to read a woman's interest level in me, how to improve communication, and how to keep relationships exciting. None of those are bad things.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I'm not sure how you intend for me to take this. It could be that you agree that there's something there or you could just be throwing out sarcastic zingers.
> 
> I'd like to have an actual meaningful conversation on this topic (but then that might be too much to ask of the internets)..


Ok here is a non sarcastic answer. Yes, I think we are evolving to have bigger, better, stronger, faster, and more emotionally evolved men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Hey @ReformedHubby .... what do they call a black Chad? Figured you would know.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Only 50% of men in history reproduced. 90+% of women did.
> 
> Women rate 85% of men as "below average".


I wanted to look at these 2 things a bit closer.

For the 1st one, you know that by almost all estimates the reason that 90% of women reproduced was because of rape, right? It doesn't reflect what the choice of women were or are, if there is rampant rape going on (which there was). So until we can take a look at a society who has choice and also is mostly protected from rape at least, then we don't know what women will choose. We are almost there and soon we will see what babies are born based on choices made by the mother.

So why didn't the rapists win the evolutionary race? Why did men decide they wanted to protect their women, make laws, and shun men who are rapists? I'm saying - - because evolution. Obviously if it just took the strongest biggest dude to win the evolution game, then we would still have rampant rape and there would be no reason for any man to protect us from it happening by another man.

For the 2nd one....I assume you are talking about the studies that have been done at online dating sites using the stats of daters? As far as I know, that is the only place such a statistic ever came up.

Have you looked at a bunch of profiles on OLD yourself ever? Especially a bunch of guys profiles? Maybe do that and then let me know your thoughts on the level of attractiveness of them. 

See, when you are talking ONLY about online daters (which the survey you are speaking of was) then you have to consider, who are online daters? Are they most likely to be the best looking people? On average, I would say no. There are some stunners in there of course. But the average attraction level of a single, online male dater is most likely lower than the attraction level of the males in the public at large. Now add in the men who would never, ever even leave their house if they didn't have to...those are online daters. Also very shy people...those are online daters. Now there are plenty of normal, non shy, attractive people in OLD, don't get me wrong. But generally what you have is a group of people who are single or divorced and who are seeking someone to date. That is a very specific group of people, and their attractiveness is possibly part of why they are online dating (ie: less attractive, less options).

Therefore, I can see why the 85% statistic arose. Also, I believe that survey was done quite awhile ago, and everyone's online pictures look much better now. I remember before everyone had an iphone, some of those old digital pics were just terrible. I bet if the survey is repeated you might see a slight uptick in how attractive the women think the men are.

However, it won't be much.

Unless you have data that shows that women outside of online dating have claimed 85% of dudes are unattractive. If you do I'd love to see it. If you don't, then I would ask you and others to stop saying it as if it is actually a fact about all men and women.


----------



## ConanHub

Buddy400 said:


> Two things that there's very good evidence to support:
> 
> Only 50% of men in history reproduced. 90+% of women did.
> 
> Women rate 85% of men as "below average".
> 
> So, although I think the Pareto principle is over-applied, I'm sure there is something to the idea that a smaller percentage of men (10%? 20%) attract far more women than the bottom 50%.


50%?!

I've seen some really gnarly looking and acting dads.

They were married to gnarly women and had gnarly kids.

So 50% of men have reproduced with 90% of women in history?

Where is that from?


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two things that there's very good evidence to support:
> 
> Only 50% of men in history reproduced. 90+% of women did.
> 
> Women rate 85% of men as "below average".
> 
> So, although I think the Pareto principle is over-applied, I'm sure there is something to the idea that a smaller percentage of men (10%? 20%) attract far more women than the bottom 50%.
> 
> 
> 
> 50%?!
> 
> I've seen some really gnarly looking and acting dads.
> 
> They were married to gnarly women and had gnarly kids.
> 
> So 50% of men have reproduced with 90% of women in history?
> 
> Where is that from?
Click to expand...

It’s from DNA analysis.


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> It’s from DNA analysis.


WOW! I really had no idea but given some practices in earlier cultures, it shouldn't have surprised me.


----------



## Personal

ConanHub said:


> WOW! I really had no idea but given some practices in earlier cultures, it shouldn't have surprised me.


Factor in war, famine, disease and the like it's not a surprise, with that being the case Chad certainly can't claim all the credit.

That said to echo @Faithful Wife, Chad, Chad Chad, Chad, Chad Chad, Chad and Chad.

At the end of the day though. I feel sorry for Chad, the poor chap must be totally exhausted by now.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Personal said:


> ConanHub said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW! I really had no idea but given some practices in earlier cultures, it shouldn't have surprised me.
> 
> 
> 
> Factor in war, famine, disease and the like it's not a surprise, with that being the case Chad certainly can't claim all the credit.
> 
> That said to echo @Faithful Wife, Chad, Chad Chad, Chad, Chad Chad, Chad and Chad.
> 
> At the end of the day though. I feel sorry for Chad, the poor chap must be totally exhausted by now.
Click to expand...

Oh he is, trust me. Woot!


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh he is, trust me. Woot!


Hahaha!:grin2:


----------



## Tiggy!

Personal said:


> At the end of the day though. I feel sorry for Chad, the poor chap must be totally exhausted by now.


Mythical Chad does not get exhausted.


----------



## Personal

Buddy400 said:


> *I would have thought that "sexual women" would continue having sex at the same rate as when the relationship was new* and would only change if a formerly good lover got lazy and became a bad lover.


I hope not! Seriously I would find that really tough to keep up with having to share sex with a woman 4-5x a day, 6-7 days a week with no respite interminably for decades.

Seriously what man or woman in their right mind would want to have sex 4-5x a day (with the same partner) for every day or almost every day of their life for decades?

Although I really like sex and enjoy a lot of it, and have had it 6x this week so far and we're aiming for once more today (for a Saturday trifecta) and at least once on Sunday. I have other interests and responsibilities as well, so no thanks on wanting it 4-5x a day, 6-7 days a week till I am dead.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tiggy! said:


> Personal said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day though. I feel sorry for Chad, the poor chap must be totally exhausted by now.
> 
> 
> 
> Mythical Chad does not get exhausted.
Click to expand...

True! He just gets stronger, better and bigger.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Geesh, you guys are still talking about Chad. Stop threadjacking my threadjack!


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Geesh, you guys are still talking about Chad. Stop threadjacking my threadjack!


Sorry. What would you like to discuss?


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Hey @ReformedHubby .... what do they call a black Chad? Figured you would know.


They refer to me.... I mean ummm them as a Tyrone. I spent quite a bit of time on incel forums aka the black pill out of curiosity. Very scary stuff, they pretty much hate anyone that is having sex male or female.


----------



## ConanHub

ReformedHubby said:


> They refer to me.... I mean ummm them as a Tyrone. I spent quite a bit of time on incel forums aka the black pill out of curiosity. Very scary stuff, they pretty much hate anyone that is having sex male or female.


Those groups strike me as rabid dogs.

They need put down.


----------



## ReformedHubby

ConanHub said:


> Those groups strike me as rabid dogs.
> 
> They need put down.


You have no idea...in their forum many choose photos of mass shooters as their avatar pic. They are a very bitter, and unable to see that being bitter about it makes their situation worse. Not all of it is dark though, one thread on there made me spit out my coffee. A guy posted a question asking what pu$$y tastes like. Well....because literally non of them have had sex, and they won't let anyone else but other incels post. The answers were hilarious, and also waaaaayyyyyy off LoL.


----------



## ReformedHubby

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Geesh, you guys are still talking about Chad. Stop threadjacking my threadjack!


You don't want to hear about Chad anymore? Thats too bad. I was Chad's wingman last night, everything they say is true. I got no action at all because of him, it was like I was invisible. Women were seriously swooning over the guy. Pretty sure I saw him leave with @faithfulwife but I can't be certain.


----------



## ConanHub

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Geesh, you guys are still talking about Chad. Stop threadjacking my threadjack!


Alright. After so much discussion about this book over the years, I am going to read it and I'll come back to your thread to discuss it.


----------



## ReformedHubby

ConanHub said:


> Alright. After so much discussion about this book over the years, I am going to read it and I'll come back to your thread to discuss it.


From what I've read of your posts @ConanHub you are clearly a twenty percenter LoL. You will not be able to relate to it at all because its not something someone like you would ever need. But....to satisfy your curiosity its probably worth a read. I won't knock the self improvement stuff...but honestly as a grown man I can't wrap my head around why anyone would need to be told they should stay in shape, and dress well, and not be a slob. I'm also guessing you won't understand the game parts either, because you probably never used game. I think game is different than flirting, we all flirt.


----------



## oldshirt

Who gets more chicks, Chad or Chuck Norris???


----------



## farsidejunky

This discussion always fascinates me. 

I am not a twenty percenter; I never have been, although there was a 1 year period of time, post divorce from my ex wife, where there was enough going on for me to delude myself into believing I was.

I have never been the guy that gets undressed by eyes as I entered a room. I am the guy that has heard on multiple occasions, after some conversation, "How did I miss you?".

I am using the above to preface what I am about to say next. 

I get where the red pill folks are coming from. There is a tremendous level of frustration experienced when, over and over again through the course of a lifetime, you fail to generate interest from females you find attractive. 

Immediately following the aforementioned one year period, I went through another period (just short of a year) where I couldn't have bought a legitimate date if I had a suitcase full of money. There were two females who were periodic FWB's, and that was the limit of my intimate female connection during that 10 months. 

What changed? The early period, I was angry, brooding, unapproachable...still hurt from my recent divorce, and couldn't give two ****s about anyone but myself and my hurt. At one time, I was "spinning plates" (a term I didn't learn until years later) with five different females repeatedly over a several week period...females who were among the most attractive I had ever been involved with. This pattern continued through that year.

The latter period, my hurt was gone, and I had transitioned to being ready for something long term...and the drought was on.

Is there pseudoscience in MMSLP and red pill? Absolutely. However, my anecdotal experience tells me there is a significant amount of truth in what is being said as well.

Not that I want to, but a part of me is curious as to how dating would be for me now. The other part of me cringes at the thought. 



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiggy!

farsidejunky said:


> This discussion always fascinates me.
> 
> I am not a twenty percenter; I never have been, although there was a 1 year period of time, post divorce from my ex wife, where there was enough going on for me to delude myself into believing I was.
> 
> I have never been the guy that gets undressed by eyes as I entered a room. I am the guy that has heard on multiple occasions, after some conversation, "How did I miss you?".
> 
> I am using the above to preface what I am about to say next.
> 
> I get where the red pill folks are coming from. There is a tremendous level of frustration experienced when, over and over again through the course of a lifetime, you fail to generate interest from females you find attractive.
> 
> Immediately following the aforementioned one year period, I went through another period (just short of a year) where I couldn't have bought a legitimate date if I had a suitcase full of money. There were two females who were periodic FWB's, and that was the limit of my intimate female connection during that 10 months.
> 
> What changed? The early period, I was angry, brooding, unapproachable...still hurt from my recent divorce, and couldn't give two ****s about anyone but myself and my hurt. At one time, I was "spinning plates" (a term I didn't learn until years later) with five different females repeatedly over a several week period...females who were among the most attractive I had ever been involved with. This pattern continued through that year.
> 
> The latter period, my hurt was gone, and I had transitioned to being ready for something long term...and the drought was on.
> 
> Is there pseudoscience in MMSLP and red pill? Absolutely. However, my anecdotal experience tells me there is a significant amount of truth in what is being said as well.
> 
> Not that I want to, but a part of me is curious as to how dating would be for me now. The other part of me cringes at the thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Do you think the girls who you were sleeping around with (spinning plates) would have would have had a long term relationship with you if you bumped into each other after you brooding phase?


----------



## sokillme

The thing with all of this is that's life. I am not tall, pretty average, nothing I can do about it. If I was sitting next to Hugh Jackman I would probably be invisible too. Women go through the same stuff as well. Our society holds physical attraction as one of the peaks of high value. What can you do? Be as attractive as you can. 

From what I remember my attraction always grew when I became close to someone. I had to have some initial attraction first though. 

This also no different then any of the other gifts that people are born with. Some folks are problem solvers and smart, if they are disciplined they are going to make more money that other people.

Life is inherently unfair, but starting a club and *****ing and moaning about it makes you a ***** IMO. Be the best you you can be and assuming you are a normal person it will be enough.

Another thing is when you don't see ****ing or even more so ****ing a lot of women as the apex of life or a life's goal, then being Chad doesn't seem that important. 

I suspect most long term successful alpha men in this world do not make ****ing their priority in life. They usually have a singular focus on their life's work whatever that may be. Interestingly enough this also makes them very attractive. Hmm, funny how that works. 

To me being a Chad is just the same type of thinking as the people who think things will make them happy. I suspect once you have a lot of ONS it also gets old or at least not as fulfilling as it once was. 

All of this stuff belies the truth, acquiring things, money, power or even women doesn't make you happy in the long term. I think for a man, purpose does, I can't speak for women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> Alright. After so much discussion about this book over the years, I am going to read it and I'll come back to your thread to discuss it.


One thing that really surprises me about MMSL and similar, is that normally men are very logical and they want things to be backed up by facts and data. They also typically sniff out bad data.

But there are several points in the MMSL/red pill philosophy that the authors claim are SCIENCE! but which actually are not and have no data or facts behind them.

Hypergamy. They claim this is a scientific fact. Based on what? I’ve seached far and wide and there doesn’t seem to be anything resembling scientific data behind it. When I’ve challenged these guys to come up with some data about it, they say “it doesn’t matter if there’s data, we know it happens because we see it happen all the time.” Well ok, but don’t say it is a scientific fact then if you really just want to talk about your anecdotal evidence. Say the truth about it. Stop saying it is science because it’s not.

Sperm wars. There was 1 book written in the 80’s that has been completely debunked called Sperm Wars. Yet the red pill crowd, again, claim that sperm wars are SCIENCE and FACTS. No, it isn’t, and there isn’t a shred of evidence for it. Anyone who wants to prove me wrong, I’m waiting. I’ve asked for the back up to these “facts” many times and there isn’t any. 

That’s why this is so confusing. If I started spouting about SCIENCE and FACTS that were absolutely not based in any evidence or facts, I just believed they were because the theories involved benefit my gender or me personally, men and women both would come blast me for it. As they should, because it would be ridiculous for anyone to continue to blurt out crap and claim it is science.

Don’t any these readers do any research themselves about this stuff? And as men, like I said, it’s extra confusing because men usually want to know about the data behind any specific claim if it was presented as science.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oldshirt said:


> Who gets more chicks, Chad or Chuck Norris???


Tyrone.


----------



## farsidejunky

It is hard to know for certain.

I would think not...but who knows for certain?


Tiggy! said:


> Do you think the girls who you were sleeping around with (spinning plates) would have would have had a long term relationship with you if you bumped into each other after you brooding phase?


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## oldshirt

So now that we are 10 pages into the thread, I will give my actual critique and thoughts on the book and share what I see as the good, the bad and the ugly. 

As I stated earlier in the thread, I do think it has it's place and there is a specific market or niche for what it can help. 

Let's get the disclaimers and such out of the way first. MMSL is absolutely NOT therapy or marital or relationship counseling. Athol Kay is not a licensed therapist or counselor and it is never to be construed professional relationship therapy or counseling. He is basically a guy who has read a lot of redpill material, talked to a lot of people and is offering up a lot of his thoughts and experiences as pointers and encouragement for other dudes who may be finding themselves in a lackluster bedroom and looking for some tidbits of info on how to perk things up in the bedroom a bit. 

IMHO it is like some advice and pointers from a big brother or an older cousin that has been around the block a few times. I wouldn't even call it pseudoscience..... I would call it 'Bro Science' like the guy who tells you to drink a pink of V-8 with creatine mixed in it between super sets of bench press and squats at the gym. will it work?? Maybe, maybe not but if it makes think about what you are doing and you work harder because of it, why not?

MMSL will not treat or fix fundamental relationship issues. that is what licensed therapists and counselors are for. 

It will not treat or fix physiologic sexual dysfunctions. That is what physicians are for.

It will not fix mental or personality disorders. that is what shrinks are for. 

And per Athol Kay's own admission, it will most likely not generate attraction or desire in relationships where there was no or very little attraction to begin with since the beginning of the relationship. 

And given all of the above, MMSL will most likely not fix an actual sexless marriage that has gone countless months or years of sexlessness as true sexless marriages often have various elements of a number of those things. 

The niche market that MMSL may be of some benefit are marriages that are fundamentally functional and healthy and where both parties do have a fundamental love, respect and compassion for each other and who may not necessarily be sexless, but where things like bills and diaper changes and doctor appointments and vehicle breakdowns have pushed physical intimacy and marital sexuality way down on the wife's priority totem pole and the husband has gotten fat and complacent basically spending his time and energies paying bills and grudgingly hauling kids to their activities in the family mini-van. 

MMSL is basically some pointers and encouragement on how husbands and fathers in sweat pants beer bellies and too much ear hair can get their sexy back. 


It really wouldn't be much different than telling a woman that was feeling a little overlooked by her husband to put on a little too much makeup and get a pair of sexy stockings and high heels. It's just that men's sexuality is very simple and visual and women's sexuality is much more complex and encompasses a wide wider range of emotions and feelings and activities than dressing up sexy. 

MMSL basically lays out in 8th grade terms what women generally respond to sexually in men. Points out how they can become complacent and let those traits and behaviors fall by the wayside in long term marriage and parenthood. Then offers pointers and encouragement on how to get off the couch, lose the gut, dress better and become more assertive and show more initiative in getting their sexy back. 

It's not therapy for sexual dysfunctions. 

It's not counseling for relationship issues and problems. 

And it is not medical advice for hormonal, physiological or psychological pathologies. 

It's pointers and coaching for men to not be slugs and get the masculinity and balls back and get their male sexy back.


----------



## ConanHub

"sperm wars" is good for science fiction or a hypothesis at best.

I find the concept humorous.

Isn't hypergamy the concept that women are always looking to trade up?

Thanks for the information @Faithful Wife


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> "sperm wars" is good for science fiction or a hypothesis at best.
> 
> I find the concept humorous.
> 
> Isn't hypergamy the concept that women are always looking to trade up?
> 
> Thanks for the information @Faithful Wife


Yes hypergamy is a concept. But they claim it is a scientific fact.

Sperm wars was a just a piece of crap book. 

I’d love any of the red pill guys to explain to me why they believe in Santa Clause and claim there’s scientific evidence of him, because it’s the same level of non reality.


----------



## Faithful Wife

@oldshirt I would love it if MMSL admitted that it was only “bro science”. At least then it would be honest.

But it doesn’t do that. It says it is legit science, and because the readers so desperately want to believe women are hypergamous *****s they swallow it whole and tell all the world about the new SCIENCE! they have learned.

Also, no, it isn’t like telling a woman who is feeling neglected by her husband to put on some heels and shave her legs. It would be more like telling her to get dressed up, go out for a GNO, then have a strange phone number fall out of her wallet when she gets back. Also it would be telling her that her husband is a chump, doesn’t understand his own motivations, can be gamed into doing what you want, and also has a hamster in his head. 

I would honestly tail against a book like that for women too, especially if it pretended to be science.


----------



## oldshirt

Faithful Wife said:


> One thing that really surprises me about MMSL and similar, is that normally men are very logical and they want things to be backed up by facts and data. They also typically sniff out bad data.
> 
> But there are several points in the MMSL/red pill philosophy that the authors claim are SCIENCE! but which actually are not and have no data or facts behind them.
> 
> Hypergamy. They claim this is a scientific fact. Based on what? I’ve seached far and wide and there doesn’t seem to be anything resembling scientific data behind it. When I’ve challenged these guys to come up with some data about it, they say “it doesn’t matter if there’s data, we know it happens because we see it happen all the time.” Well ok, but don’t say it is a scientific fact then if you really just want to talk about your anecdotal evidence. Say the truth about it. Stop saying it is science because it’s not.
> 
> Sperm wars. There was 1 book written in the 80’s that has been completely debunked called Sperm Wars. Yet the red pill crowd, again, claim that sperm wars are SCIENCE and FACTS. No, it isn’t, and there isn’t a shred of evidence for it. Anyone who wants to prove me wrong, I’m waiting. I’ve asked for the back up to these “facts” many times and there isn’t any.
> 
> That’s why this is so confusing. If I started spouting about SCIENCE and FACTS that were absolutely not based in any evidence or facts, I just believed they were because the theories involved benefit my gender or me personally, men and women both would come blast me for it. As they should, because it would be ridiculous for anyone to continue to blurt out crap and claim it is science.
> 
> Don’t any these readers do any research themselves about this stuff? And as men, like I said, it’s extra confusing because men usually want to know about the data behind any specific claim if it was presented as science.


That is a good point and something that I have noticed as well and have even wrestled with some of those points myself. 

I am absolutely NOT going to defend anything in the manosphere or redpill or PUA or MMSL as objective, scientific fact. Because you are absolutely right, there probably is very little if in fact any objective data to back any of that up. 

But the problem is that it feels so right and on a deep instinctual level feels so intuitive. 

On an instinctual level, much of redpill does not seem to be reinventing the wheel but is rather saying to shed the teachings your mom and your church and your 1st grade school teacher told you and do what your inner spirits naturally drives you to do. 

None of that stuff you mentioned is backed up by real science and I don't know if it even can be objectively studied and quantified. But much of our world isn't, we just go where the crowd is going. (like the scene in "A Few Good Men" when Tom Cruise tells Noah Whylie to show him in the Marine Corps manual where the mess hall is and Noah says he follows the crowd at lunch time) 

I don't know if science has proven that moths fly towards lights and flames or whether they just happened to be flying that way anyway and just hung around for a few extra moments to see what the other moths were doing - but we've all seen them flying around lights at night and know that where there is a light, there will be moths. 

My own personal opinion is that 99% of what MMSL says is all intuitive and something we all knew deep down anyway. We've just been bombarded with so many other messages from Oprah and the rest of the political correct and human resources crowd that we actually started to believe our wife should still love and desire us even though we've gained 30 lbs and now just sit and ***** about politics on the evening news grumble about how much the internet service is raising our rates. 

MMSL and redpill is just a kick in the pants that if we want to have a healthy sex life, we have to actually be sexy and desirable and we have to do a good job of satisfying our mate when we do have sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oldshirt said:


> That is a good point and something that I have noticed as well and have even wrestled with some of those points myself.
> 
> I am absolutely NOT going to defend anything in the manosphere or redpill or PUA or MMSL as objective, scientific fact. Because you are absolutely right, there probably is very little if in fact any objective data to back any of that up.
> 
> But the problem is that it feels so right and on a deep instinctual level feels so intuitive.
> 
> On an instinctual level, much of redpill does not seem to be reinventing the wheel but is rather saying to shed the teachings your mom and your church and your 1st grade school teacher told you and do what your inner spirits naturally drives you to do.
> 
> None of that stuff you mentioned is backed up by real science and I don't know if it even can be objectively studied and quantified. But much of our world isn't, we just go where the crowd is going. (like the scene in "A Few Good Men" when Tom Cruise tells Noah Whylie to show him in the Marine Corps manual where the mess hall is and Noah says he follows the crowd at lunch time)
> 
> I don't know if science has proven that moths fly towards lights and flames or whether they just happened to be flying that way anyway and just hung around for a few extra moments to see what the other moths were doing - but we've all seen them flying around lights at night and know that where there is a light, there will be moths.
> 
> My own personal opinion is that 99% of what MMSL says is all intuitive and something we all knew deep down anyway. We've just been bombarded with so many other messages from Oprah and the rest of the political correct and human resources crowd that we actually started to believe our wife should still love and desire us even though we've gained 30 lbs and now just sit and ***** about politics on the evening news grumble about how much the internet service is raising our rates.
> 
> MMSL and redpill is just a kick in the pants that if we want to have a healthy sex life, we have to actually be sexy and desirable and we have to do a good job of satisfying our mate when we do have sex.


Same answer I keep seeing. “Oh yeah I know he says it is science and it isn’t, but it seems right so, who cares?”

Well, some men think it is not cool to pretend that SCIENCE says there is a hamster is his woman’s head. Some men will not base decisions on things that only “feel like facts”. Some men believe that women actually do know what they want. Some men believe that women are not just waiting around to trade him for a bigger better deal. Some men realize that their woman actually has agency and is a rational adult.

Some men don’t resort to calling women “screechtards” (actual word Athol uses regularly to describe women) just because he doesn’t want to hear what she has to say.

Oh I know, I know, it’s just meant to be funny and appeal to the poor saps who need it. They are bitter at women so let them work through it, blah blah blah. 

Sorry. I don’t understand why such a juvenile and mean spirited book would appeal to a decent, rational man. And for all the indecent, non rational men who believe in brain hamsters, I don’t think it is a good ideal to rile them up with bogus non-science that claims we are all *****s. That’s how they end up justifying their on going hatred of women. If they think all women are *****s and there’s SCIENCE behind it, you are basically asking them to become a dangerous psycho.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I wanted to look at these 2 things a bit closer.
> 
> For the 1st one, you know that by almost all estimates the reason that 90% of women reproduced was because of rape, right? It doesn't reflect what the choice of women were or are, if there is rampant rape going on (which there was). So until we can take a look at a society who has choice and also is mostly protected from rape at least, then we don't know what women will choose. We are almost there and soon we will see what babies are born based on choices made by the mother.
> 
> So why didn't the rapists win the evolutionary race? Why did men decide they wanted to protect their women, make laws, and shun men who are rapists? I'm saying - - because evolution. Obviously if it just took the strongest biggest dude to win the evolution game, then we would still have rampant rape and there would be no reason for any man to protect us from it happening by another man.
> 
> For the 2nd one....I assume you are talking about the studies that have been done at online dating sites using the stats of daters? As far as I know, that is the only place such a statistic ever came up.
> 
> Have you looked at a bunch of profiles on OLD yourself ever? Especially a bunch of guys profiles? Maybe do that and then let me know your thoughts on the level of attractiveness of them.
> 
> See, when you are talking ONLY about online daters (which the survey you are speaking of was) then you have to consider, who are online daters? Are they most likely to be the best looking people? On average, I would say no. There are some stunners in there of course. But the average attraction level of a single, online male dater is most likely lower than the attraction level of the males in the public at large. Now add in the men who would never, ever even leave their house if they didn't have to...those are online daters. Also very shy people...those are online daters. Now there are plenty of normal, non shy, attractive people in OLD, don't get me wrong. But generally what you have is a group of people who are single or divorced and who are seeking someone to date. That is a very specific group of people, and their attractiveness is possibly part of why they are online dating (ie: less attractive, less options).
> 
> Therefore, I can see why the 85% statistic arose. Also, I believe that survey was done quite awhile ago, and everyone's online pictures look much better now. I remember before everyone had an iphone, some of those old digital pics were just terrible. I bet if the survey is repeated you might see a slight uptick in how attractive the women think the men are.
> 
> However, it won't be much.
> 
> Unless you have data that shows that women outside of online dating have claimed 85% of dudes are unattractive. If you do I'd love to see it. If you don't, then I would ask you and others to stop saying it as if it is actually a fact about all men and women.


As far as rape and history. Women in societies that did have effective rule of law (most in history and most now) were certainly in danger of being raped. Obviously, women didn't want to be raped. Besides the trauma of the rape itself, the rapist wasn't going to stick around to help raise and children who resulted. Women had a very strong incentive to avoid having sex with men who were unable to protect them from violence and provide resources for the family. 

Now, in a country with an effective rule of law and women being able to support themselves, what women need from men is completely different. But there are tens of thousands of years of evolution where the incentives were different and it's going to take quiet awhile for the results of evolution to be reversed. So, it's very likely that women are evolved to be attracted to strong providers while logically thinking that different men are better for them.

And, I think 90+% percent of women would have reproduced regardless of the rape factor. Are you thinking that, historically, 50% of women would have chosen not to reproduce or have been unable to find a partner?

Yes, the 85% is from Cataclysm (sp?) which was based on OK Cupid data.

However, it makes perfect sense that historically, women would have been very choosy about who they have sex with. When your economic survival is dependent on your husband, it certainly makes sense.

Men could have sex with a woman and leave without ay responsibilities, so it makes sense that they would be less choosy. If men had somehow been forced to help raise the children who might result, they would probably have evolved to be more choosy as well.

Ironically, the reality today is completely reversed. Women can have sex with whomever they choose and, if they don't want to stay with the man they can choose to abort, support the family by themselves and, in most cases, get financial support from the man.

Other than condoms, men have little control over having children from a sexual encounter and being on the hook for financial support for 18 years.

Now, it's women who don't need to be choosy and men who should be. But, as above, it's going to take a long time to change the course or evolution and society to match current conditions.

This is based on what I've read and what makes sense to me, if you can point me to evidence to the contrary, I'm more than willing to have a look at it.

Also, It's not obvious to me why the concept that women are more selective about who they are attracted to than men are is necessarily a misogynistic theory.


----------



## sokillme

ConanHub said:


> "sperm wars" is good for science fiction or a hypothesis at best.
> 
> I find the concept humorous.
> 
> Isn't hypergamy the concept that women are always looking to trade up?
> 
> Thanks for the information @Faithful Wife


****ty people look to trade up. 

Good people don't.

I really wonder do these men who think all women are like this not have any experience with good women? In all my life I have maybe known like 2 women who thought this way, and every healthy person thought they were *******s.

But then again they refer to them as Females which makes it seem they are as familiar with them as scientist are to the orangutan. If I had a daughter I would tell her to run at full speed from any guy who used the word females to describe women. Underlines just how foreign her nature is to him. 

Which leads to the bigger point, I mean if I was trying to understand women and relationships the first person I would go to for advice is the guy who reads a bunch of message boards and books because he doesn't understand the women and relationships. Ha. 

Like Red-pill, presumably its a bunch of guys who can't have successful relationships with women? This is where you go to get the answers? Like when they use their frame to get some girl to have sex with them are we supposed to believe she is a 10? It's a message board there is a better chance she is Rosie O'Donnell. Ha! 

I would assume they are going out with them because they bumped into the type of women who have sex with whoever asks them out. Which is kind of how a lot of this works anyway, at it's very base level dating is a numbers game. I mean there are a lot of very insecure women who will have sex with men because of that? Have we not read here? I mean like lately? I will tell you one thing I hope they are using condoms though. I always thought the goal was to marry a women of character. 

I am not even saying some advice in the books isn't on point. I do believe some men are raised with a Disney mentality that just being nice and normal is enough to be attractive but that only works if you are Hugh Jackman, most of us have to court or mates. Also you have to think strategically and know where you will have the most success. I was never going to have a lot of success in a meat market like a club or bar, mostly because what I think are my most attractive qualities are better displayed in a one on one intimate discussion or a small room of people. It's a lot easier to be charming and funny when you are not screaming over loud music or some other guy isn't breathing down your neck. 

But the biggest problem with a lot of these books is most of them are treaties on getting laid but most of the men who read them are thinking that by getting lied they are on the path to true intimacy and a healthy relationship with someone, or really happiness. That is just not how it works for most people in the long run.

I do think they work better for the ones who have a seemingly typical relationship and are not getting laid. To a point, only an ******* games his wife, but he sure as hell should try to seduce her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here’s a particularly hilarious quote that insinuates there is science behind it:

“The husband’s semen volume is an important marker to a wife that affects her attraction to him. This is so basic that even men watching porn movies seeing a tiny dribbling cum shot feel disappointed watching it. Big arcs of jetting semen are clearly superior to a little dribble. So imagine how a wife’s body agenda reacts to that happening inside her vagina. Clearly a great pulsing flood creates a vastly better standing army of sperm than a little dribble, so it’s sexier.”

This is simple. Men are the ones who love seeing huge amounts of cum in porn, and they still think that what turns them on must for sure also be what turns us on (we just aren’t aware it turns us on, because hamsters.) But he writes it as if we do know it turns us on, because just imagine how a huge spray of cum feels inside her vagina!

Seriously, how can men of average or better intelligence actually read this crap?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> As far as rape and history. Women in societies that did have effective rule of law (most in history and most now) were certainly in danger of being raped. Obviously, women didn't want to be raped. Besides the trauma of the rape itself, the rapist wasn't going to stick around to help raise and children who resulted. Women had a very strong incentive to avoid having sex with men who were unable to protect them from violence and provide resources for the family.
> 
> Now, in a country with an effective rule of law and women being able to support themselves, what women need from men is completely different. But there are tens of thousands of years of evolution where the incentives were different and it's going to take quiet awhile for the results of evolution to be reversed. So, it's very likely that women are evolved to be attracted to strong providers while logically thinking that different men are better for them.
> 
> And, I think 90+% percent of women would have reproduced regardless of the rape factor. Are you thinking that, historically, 50% of women would have chosen not to reproduce or have been unable to find a partner?
> 
> Yes, the 85% is from Cataclysm (sp?) which was based on OK Cupid data.
> 
> However, it makes perfect sense that historically, women would have been very choosy about who they have sex with. When your economic survival is dependent on your husband, it certainly makes sense.
> 
> Men could have sex with a woman and leave without ay responsibilities, so it makes sense that they would be less choosy. If men had somehow been forced to help raise the children who might result, they would probably have evolved to be more choosy as well.
> 
> Ironically, the reality today is completely reversed. Women can have sex with whomever they choose and, if they don't want to stay with the man they can choose to abort, support the family by themselves and, in most cases, get financial support from the man.
> 
> Other than condoms, men have little control over having children from a sexual encounter and being on the hook for financial support for 18 years.
> 
> Now, it's women who don't need to be choosy and men who should be. But, as above, it's going to take a long time to change the course or evolution and society to match current conditions.
> 
> This is based on what I've read and what makes sense to me, if you can point me to evidence to the contrary, I'm more than willing to have a look at it.
> 
> Also, It's not obvious to me why the concept that women are more selective about who they are attracted to than men are is necessarily a misogynistic theory.


The data you are referring to is about ancient man, not our recent ancestors. They are not the same topic. My point was about the data, since it is about farther back in our history. The DNA is what it is now because of those early humans. What happens now is actually different. The rape issue I was referring to back then, not in more recent human populations.

I’m also not saying there is anything misogynistic about talking about how women actually do want fit, tall, attractive mates. I think that message is quite relevant and men should understand it because it’s very simple.

What I’m saying is that when you and others repeat the online dating stat as if it is just a fact and applies to all women and all men, you are spreading things that aren’t true and saying it is factual.

Also did you go take a look at a random page of male online daters? I would like to hear any man’s thought on that if they do that. Because unless you have actually looked at a bunch of them yourself and made your own opinions about the average attractiveness of online male daters, then you aren’t really trying to understand the statistics. It is very obvious when you take a look yourself.


----------



## farsidejunky

While I think your point regarding the view of the survey as gospel is important, one cannot entirely dismiss it, either.


Faithful Wife said:


> The data you are referring to is about ancient man, not our recent ancestors. They are not the same topic. My point was about the data, since it is about farther back in our history. The DNA is what it is now because of those early humans. What happens now is actually different. The rape issue I was referring to back then, not in more recent human populations.
> 
> I’m also not saying there is anything misogynistic about talking about how women actually do want fit, tall, attractive mates. I think that message is quite relevant and men should understand it because it’s very simple.
> 
> What I’m saying is that when you and others repeat the online dating stat as if it is just a fact and applies to all women and all men, you are spreading things that aren’t true and saying it is factual.
> 
> Also did you go take a look at a random page of male online daters? I would like to hear any man’s thought on that if they do that. Because unless you have actually looked at a bunch of them yourself and made your own opinions about the average attractiveness of online male daters, then you aren’t really trying to understand the statistics. It is very obvious when you take a look yourself.


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Same answer I keep seeing. “Oh yeah I know he says it is science and it isn’t, but it seems right so, who cares?”
> 
> Well, some men think it is not cool to pretend that SCIENCE says there is a hamster is his woman’s head. Some men will not base decisions on things that only “feel like facts”. Some men believe that women actually do know what they want. Some men believe that women are not just waiting around to trade him for a bigger better deal. Some men realize that their woman actually has agency and is a rational adult.
> .


But there IS science that supports the proposal that "women don't know what they want".

The study in the old "emotional men" thread supported the thought that women say they want men to be more emotional but that, when they are, they are not attracted.

Another study wired up man and women's genitals to measure arousal while also asking them when they were aroused. For men, both sources agreed; for women, they didn't.

Now, I'm certainly do not believe that any single study means anything, but there IS science to support this.

And, just because something is true doesn't mean that it's preferable or best. 

If we don't have an accurate understanding of how "things are", then we'll have a hard time changing things to "they should be".


----------



## oldshirt

Faithful Wife said:


> Same answer I keep seeing. “Oh yeah I know he says it is science and it isn’t, but it seems right so, who cares?”


Whenever I hear (or use) the term bro science, I automatically think of the gym where bro science has ruled since the early carnival strongmen. 

One bro is going to tell you that you should do 5 sets of 5 reps with one minute of rest in between if you want to see some leg development. 

Another bro is going to tell you that legs need higher reps and that you should be doing at least 15 reps with minimal rest in between. 

One is going to tell you that you need at least 5,000 grams of fish oil after the workout to get proper recovery and another is going to tell you that along as your protein intake is adequate that you can forgo the fish oil. 

And other one is going to tell you that if you focus more on deadlifts and hit the overhead leg press a few times a week you don't need to worry about squats at all. 

Now, stay with me here I know I rambling but I'm going somewhere with this -

NONE of these bro-claims are backed up by hard, peer-reviewed science, none have been researched by medical science and none of them have access to an electron microscope to document actual impact of those claims on the cellular level of the muscle fibers. 

But each of those bro's has a trophy case full of ribbons and trophies from the body building and power lifting competitions and the guys that are following each of their recommendations are showing improvements in muscular growth and strength etc etc. 

The great bodybuilders and weight lifters and strongmen of the 20th century such as Arnold Schwartzeneger and Lue Ferigno etc etc probably did not have one single bit of actual scientific data backing them up or guiding them but yet there they were traveling the world, winning millions in prize money, signing movie contracts etc etc and influencing millions of other people to eat right and exercise and get strong etc etc. 

Bro science is not actual science and some of the things that Schwartzeneger and his peers were doing back in the day and that they were saying back them are probably considered wrong by today's standards. 

But that didn't mean that it didn't work and that doesn't mean that people did not have success with it. 

Yes, MMSL is bro science at best. But telling a man to get off the couch, lose the beer gut, dress better, be more involved and invested with his wife and family, be more proactive and ambitious in his career and be more flirtatious and assertive with his romantic and sexual needs may not be backed up by actual science, but it's not bad advice and there is a good chance it will show and improvement. 

And if it doesn't show an improvement (which Athol Kay fully admits that it may not) then that guy will be in a better position to find someone else if his wife kicks him out or he decides she isn't worth it.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> What I’m saying is that when you and others repeat the online dating stat as if it is just a fact and applies to all women and all men, you are spreading things that aren’t true and saying it is factual.
> 
> Also did you go take a look at a random page of male online daters? I would like to hear any man’s thought on that if they do that. Because unless you have actually looked at a bunch of them yourself and made your own opinions about the average attractiveness of online male daters, then you aren’t really trying to understand the statistics. It is very obvious when you take a look yourself.


It sounds like you're saying that the quality of men who use OLD is lower than the quality of women using it (here I'm only using the concept of "quality" to represent "people whom are more attractive to the opposite sex").

Any theories as to why that might be?

If there's no good explanation of why lower quality men would use OLD then women, then the data _would_ support the idea that women are choosier than men (assuming both men and women were representative samples).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> But there IS science that supports the proposal that "women don't know what they want".
> 
> The study in the old "emotional men" thread supported the thought that women say they want men to be more emotional but that, when they are, they are not attracted.
> 
> Another study wired up man and women's genitals to measure arousal while also asking them when they were aroused. For men, both sources agreed; for women, they didn't.
> 
> Now, I'm certainly do not believe that any single study means anything, but there IS science to support this.
> 
> And, just because something is true doesn't mean that it's preferable or best.
> 
> If we don't have an accurate understanding of how "things are", then we'll have a hard time changing things to "they should be".


I’ve seen the studies you are talking about. Do you understand how small the study was about the genital arousal? Did you actually read it and how it was done and how many participants there were? Or did you just read an overview by someone else and assume it was some wide scale reproduced study?

As for the “study” in the emotional thread, you are talking about my thread about “do women lack empathy for men” I assume? That was no study. I was shocked at how many examples of coldness and lack of empathy the men here described. I feel bad for them, and I could not relate at all.

And someone in that thread mentioned Brene and her work about empathy and that many women think they want him to be more emotional but when he is, she is turned off. And I can see where there is a percentage of women who seem to be this way in these studies. However, I could not find any talk or statistics about her work on that specifically. I wanted to know who were the subjects? How many of them were there? It is a point she wanted to make because she has seen it happen, but without knowing more about who is saying it and why, it’s hard to make a case that it applies equally.

See the thing is, women are ass holes, too. So when a study shows that some significant part of the population behaves a certain way that is unkind or inhumane, why does it mean anything except that they are ass holes? Why does it have to be an inherent evil female trait?

And I’m going to say without any names....there are some men here who are married to ass holes. And they think that all women are ass holes because of it and they try to find such studies to make that case, instead of just realizing she’s an ass hole and he picked wrong.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> It sounds like you're saying that the quality of men who use OLD is lower than the quality of women using it (here I'm only using the concept of "quality" to represent "people whom are more attractive to the opposite sex").
> 
> Any theories as to why that might be?
> 
> If there's no good explanation of why lower quality men would use OLD then women, then the data _would_ support the idea that women are choosier than men (assuming both men and women were representative samples).


No I’m not saying the quality of men is lower than women on OLD. I don’t know how the women stack up to the general population. 

Again, your mind would be changed if you just took a look for yourself.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I’ve seen the studies you are talking about. Do you understand how small the study was about the genital arousal? Did you actually read it and how it was done and how many participants there were? Or did you just read an overview by someone else and assume it was some wide scale reproduced study?


Yes, that was the thread I was talking about and I believe the Brene(?) reference was a study.

Again, I clearly stated that I never believe that and one (or, for that fact, many) studies *prove* anything.

I was just making the case that there is _some_ science behind it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oldshirt said:


> Whenever I hear (or use) the term bro science, I automatically think of the gym where bro science has ruled since the early carnival strongmen.
> 
> One bro is going to tell you that you should do 5 sets of 5 reps with one minute of rest in between if you want to see some leg development.
> 
> Another bro is going to tell you that legs need higher reps and that you should be doing at least 15 reps with minimal rest in between.
> 
> One is going to tell you that you need at least 5,000 grams of fish oil after the workout to get proper recovery and another is going to tell you that along as your protein intake is adequate that you can forgo the fish oil.
> 
> And other one is going to tell you that if you focus more on deadlifts and hit the overhead leg press a few times a week you don't need to worry about squats at all.
> 
> Now, stay with me here I know I rambling but I'm going somewhere with this -
> 
> NONE of these bro-claims are backed up by hard, peer-reviewed science, none have been researched by medical science and none of them have access to an electron microscope to document actual impact of those claims on the cellular level of the muscle fibers.
> 
> But each of those bro's has a trophy case full of ribbons and trophies from the body building and power lifting competitions and the guys that are following each of their recommendations are showing improvements in muscular growth and strength etc etc.
> 
> The great bodybuilders and weight lifters and strongmen of the 20th century such as Arnold Schwartzeneger and Lue Ferigno etc etc probably did not have one single bit of actual scientific data backing them up or guiding them but yet there they were traveling the world, winning millions in prize money, signing movie contracts etc etc and influencing millions of other people to eat right and exercise and get strong etc etc.
> 
> Bro science is not actual science and some of the things that Schwartzeneger and his peers were doing back in the day and that they were saying back them are probably considered wrong by today's standards.
> 
> But that didn't mean that it didn't work and that doesn't mean that people did not have success with it.
> 
> Yes, MMSL is bro science at best. But telling a man to get off the couch, lose the beer gut, dress better, be more involved and invested with his wife and family, be more proactive and ambitious in his career and be more flirtatious and assertive with his romantic and sexual needs may not be backed up by actual science, but it's not bad advice and there is a good chance it will show and improvement.
> 
> And if it doesn't show an improvement (which Athol Kay fully admits that it may not) then that guy will be in a better position to find someone else if his wife kicks him out or he decides she isn't worth it.


All I can say is that it sounds like your hamster is out of control trying to rationalize why a horrible book has its redeeming qualities.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> And I’m going to say without any names....there are some men here who are married to ass holes. And they think that all women are ass holes because of it and they try to find such studies to make that case, instead of just realizing she’s an ass hole and he picked wrong.


I completely agree that there are plenty of ass holes in both genders and probably in equal proportions.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Yes, that was the thread I was talking about and I believe the Brene(?) reference was a study.
> 
> Again, I clearly stated that I never believe that and one (or, for that fact, many) studies *prove* anything.
> 
> I was just making the case that there is _some_ science behind it.


But even when someone offers better science, some times you guys want to cling to the “some science” and it’s so weird to me. You want to believe women rank 85% of men less than average attractiveness. You really really want to believe this. Why? It seems like you guys want to believe you are not attractive?


----------



## sokillme

Lots of people are just entitled. Lots of others are really failing and need some help, but it's a lot easier to follow what seem like simple rules then it is to admit you struggle. Is also easier to just call everyone *******s.


----------



## oldshirt

Faithful Wife said:


> All I can say is that it sounds like your hamster is out of control trying to rationalize why a horrible book has its redeeming qualities.


So why is your hamster out of control trying to say that it is so bad and so wrong? 

I do believe it has some redeeming qualities for a certain niche of people. That is not a big claim. I have also pointed out what I see as it's short-comings and limitations. 

You are the one claiming it is "horrible" and have been making snide and sarcastic and condescending comments about it throughout this whole thread. 

I asked you in the other thread and I have asked you in the beginning of this thread - can you give us your honest review and critique and criticism of it and cite examples of why you think it is wrong and bad? 

What is the real reason you are so venomous about MMSL? 

A number of people have said that it is kind of hokey and that everyone should realize that a guy shouldn't get fat and lazy if he wants to have a good sex life, but you are making it out to almost be evil incarnate? Why the passion? (no pun intended LOL) 

Let's have an honest discussion, why is it so bad? Why do you think people should not read it and what do you think is the better alternative?


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> While I think your point regarding the view of the survey as gospel is important, one cannot entirely dismiss it, either.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Do you mean the online dating survey? I’d love it if you or any guy went and looked at a few hundred pics of random male online daters. You don’t even have to read the profiles. Then tell me your thoughts.

Here are mine!

First of all, most men don’t know how to take a decent selfie. Many don’t like doing it so they take one or two quick ones that they don’t even look at very closely and put them on their profile. Sometimes they are literally out of focus and you know it’s not because he wanted to obscure his looks, it’s just because he didn’t even look at it before he posted it.

Second, men don’t understand what is attractive to women when it comes to their hobbies. We like knowing about your hobbies, but we end up seeing literally dozens of slimy dead fish every time we look at profiles. Men want to see pictures of huge dead fish. So they think we will be impressed (I assume). They aren’t savvy at knowing things about what attracts women, in pictures especially.

Third, so let’s say he does know we don’t want to see dead fish. And he knows that having some wealth or assets is attractive to some women. So he posts pics of some random car and himself on expensive vacations. But...again, he doesn’t edit or try very hard with his pics, so the car looks dirty and out of focus or he himself does, and he’s squinting and making a weird face. Now he looks like a weirdo who is drooling on his own car. Or the travel pic looks like it was from his honeymoon. Because he literally doesn’t have any selfies (men don’t like taking selfies).

All of the above can be forgiven by me because I am savvy at this and I understand it. Women spend hours in the mirror and take 15 selfies for every one they post. We probably appear more attractive than we actually are on average because of this. Can you see why men accidentally make themselves less attractive than they actually are in pictures?

I know when I see horrible pics that I have to look past it for markers of attractiveness I can see beneath the out of focus ones and the dead fish. I have to allow for the inexperience with selfies and the lack of years of self grooming that women have. It’s not the same game for us.

I personally would love it if men had some source to help them get some decent pics of themselves that don’t have fish or ex wives in them. If this were a normal occurrence for male online daters, I guarantee you that the same survey would yield different results.

Again....any guy who wants to go check it out for himself, I’d love to hear your thoughts.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oldshirt said:


> So why is your hamster out of control trying to say that it is so bad and so wrong?
> 
> I do believe it has some redeeming qualities for a certain niche of people. That is not a big claim. I have also pointed out what I see as it's short-comings and limitations.
> 
> You are the one claiming it is "horrible" and have been making snide and sarcastic and condescending comments about it throughout this whole thread.
> 
> I asked you in the other thread and I have asked you in the beginning of this thread - can you give us your honest review and critique and criticism of it and cite examples of why you think it is wrong and bad?
> 
> What is the real reason you are so venomous about MMSL?
> 
> A number of people have said that it is kind of hokey and that everyone should realize that a guy shouldn't get fat and lazy if he wants to have a good sex life, but you are making it out to almost be evil incarnate? Why the passion? (no pun intended LOL)
> 
> Let's have an honest discussion, why is it so bad? Why do you think people should not read it and what do you think is the better alternative?


I have talked about this book a lot, before this discussion. So many older posters know my beef with it and I’ve already repeated myself so many times but....in a nutshell....

I have read the book myself and have seen so many mean spirited passages, so many dangerously incorrect “science”, and the lack of any concept of love throughout the book, makes me strongly against it. It makes me annoyed when men here suggest it to each other and claim it is science. I think women should read it for themselves and decide. 

If I were suggesting a comparable book for women, one which truly had all the same tricks and game in it, only the point of it wouldn’t be to have sex it would be how to get your husband to do everything you want and buy you everything you want (and there are books like that out there, some of which are very good and effective), you all would ride my ass out of town on a rail.

That’s my beef. So whenever it is exalted here, I say my opinion too. To hopefully catch the eye of some who haven’t read it and give them a heads up about the reality behind the hype.


----------



## oldshirt

Faithful Wife said:


> e for us.
> 
> I personally would love it if men had some source to help them get some decent pics of themselves that don’t have fish or ex wives in them. If this were a normal occurrence for male online daters, I guarantee you that the same survey would yield different results.
> 
> .


Maybe these guys should check out MMSL and some of the other redpill resources because that is exactly what a lot of those resources are trying to help men out with. 

The problem is you will call it "game" and imply that they are dishonest and deceptive and that they are trying to scam women into bed.


----------



## farsidejunky

In fairness, my only experience with anything close to online dating (showing it has been a year or fifteen) is Yahoo chat and profiles. 

I would tell you that if I were back in the dating pool, I would spend a few dollars for some good photos by a professional.

That said, I still believe the OKC study to be an important data point, but not necessarily the entire picture.


Faithful Wife said:


> Do you mean the online dating survey? I’d love it if you or any guy went and looked at a few hundred pics of random male online daters. You don’t even have to read the profiles. Then tell me your thoughts.
> 
> Here are mine!
> 
> First of all, most men don’t know how to take a decent selfie. Many don’t like doing it so they take one or two quick ones that they don’t even look at very closely and put them on their profile. Sometimes they are literally out of focus and you know it’s not because he wanted to obscure his looks, it’s just because he didn’t even look at it before he posted it.
> 
> Second, men don’t understand what is attractive to women when it comes to their hobbies. We like knowing about your hobbies, but we end up seeing literally dozens of slimy dead fish every time we look at profiles. Men want to see pictures of huge dead fish. So they think we will be impressed (I assume). They aren’t savvy at knowing things about what attracts women, in pictures especially.
> 
> Third, so let’s say he does know we don’t want to see dead fish. And he knows that having some wealth or assets is attractive to some women. So he posts pics of some random car and himself on expensive vacations. But...again, he doesn’t edit or try very hard with his pics, so the car looks dirty and out of focus or he himself does, and he’s squinting and making a weird face. Now he looks like a weirdo who is drooling on his own car. Or the travel pic looks like it was from his honeymoon. Because he literally doesn’t have any selfies (men don’t like taking selfies).
> 
> All of the above can be forgiven by me because I am savvy at this and I understand it. Women spend hours in the mirror and take 15 selfies for every one they post. We probably appear more attractive than we actually are on average because of this. Can you see why men accidentally make themselves less attractive than they actually are in pictures?
> 
> I know when I see horrible pics that I have to look past it for markers of attractiveness I can see beneath the out of focus ones and the dead fish. I have to allow for the inexperience with selfies and the lack of years of self grooming that women have. It’s not the same game for us.
> 
> I personally would love it if men had some source to help them get some decent pics of themselves that don’t have fish or ex wives in them. If this were a normal occurrence for male online daters, I guarantee you that the same survey would yield different results.
> 
> Again....any guy who wants to go check it out for himself, I’d love to hear your thoughts.


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

oldshirt said:


> Maybe these guys should check out MMSL and some of the other redpill resources because that is exactly what a lot of those resources are trying to help men out with.
> 
> The problem is you will call it "game" and imply that they are dishonest and deceptive and that they are trying to scam women into bed.


No, the problem is YOU call it game. I call it normal behavior to want to be as attractive as you can if you are expecting to get laid. MMSL did not invent that concept. Nor does anyone need MMSL to figure it out. It’s literally the headline of every men’s health magazine issue. Using good advice isn’t game, just people who don’t understand anything about actual mutual attraction call it game.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> In fairness, my only experience with anything close to online dating (showing it has been a year or fifteen) is Yahoo chat and profiles.
> 
> I would tell you that if I were back in the dating pool, I would spend a few dollars for some good photos by a professional.
> 
> That said, I still believe the OKC study to be an important data point, but not necessarily the entire picture.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Can you explain the importance of the data point? Maybe I’m missing something.


----------



## oldshirt

Faithful Wife said:


> No, the problem is YOU call it game. I call it normal behavior to want to be as attractive as you can if you are expecting to get laid. MMSL did not invent that concept. Nor does anyone need MMSL to figure it out. It’s literally the headline of every men’s health magazine issue. Using good advice isn’t game, just people who don’t understand anything about actual mutual attraction call it game.


You're the one accusing people of using game. I haven't even used the term so far in this thread. 

Your flip-flopping and going back on yourself. 

You've been saying that MMSL is manipulative and using 'game' and deception to get women into bed. 

And now you've said you wished there was a resource that would help men clean up their act and make themselves more presentable and more attractive to women and when I pointed out that that is what MMSL and many other redpill sources try to do, you try to turn it back on me somehow.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oldshirt said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem is YOU call it game. I call it normal behavior to want to be as attractive as you can if you are expecting to get laid. MMSL did not invent that concept. Nor does anyone need MMSL to figure it out. It’s literally the headline of every men’s health magazine issue. Using good advice isn’t game, just people who don’t understand anything about actual mutual attraction call it game.
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one accusing people of using game. I haven't even used the term so far in this thread.
> 
> Your flip-flopping and going back on yourself.
> 
> You've been saying that MMSL is manipulative and using 'game' and deception to get women into bed.
> 
> And now you've said you wished there was a resource that would help men clean up their act and make themselves more presentable and more attractive to women and when I pointed out that that is what MMSL and many other redpill sources try to do, you try to turn it back on me somehow.
Click to expand...

Dude, the book itself literally claims to be game. And literally has creepy weird practices in it that were pulled from creep sites. I’m not claiming anything about the book I am quoting the author.

If you’ve ever read my posts, I am a huge proponent of men being more fit and attractive and as a woman I’ve loudly proclaimed my desire for such men here many times. How am I contradicting myself? As I mentioned, any issue of men’s health has lots of good advice about that and it doesn’t resort to childhood name calling tactics like MMSL does (ie. it doesn’t refer to women as “screechtards”.)


----------



## oldshirt

Shifting gears a bit, I think part of the criticism of the redpill/PUA/MMSL world is that deep down there is a part of us that does not want the nerds to catch up. 

As culture in general we value people with natural abilities and gifts and we are wary of people showing dogged determination to accomplish something that does not come naturally to them. 

Faithful Wife may be the face of it on this particular thread, but I do not think she is alone by any means. I think there are a lot of people that want the nerds and geeks and runts and the social misfits to be self-triaged out of the gene pool and stay in the mother's basements playing Dungeons and Dragons and to stay out of the social scenes and pick up bars and leave the pretty people and naturally sociable people do the breeding. 

I think there's a part of us that is wary of someone seeking assistance and guidance on how to be attractive and sexy. I think there is a part of us that thinks if someone had get some advice and guidance on how to look sharp and how to approach someone to get to know them and develop a relationship with them, that somehow it is all fake and all subterfuge and that they are there for not worthy of connecting with someone and are not worthy of love and romance and sexuality. 

We fear Melvin in Chad's clothing. 

We admire the ugly duckling that becomes a magnificent swan, but not if the duckling had to get assistance and work at it. That's a fake swan and is to be suspected and reviled. 

Let's say for a moment that the bit about historically only 50% of males breeding is true,,,, I wonder if that is because we only want the upper half passing on the 'real' genes and we're afraid that someone from the bottom half may slip a few of those bottom-feeder genes in on us surreptitiously disguised as a 51 percenter? 

Is there a part of us that wants the 22 year old virgin to remain sexless for life and out of the gene pool? 

If the 22 year old virgin decides he wants to get into the game but has been running into brick walls, is there a part of us that doesn't want him to receive any outside assistance at all and that if he can't figure it out all on his own, then he isn't worthy of moving forward?

So lets apply this to MMSL specifically; if a husband and father has gotten bogged down with the realities of family and parental life and now an office droid paying bills, cleaning the garage and hauling kids to soccer in the min-van (I miss my old mini van a lot BTW. Great vehicle!!) is there a part of us that just simply wants him off the sexual market completely and to stay out of the way of Chad the trainer at the gym to take care of all of the sexual needs from there? 

I can see people rolling their eyes and seeing MMSL as kind of sophomoric and silly if not even somewhat of a no-brainer. But why does @Faithful Wife have such scorn and resentment and fervor towards it and why on other threads and forums if redpill or PUA topics even mentioned that some people almost go into rages and hysterics? 

I think there's more to the controversy over MMSL and other similar works than what immediately meets the eye.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oldshirt said:


> Shifting gears a bit, I think part of the criticism of the redpill/PUA/MMSL world is that deep down there is a part of us that does not want the nerds to catch up.
> 
> As culture in general we value people with natural abilities and gifts and we are wary of people showing dogged determination to accomplish something that does not come naturally to them.
> 
> Faithful Wife may be the face of it on this particular thread, but I do not think she is alone by any means. I think there are a lot of people that want the nerds and geeks and runts and the social misfits to be self-triaged out of the gene pool and stay in the mother's basements playing Dungeons and Dragons and to stay out of the social scenes and pick up bars and leave the pretty people and naturally sociable people do the breeding.
> 
> I think there's a part of us that is wary of someone seeking assistance and guidance on how to be attractive and sexy. I think there is a part of us that thinks if someone had get some advice and guidance on how to look sharp and how to approach someone to get to know them and develop a relationship with them, that somehow it is all fake and all subterfuge and that they are there for not worthy of connecting with someone and are not worthy of love and romance and sexuality.
> 
> We fear Melvin in Chad's clothing.
> 
> We admire the ugly duckling that becomes a magnificent swan, but not if the duckling had to get assistance and work at it. That's a fake swan and is to be suspected and reviled.
> 
> Let's say for a moment that the bit about historically only 50% of males breeding is true,,,, I wonder if that is because we only want the upper half passing on the 'real' genes and we're afraid that someone from the bottom half may slip a few of those bottom-feeder genes in on us surreptitiously disguised as a 51 percenter?
> 
> Is there a part of us that wants the 22 year old virgin to remain sexless for life and out of the gene pool?
> 
> If the 22 year old virgin decides he wants to get into the game but has been running into brick walls, is there a part of us that doesn't want him to receive any outside assistance at all and that if he can't figure it out all on his own, then he isn't worthy of moving forward?
> 
> So lets apply this to MMSL specifically; if a husband and father has gotten bogged down with the realities of family and parental life and now an office droid paying bills, cleaning the garage and hauling kids to soccer in the min-van (I miss my old mini van a lot BTW. Great vehicle!!) is there a part of us that just simply wants him off the sexual market completely and to stay out of the way of Chad the trainer at the gym to take care of all of the sexual needs from there?
> 
> I can see people rolling their eyes and seeing MMSL as kind of sophomoric and silly if not even somewhat of a no-brainer. But why does @Faithful Wife have such scorn and resentment and fervor towards it and why on other threads and forums if redpill or PUA topics even mentioned that some people almost go into rages and hysterics?
> 
> I think there's more to the controversy over MMSL and other similar works than what immediately meets the eye.


Yes there’s a lot more to it than meets the eye. If any woman has gone to the PUA sites herself where this stuff comes from, she is going to see the creepy, immature, and gross behavior that spawned it all.

It’s really rancid and is not what loving adults do.

And yes I’m sorry but some of those guys will cut themselves out of the gene pool. That does not mean that I don’t want an underdog to win. I definitely do not want a dangerous creep to win though and like it or not, many of the men following the PUA crap are exactly that.

Women write books on how to avoid them and learn all the “game” herself so she can see immediately any guy who has versed himself on that crap.

An honestly good guy who is just shy and wants to find a way to improve his chances with women? I love those guys. The good ones find the PUA crap, recognize it for what it is, and search out better options. Of which there are literally thousands of better books. 

The dangerous basement dwellers aren’t going to find healthier books because they are unhealthy. Yes please let them not reproduce.

I’d say the same about women who have traits we don’t want passed on as well. Like some of the ass hole women I’ve already mentioned. Some women literally don’t deserve a man or a baby.


----------



## oldshirt

So a question for @Faithful Wife and everyone else is where does making oneself more attractive and desirable end and "Game" and fakery begin??

I will use an example in my own life. I am a few months shy of 55 years old. I have a well trimmed moustache and goatee. The color of my facial hair is now pure white. 

My wife finds it more appealing if it is colored and there are times when the white is beginning to show that she will point out that it is time to color it again, in which case I do. 

So is that "game"? Am I using deception and fakery and duping her into having se with me because I am presenting something that is not natural? Am I some how "cheating the system" and should be celibate for the rest of my days because I am no longer sporting naturally colored facial hair? 

Now yes, my wife knows that I color my facial hair so there really is no accusation of deception or fraud. But what if some other chick seems to find me attractive and flirts it up with me a little bit? Is it ok for me to smile to myself and appreciate the attention or should I be sent to some kind of gulag for those who have employed a little bit of false presentation that to one degree defies my true age??

What kind of assistance in becoming more attractive to women is ok and what is not ok? 

It's easy to say that line is when we lie but in one way or another we imply little white lies and camouflage the truth all the time and women probably do that 345,735 times more than men. 

What is ok advice for men to give or receive to be more attractive and better lovers with women and what is not?????


----------



## Faithful Wife

@oldshirt There is game for women, too. And then there is good self improvement advice that applies to anyone.

Game for women are things that make him jump, make him squirm, make him chase you, make him buy you things, and make him pursue you for reasons he is unaware of (like making him pursue you because you want marriage and you don’t think he does). There is even game on how to scam men, and how to make fools of them.

There really are ways for women to up their chances of making a man do things she wants him to do. It is game because he is her opponent and she is going to manipulate him into doing things he would not do if he knew why she was manipulating him. It is game because she doesn’t show all of her cards and let him know what she is really trying to get from him.

Some women instinctively use game because they are dishonest jerks, but they didn’t have to read any books to learn it. It comes natural to some to game others. Those would be the generally less healthy people.

I equally dislike these books for women, even while I totally acknowledge they work. 

On the other side of the spectrum for all people, regardless of sexual relationships, is self improvement that actually yields a better you without using any weird game tactics. The main way to become more confident (universally attractive) is to learn to love yourself more. This is usually accomplished by developing your inner life, your mind, and your heart.

If a man or woman uses weird game techniques and disingenuously make an impression on another person for their own selfish purposes, and if doing THAT makes them feel better about themselves, them this person is not healthy.

The road to better relationships and sex starts at understanding that the opposite sex is not the enemy, and that they also want to have better sex and relationships. Books such as MMSL that have to rely on going off in insulting, name calling rants about women in general, are not a road to a healthy relationship or personal health and confidence. Books for women which go off and insult men in long crazy rants are exactly the same.

You can’t start from that position and keep following it and end up in a healthy place. You’ll end up at the front lines of an imaginary gender and sex and relationship war where you will never truly believe that anyone loves you unless you game them.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> But even when someone offers better science, some times you guys want to cling to the “some science” and it’s so weird to me. You want to believe women rank 85% of men less than average attractiveness. You really really want to believe this. Why? It seems like you guys want to believe you are not attractive?


It doesn't matter to me personally. I've been very happily married for 30 years, I'm 63 and, if my wife were to die, I wouldn't date. But, I do have two sons and a daughter and, for some unknown reason, I find the topic fascinating.

I (and I'm sure any other guys who believe this) don't *want* to believe that women find 85% of men below average. Far from it. But, if it's true, the knowledge can guide our behavior and choices, So, it's worth knowing.

If my son wanted to be a tenured Political Science professor and thought that anyone could do it, that would mean he'd spend an extra 5-6 years in grad school. If he knew that there were as many political science graduate students as there are political science professor jobs (and those who have them aren't giving them up) and that tenure was largely not obtainable these days, he'd be in a better position to make a different choice or, at least, an informed choice where he was aware of the odds against him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even when someone offers better science, some times you guys want to cling to the “some science” and it’s so weird to me. You want to believe women rank 85% of men less than average attractiveness. You really really want to believe this. Why? It seems like you guys want to believe you are not attractive?
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter to me personally. I've been very happily married for 30 years, I'm 63 and, if my wife were to die, I wouldn't date. But, I do have two sons and a daughter and, for some unknown reason, I find the topic fascinating.
> 
> I (and I'm sure any other guys who believe this) don't *want* to believe that women find 85% of men below average. Far from it. But, if it's true, the knowledge can guide our behavior and choices, So, it's worth knowing.
> 
> If my son wanted to be a tenured Political Science professor and thought that anyone could do it, that would mean he'd spend an extra 5-6 years in grad school. If he knew that there were as many political science graduate students as there are political science professor jobs (and those who have them aren't giving them up) and that tenure was largely not obtainable these days, he'd be in a better position to make a different choice or, at least, an informed choice where he was aware of the odds against him.
Click to expand...

Ok I honestly don’t understand how the stat of the 85% would be put into any useful sense. Let’s say it is true. I did not follow your example about the poly-sci degree. Can you describe a real way a man may get useful information out of the 85% data?


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok I honestly don’t understand how the stat of the 85% would be put into any useful sense. Let’s say it is true. I did not follow your example about the poly-sci degree. Can you describe a real way a man may get useful information out of the 85% data?


If men knew that 85% of women found men to be below average, and he was pretty sure that he wasn't in that 85% he might think that there's a chance that his wife married him because she could get one of the 15% to marry her.

If, in addition to that, he knew that 75% of women had responsive desire and her spontaneous desire was likely to wear off after the NRE and that, with responsive desire, it was more likely that sex would take on an optional or lower priority need later in their relationship, he'd be better able to deal with the consequences.

Instead of wondering why she doesn't want sex much any more and hoping it will improve, he might be prepared for the possibility and take positive action instead of just hoping it will get better. He'd also be able to make sure that he did his best to maintain or improve whatever level of attraction he did have.

There have been quite a few things I learned before (or shortly thereafter) marrying my wife that I had not known previously that improved my relationship. They were things that didn't require me to be someone I wasn't or to be fake. They were simple things like making my needs known, establishing boundaries, not being passive about initiating sex (with the result that my wife felt more like an object of my desire) and taking the lead in making decisions when no one else was stepping up, etc.

The culture I grew up in said I should put my wife on a pedestal, always be nice to her, do whatever she wants, never press for sex because she might not be in the mood, defer all decision making to her, happy wife, happy life, etc.

It turned out that doing the latter only didn't make me happy; it didn't make my partner happy either. 

If the man-o-sphere has a worthwhile purpose, it's to disseminate some of this knowledge to men who had no idea.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

> The culture I grew up in said I should put my wife on a pedestal, always be nice to her, do whatever she wants, never press for sex because she might not be in the mood, defer all decision making to her, happy wife, happy life, etc.
> 
> It turned out that doing the latter only didn't make me happy; it didn't make my partner happy either.
> 
> If the man-o-sphere has a worthwhile purpose, it's to disseminate some of this knowledge to men who had no idea.


Happy wife/happy life is the biggest lie of those that push the feminine imperative. I believed the lie and lived by it and got bit. Most men repeat it without second thought because that is their conditioning. Defer to the all powerful feminine intuition. Women are right even when they are wrong.

The implication is if you become a supplicant of your wife/girlfriends demands, she will be happy. And if she=happy then that means for you=more sex. Then when A doesnt equal B then it only means you arent doing A enough, not that A is complete horse$hit in the first place. That is the conditioning.

But no one respects anyone they can walk all over, especially women. You are a slave to any thing you cant say no to. Learn to say no. Spotting $hit tests is a good start.

As for the pedastalation of women, it makes men look weak and without options. And there is nothing more unsexy in a man than one that only has one option. Because if he is without options then that means she can do better. And her hypergamous nature will be stoked. Oh, and the 85%, that is the direct result of hypergamy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I honestly don’t understand how the stat of the 85% would be put into any useful sense. Let’s say it is true. I did not follow your example about the poly-sci degree. Can you describe a real way a man may get useful information out of the 85% data?
> 
> 
> 
> If men knew that 85% of women found men to be below average, and he was pretty sure that he wasn't in that 85% he might think that there's a chance that his wife married him because she could get one of the 15% to marry her.
> 
> If, in addition to that, he knew that 75% of women had responsive desire and her spontaneous desire was likely to wear off after the NRE and that, with responsive desire, it was more likely that sex would take on an optional or lower priority need later in their relationship, he'd be better able to deal with the consequences.
> 
> Instead of wondering why she doesn't want sex much any more and hoping it will improve, he might be prepared for the possibility and take positive action instead of just hoping it will get better. He'd also be able to make sure that he did his best to maintain or improve whatever level of attraction he did have.
> 
> There have been quite a few things I learned before (or shortly thereafter) marrying my wife that I had not known previously that improved my relationship. They were things that didn't require me to be someone I wasn't or to be fake. They were simple things like making my needs known, establishing boundaries, not being passive about initiating sex (with the result that my wife felt more like an object of my desire) and taking the lead in making decisions when no one else was stepping up, etc.
> 
> The culture I grew up in said I should put my wife on a pedestal, always be nice to her, do whatever she wants, never press for sex because she might not be in the mood, defer all decision making to her, happy wife, happy life, etc.
> 
> It turned out that doing the latter only didn't make me happy; it didn't make my partner happy either.
> 
> If the man-o-sphere has a worthwhile purpose, it's to disseminate some of this knowledge to men who had no idea.
Click to expand...

Ok I see.

I am not saying it’s true, but for hypotheses let’s say that 85% of women don’t find their husbands attractive in their current state.

I am all for getting off the couch and getting off a gut, and adding lots of guns.

There are so many articles, books and blogs that will tell a man just this. YES your woman wants to see you at your fittest!!

Even if you are still hot for her and she isn’t at her fittest. If the fact is that you have to be at your fittest to attract her as much as possible regardless of how fit she is, I say you better do it if you are expecting to be desired.

MMSL did not invent this concept. 

I see why responsive desire is a complication to some sexual relationships, though I admit I don’t have direct experience with it because I have spontaneous desire (and responsive desire). But having read enough to try to understand people who are coming from that angle, I don’t remember any woman ever saying that her man doing push ups was a problem for her. It doesn’t take MMSL to look around for information on being more attractive to women if a man suddenly realizes he is in the (hypothetical) 85%.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

I think the 85% came from a study on Tinder. Since Tinder is set up as purely physical, they measured who women preferred or swiped right on. And the top 15% got all the swipes and the other 85% were practically invisible. Obviously, all these women werent in the top 15% of women, so most of them were reaching fairly far outside their SMV. This is probably one of the most obvious examples of hypergamy. 

My only advice is to men making the irrational decision to marry is to make sure you are always atleast 1 or 2 SMV (inclusive of physical, social status and wealth) above the woman you intend to marry, else you may find yourself at the losing end of hypergamy.


----------



## uhtred

BluesPower said:


> Two ends of the spectrum here. No offense to either, just examples...
> 
> @uhtred does not seem to value sex that much. Maybe he has not had good experiences but I don't know.
> 
> @Personal is more like me, I have never been in a relationship without sex, and I have never been out of a relationship and gone without sex.
> 
> snip
> 
> sorry for the slow reply, been in an internet-free zone.
> 
> I think sex is great - I just have too much pride to change my personality from what I want it to be, to one that gets me more sex. (eg divorcing my wife and dating / marrying someone who wants to have sex with me).


----------



## uhtred

If the changes were things that *you* wanted to change, and this just gave you a little extra incentive, thats great. I guess for me the question is whether you would change yourself in a way that was not what *you* wanted in order to be more sexually attractive to women? 





Buddy400 said:


> It doesn't require changing your personality.
> 
> In fact, it could free your personality if you had been refraining from certain actions and behaviors because you thought they were wrong or ineffective.
> 
> Trivial example: I have a dislike of phones; my wife doesn't (I will drive 30 minutes round trip to ask someone a question in person that I could easily have answered in 5 by making a phone call). It seemed like a perfectly reasonable division of duties that, when a phone call is required, my wife should do it (on anything else, I was the one most likely to take responsibility).
> 
> I always sensed a bit of push-back from her on this. She'd say things like "why can't you call them?" even though I'd explained my feelings about this clearly multiple times. I sort of assumed that she was either dense, didn't understand or wanted to cause me discomfort. None of those were good.
> 
> Somewhere along the line (probably on TAM), I read that many (most?) women like men who make decisions and take action. My pawning off on my wife of something that I could do myself (with minor difficultly) was a problem for her emotionally even though, logically, it made perfect sense.
> 
> Having learned this, I just sucked it up, told her that I was going to make the call and did so. Things of this nature have made a noticeable difference in the way she views me.
> 
> As in so many other areas, had I asked her if this was a problem, she would have said (and did say) "No".
> 
> If I had asked her if she wanted me to make the calls myself, she would have said (and did say) "No".
> 
> However, reality seems to indicate that her actual emotional answers were "Yes" and she was unaware of that.
> 
> So, I never would have learned this by talking to her, I had to find out about it elsewhere and give it a try.
> 
> 
> 
> When evaluating a patient, doctors take into account data on what the problems are most often associated with certain symptoms.
> 
> Sure, *THIS* patient's problem may not be listed as displaying those symptoms. But that doesn't mean that the data has no value.
> 
> Knowing what many (a majority?) of women find attractive is a lot better than not knowing.


----------



## uhtred

Slightly threadjacking the threadjacked thread jack. 

I'm endless amused by the popular image of "nerds and geeks". I a most definitely a nerd and my friends / coworkers are nerds. 

Mothers basement.... The ones I know tend to be fairly wealthy, some extremely wealthy. A surprising number are serious athletes. 

I think to a large extent nerds separate form the main population at the end of high school, and so the common public perception has them frozen at that age. They change. A lot. 

I'm sure there are some unsuccessful people who try to get into technical fields, fail and give up - and maybe live in their mother's basements. But many do not. Mostly they have formed their own sub-culture, and don't have a lot of interest in people outside of that culture. 

OTOH I do still play D&D. 




oldshirt said:


> Shifting gears a bit, I think part of the criticism of the redpill/PUA/MMSL world is that deep down there is a part of us that does not want the nerds to catch up.
> 
> As culture in general we value people with natural abilities and gifts and we are wary of people showing dogged determination to accomplish something that does not come naturally to them.
> 
> Faithful Wife may be the face of it on this particular thread, but I do not think she is alone by any means. I think there are a lot of people that want the nerds and geeks and runts and the social misfits to be self-triaged out of the gene pool and stay in the mother's basements playing Dungeons and Dragons and to stay out of the social scenes and pick up bars and leave the pretty people and naturally sociable people do the breeding.
> 
> snip
> 
> .


----------



## uhtred

Sure. On Tinder there isn't much to go by except appearance. Real life is very different. 



UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I think the 85% came from a study on Tinder. Since Tinder is set up as purely physical, they measured who women preferred or swiped right on. And the top 15% got all the swipes and the other 85% were practically invisible. Obviously, all these women werent in the top 15% of women, so most of them were reaching fairly far outside their SMV. This is probably one of the most obvious examples of hypergamy.
> 
> My only advice is to men making the irrational decision to marry is to make sure you are always atleast 1 or 2 SMV (inclusive of physical, social status and wealth) above the woman you intend to marry, else you may find yourself at the losing end of hypergamy.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I think this thread needs some levity, so there is something I must confess. I swear that what I am about to say is one hundred percent the truth. Some may be aware that @faithfulwife and I went on a date somewhat recently. As a guy who has read MMSL I thought that some of the elements of the book might be helpful on my date. So I scribbled down some notes and took some excerpts from certain portions of the book and stowed them in my pocket. I read them before she picked me up, and during dinner I took a brief bathroom break to go over my notes some more. I have to say...it was working like a charm. She was eating it up. Things were going really really well. After I paid the check we decided to go for a brief walk. Thats when it happened, I must not have placed my notes securely in my pocket. Its windy in the city she lives in. Next thing I knew after a gust of wind my notes flew everywhere. A few strangers were kind enough to pick them up. The problem was that one of them gave one of the papers to @faithfulwife to hand to me. What happened next was NOT good.

She read my notes and immediately knew where it was from, she said she was very disappointed in me, and I could tell she was angry. Our date was ruined. I didn't have notes to cover this scenario, so I basically panicked. I am ashamed to say I went full on beta. Not a little bit beta. We're talking Snuggle the bear beta here. I apologized over and over...and over again. I begged for another chance. It was all in vain. In the end she said we were better off as "friends". I got friend zoned :frown2:, it really bothers me because I think it was working until she found out. I wish I had it to do over again. With that said I haven't lost hope. She is continuing to date other people, but I think if I keep at it eventually she will see that I am worth a look. I know it sounds like I'm being a beta orbiter here but I don't see it that way at all. Mainly because I do think that at some point she will appreciate the fact that I have been here all along. I am already making progress! Just the other day she said she wanted to try something new with me, its called friends _*without* _ benefits. I'm still not exactly sure how its any different than just friends:scratchhead:? But hey....I have a title now so I guess that means something. I don't think she would game me. I will definitely keep everyone in the loop with updates. Again...this post is one hundred percent true, and not at all tongue in cheek. /End Jack


----------



## Blondilocks

ReformedHubby said:


> You have no idea...in their forum many choose photos of mass shooters as their avatar pic. They are a very bitter, and unable to see that being bitter about it makes their situation worse. Not all of it is dark though, one thread on there made me spit out my coffee. A guy posted a question asking what pu$$y tastes like. Well....because literally non of them have had sex, and they won't let anyone else but other incels post. The answers were hilarious, and also waaaaayyyyyy off LoL.


Oh, come on, don't leave us dangling - share some of their responses. I need a laugh.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

Faithful Wife said:


> Also did you go take a look at a random page of male online daters? I would like to hear any man’s thought on that if they do that. Because unless you have actually looked at a bunch of them yourself and made your own opinions about the average attractiveness of online male daters, then you aren’t really trying to understand the statistics. It is very obvious when you take a look yourself.


I'll bite.

When I was online dating in my late 40's, the men in my desired age bracket (45-54) were not too attractive. SO many of them looked_* so *_much older than their stated ages (and some likely WERE much older and lying about their age), and the majority were out of shape and just so haggard looking. And there were also a good amount of old biker types - big pot bellied guys with skullets (bald heads with grey pony tails in the back) and tattoos a'plenty. Blech. Since I don't do bald, my 'market' was much smaller since it's becoming pretty rare these days to find a man over 45 with a full head of hair that's his own. One guy honestly looked like he had one foot in the grave and I secretly referred to him as "Lurch" every time I'd see his picture in the random 'who's online' section.. Jesus - you would have thought I was shopping in the over 70 age group.

Then you had a few early 50's guys who _didn't_ look like train-wrecks who would write to me and I'd be interested, and we'd have a dialog going either by message or phone. Eventually, I'd find out they'd neglected to include in their profiles that they were recently divorced from their 30-something wives and now have 3 kids *all under the age of 5* and an angry ex-wife to deal with for the next 20 years. UGH. I'd rather chew broken glass and follow it with a Drano cocktail.

Some were desperately looking for a mommy to take care of them, some were way too anxious to get me to commit to them (and I wouldn't do it), two were alcoholics, two were sexual deviants, one was a complete lunatic, and one was an emotional train-wreck who loved me one day and despised me the next. I wasn't sure if he woke up each morning and simply spun a wheel to determine how he'd treat me for the day but *that* trip to crazy town got old real fast.

I often referred to the pool of men in my age group as "The Parade of the Damned."

Just my 2 cents from my experience.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Blondilocks said:


> Oh, come on, don't leave us dangling - share some of their responses. I need a laugh.


Wow....I was going to go back and find the thread and paste some of those posts after editing them of course. But...the site is down! It was by far the largest incel community online. There are others but where I found that post is gone. Apparently it was shutdown. Details are hazy but it appears law enforcement got involved because a lot of threats were being made. I say good. That place was awful!!!!


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

Faithful Wife said:


> First of all, most men don’t know how to take a decent selfie. Many don’t like doing it so they take one or two quick ones that they don’t even look at very closely and put them on their profile. Sometimes they are literally out of focus and you know it’s not because he wanted to obscure his looks, it’s just because he didn’t even look at it before he posted it.
> 
> Second, men don’t understand what is attractive to women when it comes to their hobbies. We like knowing about your hobbies, but we end up seeing literally dozens of slimy dead fish every time we look at profiles. Men want to see pictures of huge dead fish. So they think we will be impressed (I assume). They aren’t savvy at knowing things about what attracts women, in pictures especially.


And don't forget the shirtless pics, the notorious public bathroom mirror selfies, and the ever-popular picture with the wife or girlfriend where the wife's face and body have been greyed out or cut out in PhotoShop. :rofl:

Yikes.


----------



## Tiggy!

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> *I think the 85% came from a study on Tinder. Since Tinder is set up as purely physical, they measured who women preferred or swiped right on. And the top 15% got all the swipes and the other 85% were practically invisible. Obviously, all these women werent in the top 15% of women, so most of them were reaching fairly far outside their SMV. This is probably one of the most obvious examples of hypergamy.
> *.


Then aren't men who are reaching outside of their "SMV" also showing signs of hypergamy?
Tinder is not so bad because both have to swipe right to contact but other only dating sites so many times have I seen from friends messages from way older men trying to date them.


Seriously all this shows is women want to bang the hottest men, how is this hypergamy (which is defined as marrying of superior class)?


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

ReformedHubby said:


> Wow....I was going to go back and find the thread and paste some of those posts after editing them of course. But...the site is down! It was by far the largest incel community online. There are others but where I found that post is gone. Apparently it was shutdown. Details are hazy but it appears law enforcement got involved because a lot of threats were being made. I say good. That place was awful!!!!


Maybe the mother of the guy who runs that website made him move out of her basement and he can't run the website from his car, and that's why you can't find it. :grin2:.


----------



## ReformedHubby

She'sStillGotIt said:


> Maybe the mother of the guy who runs that website made him move out of her basement and he can't run the website from his car, and that's why you can't find it. :grin2:.


LoL, maybe...but in reality even though we have free speech, if your message is toxic, it can be hard or impossible to find someone to host your site AND in retrospect when I was there I bet a few of those "incels" were cops or feds.


----------



## Faithful Wife

She'sStillGotIt said:


> I'll bite.
> 
> When I was online dating in my late 40's, the men in my desired age bracket (45-54) were not too attractive. SO many of them looked_* so *_much older than their stated ages (and some likely WERE much older and lying about their age), and the majority were out of shape and just so haggard looking. And there were also a good amount of old biker types - big pot bellied guys with skullets (bald heads with grey pony tails in the back) and tattoos a'plenty. Blech. Since I don't do bald, my 'market' was much smaller since it's becoming pretty rare these days to find a man over 45 with a full head of hair that's his own. One guy honestly looked like he had one foot in the grave and I secretly referred to him as "Lurch" every time I'd see his picture in the random 'who's online' section.. Jesus - you would have thought I was shopping in the over 70 age group.
> 
> Then you had a few early 50's guys who _didn't_ look like train-wrecks who would write to me and I'd be interested, and we'd have a dialog going either by message or phone. Eventually, I'd find out they'd neglected to include in their profiles that they were recently divorced from their 30-something wives and now have 3 kids *all under the age of 5* and an angry ex-wife to deal with for the next 20 years. UGH. I'd rather chew broken glass and follow it with a Drano cocktail.
> 
> Some were desperately looking for a mommy to take care of them, some were way too anxious to get me to commit to them (and I wouldn't do it), two were alcoholics, two were sexual deviants, one was a complete lunatic, and one was an emotional train-wreck who loved me one day and despised me the next. I wasn't sure if he woke up each morning and simply spun a wheel to determine how he'd treat me for the day but *that* trip to crazy town got old real fast.
> 
> I often referred to the pool of men in my age group as "The Parade of the Damned."
> 
> Just my 2 cents from my experience.


Ha ha! That’s some crazy stuff. 

I don’t know how long ago that was but things do seem to have improved a bit in this age group of online daters. I think probably the more current apps have drawn in more people of all ages.

Also, I’ve found the solution to not dating old men is to date much younger men. :grin2:


----------



## Blondilocks

@ReformedHubby, it looks like you didn't know FW as well as you thought, eh? Perhaps, a little more homework next time.


----------



## CharlieParker

She'sStillGotIt said:


> it's becoming pretty rare these days to find a man over 45 with a full head of hair *that's his own.*


:rofl: 

* dries iPad *


----------



## ConanHub

Tiggy! said:


> Then aren't men who are reaching outside of their "SMV" also showing signs of hypergamy?
> Tinder is not so bad because both have to swipe right to contact but other only dating sites so many times have I seen from friends messages from way older men trying to date them.
> 
> 
> Seriously all this shows is women want to bang the hottest men, how is this hypergamy (which is defined as marrying of superior class)?


Duh.

I agree with this 100%. What I don't get is the doltish blindness it takes to ignore it!

People like to look at attractive people.

Pretty simple but there are many who are only focusing on women who look while ignoring the men who do.

I look all the time! I'm not looking to trade up. I found my mate and that is that but I will always look at people because it is fun and I love the diversity.

I don't believe for an instant that Mrs. C is looking to trade up either.

It isn't like she couldn't have. I honestly haven't been aware of any potential suitors who could match me physically but she has garnered serious attention from some very well to do gentleman who definitely had me beat in the financial arena. These weren't slobs but well groomed, good looking and sophisticated men who were smooth and knew how to treat a lady.

None of them ever stood a chance because apparently my Mrs. is an extremely rare female that didn't get on the hypergamy express.

She appreciates a hot bod or an attractive gentleman the same as any woman but she is extremely faithful and even territorial of her mate.

Is hypergamy supposed to be imbedded in all women?


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I see why responsive desire is a complication to some sexual relationships, though I admit I don’t have direct experience with it because I have spontaneous desire (and responsive desire). But having read enough to try to understand people who are coming from that angle, I don’t remember any woman ever saying that her man doing push ups was a problem for her. It doesn’t take MMSL to look around for information on being more attractive to women if a man suddenly realizes he is in the (hypothetical) 85%.


NMMNG was seems to have been written at a 12 year-old level, but (as far as I could get) seemed to make some points that need to be made without being too offensive to women.

I don't think I ever read much of MMSL(?) and a lot of it seemed silly (i.e. sperm wars etc).

I have poked around the man-o-sphere a bit and, although there's a lot of stuff that seems bad about women, I think there are some truths there that aren't anywhere else.

I can understand that women might take offense at reading how they don't know what they want, but I do think there's something there, a disagreement between the ego and the id (or something, not really up on my Freud) that can cause them problems.

There's a lot out there that talks about men in a very negative light, so this surely isn't unique to the man-o-sphere.

And the attitude is certainly blunt and rude, an attitude that works a lot better when talking to guys than women. 

I think those that most need to know about responsive desire are women. I believe too many believe they are "broken" because they don't have spontaneous desire or think that they should agree to starting a sexual encounter unless they are already aroused. I think it also causes them to underestimate the importance of sex to their partner. 

I'm not interested in whether or not men who are poor husbands or lovers get enough sex, I'm just interested in everyone being in a position to make fully informed decisions.


----------



## Buddy400

Tiggy! said:


> Then aren't men who are reaching outside of their "SMV" also showing signs of hypergamy?
> Tinder is not so bad because both have to swipe right to contact but other only dating sites so many times have I seen from friends messages from way older men trying to date them.
> 
> 
> Seriously all this shows is women want to bang the hottest men, how is this hypergamy (which is defined as marrying of superior class)?


I admit that I've never really gotten how the "desiring something better than you have" is a bad thing or unique to women.

Maybe it's a sideways reference to a lack of Loyalty? (Which is a virtue usually far more important to men than women)


----------



## Tiggy!

Buddy400 said:


> Maybe it's a sideways reference to a lack of Loyalty? (Which is a virtue usually far more important to men than women)


You really think loyalty is far less important to women?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Tiggy! said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then aren't men who are reaching outside of their "SMV" also showing signs of hypergamy?
> Tinder is not so bad because both have to swipe right to contact but other only dating sites so many times have I seen from friends messages from way older men trying to date them.
> 
> 
> Seriously all this shows is women want to bang the hottest men, how is this hypergamy (which is defined as marrying of superior class)?
> 
> 
> 
> I admit that I've never really gotten how the "desiring something better than you have" is a bad thing or unique to women.
> 
> Maybe it's a sideways reference to a lack of Loyalty? (Which is a virtue usually far more important to men than women)
Click to expand...

The redpill crowd claim the survey is evidence of hypergamy because they say it upholds the rule about how all women are only attracted to the top percentage of men. They claim the women settle for a lesser man but always keep trying for the hot man and will eventually leave or cheat on the lesser man as soon as a hotter man pays her any attention.

The same survey showed that most men rate more women attractive than women did, but it also showed that they only message the top 10% of women. 

While women, even though they ranked more men less attractive, would still regularly message or contact men who were not in their own top attraction group. Meanwhile men only message the hotties.


----------



## BluesPower

I look at OLD at one time, had some success but it just seemed like a waste of time to me. 

I did not want to travel a long way to date someone, and there were plenty of women right where I was at. I did not see the reason to deal with the OLD stuff. 

I would rather just me a woman the old fashioned way and ask her for dinner and drinks. 

Seems to work for me... at least it did when I was dating, now I just date my GF.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BluesPower said:


> I look at OLD at one time, had some success but it just seemed like a waste of time to me.
> 
> I did not want to travel a long way to date someone, and there were plenty of women right where I was at. I did not see the reason to deal with the OLD stuff.
> 
> I would rather just me a woman the old fashioned way and ask her for dinner and drinks.
> 
> Seems to work for me... at least it did when I was dating, now I just date my GF.


Why would you have to travel a long way to date someone online? 

With the newer apps you can literally see how close someone is to you in miles. There are dozens if not hundreds within a few miles of me. No reason to date outside of your comfortable travel distance.

Course it doesn’t help me since @ReformedHubby lives about 3,000 miles from me. (Insert crying face)


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tiggy! said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's a sideways reference to a lack of Loyalty? (Which is a virtue usually far more important to men than women)
> 
> 
> 
> You really think loyalty is far less important to women?
Click to expand...

It’s another red pill idea. Women are the evil ones and men are the emotional ones.


----------



## Tiggy!

Faithful Wife said:


> It’s another red pill idea. Women are the evil ones and men are the emotional ones.


I thought Buddy meant loyalty is a trait men find far more important in a partner than women do.


----------



## Lila

I haven't read it in a while but the biggest issue that I have with this book is Kay's claims that his theories are backed up by science. As a scientist I feel he's a snake oil salesmen. His theories are as scientific as humourism is to medical practice and care. In other words, it's bull****. 

There are plenty of self help books out there based on real psychological and scientific studies. The problem is that they're typically boring reads and/or fail to give the reader hope.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tiggy! said:


> I thought Buddy meant loyalty is a trait men find far more important in a partner than women do.


Yes. I’m not sure where Buddy got that idea, but the red pill crowd claim that since women are hypergamous, it proves they are never faithful and somehow also proves that men are more faithful.

It’s really just the sour grapes some of them have after realizing that the fairy tale they told themselves about how none of us want sex until we marry and then we magically want porn star sex with only our husbands was a lie. It shocked a whole generation or two of men to find out that women cheat as much as men do. It had to mean we are evil and cheating for hypergamy, of course. Not cheating for the many more moral reasons like men do. 

As always, we have to be the evil ones.


----------



## Tiggy!

Lila said:


> I haven't read it in a while but the biggest issue that I have with this book is Kay's claims that his theories are backed up by science. As a scientist I feel he's a snake oil salesmen. His theories are as scientific as humourism is to medical practice and care. In other words, it's bull****.
> 
> There are plenty of self help books out there based on real psychological and scientific studies. The problem is that they're typically boring reads and/or fail to give the reader hope.


That's my issue with the book, that and bastardized ethology


----------



## Lila

Faithful Wife said:


> The redpill crowd claim the survey is evidence of hypergamy because they say it upholds the rule about how all women are only attracted to the top percentage of men. They claim the women settle for a lesser man but always keep trying for the hot man and will eventually leave or cheat on the lesser man as soon as a hotter man pays her any attention.
> 
> The same survey showed that most men rate more women attractive than women did, but it also showed that they only message the top 10% of women.
> 
> While women, even though they ranked more men less attractive, would still regularly message or contact men who were not in their own top attraction group. Meanwhile men only message the hotties.


I find the whole hypergamy hypocrisy laughable. Red pill crowd claim that women are constantly searching for bigger and better yet don't they constantly push for younger and hotter women? I mean any woman over 25 (the wall) is worthless and no red blooded male should want her. 

On that note I find it equally laughable they claim men should be focused primarily with pre-wall women, however the absolute worse thing a man can be is beta bucks. How is it that they don't recognize that the vast majority of hotter younger women date older established men for their bucks, making them beta bucks. Their hamster is running on the wheel at Sprint speed to justify that one.


----------



## Tiggy!

Also the terminology "**** carousel" and "spinning plates", terms involving females is as vulgar as possible the other is so inexplicit you only knows what it means if you've heard the term.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The redpill crowd claim the survey is evidence of hypergamy because they say it upholds the rule about how all women are only attracted to the top percentage of men. They claim the women settle for a lesser man but always keep trying for the hot man and will eventually leave or cheat on the lesser man as soon as a hotter man pays her any attention.
> 
> The same survey showed that most men rate more women attractive than women did, but it also showed that they only message the top 10% of women.
> 
> While women, even though they ranked more men less attractive, would still regularly message or contact men who were not in their own top attraction group. Meanwhile men only message the hotties.
> 
> 
> 
> I find the whole hypergamy hypocrisy laughable. Red pill crowd claim that women are constantly searching for bigger and better yet don't they constantly push for younger and hotter women? I mean any woman over 25 (the wall) is worthless and no red blooded male should want her.
> 
> On that note I find it equally laughable they claim men should be focused primarily with pre-wall women, however the absolute worse thing a man can be is beta bucks. How is it that they don't recognize that the vast majority of hotter younger women date older established men for their bucks, making them beta bucks. Their hamster is running on the wheel at Sprint speed to justify that one.
Click to expand...

It’s all laughable to me too. 

They are just angry that we actually get to choose who we sleep with, and when we choose we choose hot guys.

They wish we just didn’t want sex at all until we meet the one perfect man (and his looks shouldn’t matter to us in any way).

They don’t like being evaluated on looks. They think that makes us hypergamous *****s.

Meanwhile, they can only wish they could go ride a ***** carousel. So that hate us that we can actually do that. And they call it a **** carousel for us even if we just screwed one guy other than whoever they think we should have screwed.

It’s all about sour grapes and wishing they could control our sexuality as they could in the past via financial control.

Sorry suckers! We have our own money and can carousel all the pool boys we want! Whether we do or not is not the point. We may choose not to bang through every hot young guy we meet. But the fact that we can and you can’t.....just deal with it.

(The previous paragraph is addressed to red pill/PUA crowd dudes).


----------



## Buddy400

Tiggy! said:


> You really think loyalty is far less important to women?


That's what I've read. That also goes along with my experiences. 

It seems unlikely that men and women would assign exactly the same value to all virtues. 

Certainly doesn't mean that every man values loyalty more than every woman, that no women value loyalty or that all men value it.

Also doesn't mean that loyalty is more virtuous than other core values.


----------



## ConanHub

Better guard the pool boys.😉


----------



## Faithful Wife

For anyone who doesn’t know yet, here’s a quick description of the **** carousel at some miserable blog that also has other idiotic red pill ideas:

Aw crap...it won’t link because the word **** is in the address. I’ll find another one....


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> Better guard the pool boys.😉


No, they have no chance because we will just seduce the guard, too.


----------



## Buddy400

Tiggy! said:


> I thought Buddy meant loyalty is a trait men find far more important in a partner than women do.


No, I meant that loyalty in general is more important to men than it is to women.

Think about loyalty in terms of comrades in arms, etc. where you need to make sure that you can rely on your buddies have your back. This would mostly relate to groups of people in dangerous situations and expanded to relations in general. 

I think that, historically, it was mostly men in these sorts of situations so it mattered more to them.

Just clarifying what I meant


----------



## CharlieParker

Faithful Wife said:


> For anyone who doesn’t know yet, here’s a quick description of the **** carousel at some miserable blog that also has other idiotic red pill ideas:
> 
> Aw crap...it won’t link because the word **** is in the address. I’ll find another one....


Use https://tinyurl.com/


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> I guess for me the question is whether you would change yourself in a way that was not what *you* wanted in order to be more sexually attractive to women?


I wouldn't.


----------



## Tiggy!

Buddy400 said:


> That's what I've read. That also goes along with my experiences.
> 
> It seems unlikely that men and women would assign exactly the same value to all virtues.
> 
> Certainly doesn't mean that every man values loyalty more than every woman, that no women value loyalty or that all men value it.
> 
> Also doesn't mean that *loyalty is more virtuous than other core values*.


Never heard or read this and don't really think there's much truth to it.

Loyalty is the most virtuous IMO.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> That's what I've read. That also goes along with my experiences.
> 
> It seems unlikely that men and women would assign exactly the same value to all virtues.
> 
> Certainly doesn't mean that every man values loyalty more than every woman, that no women value loyalty or that all men value it.
> 
> Also doesn't mean that loyalty is more virtuous than other core values.


Can you share where you’ve read this?


----------



## Tiggy!

Buddy400 said:


> No, I meant that loyalty in general is more important to men than it is to women.
> 
> Think about loyalty in terms of comrades in arms, etc. where you need to make sure that you can rely on your buddies have your back. This would mostly relate to groups of people in dangerous situations and expanded to relations in general.



Yes PEOPLE in dangerous situations, really don't see how this is a sex thing.



> think that, historically, it was mostly men in these sorts of situations so it mattered more to them.
> 
> Just clarifying what I meant


Again just because more men where in this position doesn't mean it's more important to men. I'm sure loyalty was just as important to the soviet women, female snipers/pilots/spies and women in the red cross.

In a dangerous situation who wouldn't massively value loyalty?


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> No, they have no chance because we will just seduce the guard, too.


Devilish strumpets! Poor pool boys to all lose their virtue!:laugh:


----------



## wilson

The fact that this discussion is going on for 16(!) pages should probably give us concern about recommending MMSLP to newbies who come here. Any benefits might be outweighed by the misinterpretations made by those newbies. 

If a husband in a multi-year marriage has to have it explained that "women like attractive, confident men", is that same husband going to be able to extract useful information from MMSLP? Or is he going to think, "I just need to talk to other women in front of her and slap her on the butt more often and that'll turn her on." For every man who gains useful information, how many will come to the wrong conclusions?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Buddy400 said:


> Tiggy! said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Buddy meant loyalty is a trait men find far more important in a partner than women do.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I meant that loyalty in general is more important to men than it is to women.
> 
> Think about loyalty in terms of comrades in arms, etc. where you need to make sure that you can rely on your buddies have your back. This would mostly relate to groups of people in dangerous situations and expanded to relations in general.
> 
> I think that, historically, it was mostly men in these sorts of situations so it mattered more to them.
> 
> Just clarifying what I meant
Click to expand...

It might be rooted in evolution...aka "War Brides".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/amp/


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Can you share where you’ve read this?


Alison Armstrong for one.

To me, it makes sense that, given different evolutionary goals, men and women might value some characteristics differently.

Where do I get the idea that personalities and behaviors are affected by DNA and, thus, by evolution?

Steven Pinker "The Blank Slate". 

I know that I'm not going to change minds here, I'm just arguing that the opposing view may not be totally without merit and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.


----------



## Buddy400

Tiggy! said:


> Yes PEOPLE in dangerous situations, really don't see how this is a sex thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Again just because more men where in this position doesn't mean it's more important to men. I'm sure loyalty was just as important to the soviet women, female snipers/pilots/spies and women in the red cross.
> 
> In a dangerous situation who wouldn't massively value loyalty?


But, over the course of history, it was men who were primarily involved in group activities that involved danger. So, they evolved to place more value on loyalty in general (demonstrations of loyalty in non life threatening conditions can be seen to predict loyalty when it matters more). 

Yes, women are now often in dangerous situations and men less so.

Why would the conditions that existed in the past affect the present when those conditions no longer apply? 

See my reply above to FW.


----------



## Buddy400

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> It might be rooted in evolution...aka "War Brides".
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/amp/


If one is not looking to be offended, that's a pretty interesting and reasonable post.

If one IS looking to be offended, that's going to do the trick.

It suggests that women had very good reasons to be the way they are (assuming they are that way in general) and credits women with more emotional resilience than men.

But, it's the Rational Male for God's sake!

That's like trying to convince an atheist by referring to the Bible (even if there is something of value there, no atheist is going to see it).


----------



## manwithnoname

ReformedHubby said:


> I think this thread needs some levity, so there is something I must confess. I swear that what I am about to say is one hundred percent the truth. Some may be aware that @faithfulwife and I went on a date somewhat recently. As a guy who has read MMSL I thought that some of the elements of the book might be helpful on my date. So I scribbled down some notes and took some excerpts from certain portions of the book and stowed them in my pocket. I read them before she picked me up, and during dinner I took a brief bathroom break to go over my notes some more. I have to say...it was working like a charm. She was eating it up. Things were going really really well. After I paid the check we decided to go for a brief walk. Thats when it happened, I must not have placed my notes securely in my pocket. Its windy in the city she lives in. Next thing I knew after a gust of wind my notes flew everywhere. A few strangers were kind enough to pick them up. The problem was that one of them gave one of the papers to @faithfulwife to hand to me. What happened next was NOT good.
> 
> She read my notes and immediately knew where it was from, she said she was very disappointed in me, and I could tell she was angry. Our date was ruined. I didn't have notes to cover this scenario, so I basically panicked. I am ashamed to say I went full on beta. Not a little bit beta. We're talking Snuggle the bear beta here. I apologized over and over...and over again. I begged for another chance. It was all in vain. In the end she said we were better off as "friends". I got friend zoned :frown2:, it really bothers me because I think it was working until she found out. I wish I had it to do over again. With that said I haven't lost hope. She is continuing to date other people, but I think if I keep at it eventually she will see that I am worth a look. I know it sounds like I'm being a beta orbiter here but I don't see it that way at all. Mainly because I do think that at some point she will appreciate the fact that I have been here all along. I am already making progress! Just the other day she said she wanted to try something new with me, its called friends _*without* _ benefits. I'm still not exactly sure how its any different than just friends:scratchhead:? But hey....I have a title now so I guess that means something. I don't think she would game me. I will definitely keep everyone in the loop with updates. Again...this post is one hundred percent true, and not at all tongue in cheek. /End Jack


I bet after that you thought: "Mental note: Take mental notes, instead of hard copies"


----------



## Tiggy!

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> It might be rooted in evolution...aka "War Brides".
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/amp/


It's a interesting read but again no actual facts or data, it's just a opinion piece.


----------



## ConanHub

Buddy400 said:


> If one is not looking to be offended, that's a pretty interesting and reasonable post.
> 
> If one IS looking to be offended, that's going to do the trick.
> 
> It suggests that women had very good reasons to be the way they are (assuming they are that way in general) and credits women with more emotional resilience than men.
> 
> But, it's the Rational Male for God's sake!
> 
> That's like trying to convince an atheist by referring to the Bible (even if there is something of value there, no atheist is going to see it).


He treated hypergamy as gospel.

It is very difficult to consider giving credence to anyone who uses unproven hypothesis as foundational to their conclusions.


----------



## Tiggy!

Buddy400 said:


> But, over the course of history, it was men who were primarily involved in group activities that involved danger. So, they evolved to place more value on loyalty in general (demonstrations of loyalty in non life threatening conditions can be seen to predict loyalty when it matters more).


Is there any actual scientific evidence of this?

This just sounds like pseudo science but I could be wrong.




> Yes, women are now often in dangerous situations and men less so.
> 
> Why would the conditions that existed in the past affect the present when those conditions no longer apply?
> 
> See my reply above to FW.


I've never disputed that conditions in the past can effect the present, that on it's own doesn't bring any validity on your opinion on loyalty.
I will have to read blank slate, does it talk about how men evolved to place more value on loyalty?


----------



## ConanHub

Men being more genetically prone to sexual loyalty is the biggest load of recycled dog 🐶 doo I have ever heard.


----------



## Tiggy!

ConanHub said:


> He treated hypergamy as gospel.
> 
> It is very difficult to consider giving credence to anyone who uses unproven hypothesis as foundational to their conclusions.


It also takes the position that solipsism is a solely female character trait. Solipsism is a philosophical position, the only place “female solipsism” exist is in the manosphere .


----------



## ReformedHubby

ConanHub said:


> Men being more genetically prone to sexual loyalty is the biggest load of recycled dog 🐶 doo I have ever heard.


LoL, I know right! Thats where they lost me. Its an absurd and slanted view. I honestly can't believe they think successful men are loyal. Ummmm.....successful men take FULL advantage, and get away with it for the most part.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

ConanHub said:


> Men being more genetically prone to sexual loyalty is the biggest load of recycled dog 🐶 doo I have ever heard.


Men cheat as much as women, but seems women are more likely to 'affair out' of the marriage. Either an exit affair or they (or atleast plan to) run off with their paramour. Men usually get a side piece, use her for sex occasionally but have no intention of running off with her.


----------



## ConanHub

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Men cheat as much as women, but seems women are more likely to 'affair out' of the marriage. Either an exit affair or they (or atleast plan to) run off with their paramour. Men usually get a side piece, use her for sex occasionally but have no intention of running off with her.


Based on my own anecdotal evidence that I have witnessed, there might be verity in your post.

I am just starting a book called "Untrue" by Wednesday Martin that might show a different story.

I think humans, male and female, have mostly the same failings and temptations.


----------



## Tiggy!

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Men cheat as much as women, but seems women are more likely to 'affair out' of the marriage. Either an exit affair or they (or atleast plan to) run off with their paramour. Men usually get a side piece, use her for sex occasionally but have no intention of running off with her.


That doesn't make them more loyal.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tiggy! said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men cheat as much as women, but seems women are more likely to 'affair out' of the marriage. Either an exit affair or they (or atleast plan to) run off with their paramour. Men usually get a side piece, use her for sex occasionally but have no intention of running off with her.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make them more loyal.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. See men are saintly in the fact that they only screw a side piece and do not blow up the marriage like ***** women do. Clearly they are simply doing what men do and trying to keep a wife and kids happy at the same time. He deserves his side piece. It helps him make his wife happiest because he is such a great husband. But those ***** women, how dare they **** someone and dump their husband? She should have....just kept ****ing the side piece? Right? Oh no wait, that is her **** holding the husband which also proves she’s a *****.

But as upside down said, when a man screws the side piece it is evidence of his good loyal husband genes. When a woman does the same she’s a cuckholding *****.

Ahh the lovely and completely sane and scientific manosphere.


----------



## manwithnoname

ReformedHubby said:


> I think this thread needs some levity, so there is something I must confess. I swear that what I am about to say is one hundred percent the truth. Some may be aware that @faithfulwife and I went on a date somewhat recently. As a guy who has read MMSL I thought that some of the elements of the book might be helpful on my date. So I scribbled down some notes and took some excerpts from certain portions of the book and stowed them in my pocket. I read them before she picked me up, and during dinner I took a brief bathroom break to go over my notes some more. I have to say...it was working like a charm. She was eating it up. Things were going really really well. After I paid the check we decided to go for a brief walk. Thats when it happened, I must not have placed my notes securely in my pocket. Its windy in the city she lives in. Next thing I knew after a gust of wind my notes flew everywhere. A few strangers were kind enough to pick them up. The problem was that one of them gave one of the papers to @faithfulwife to hand to me. What happened next was NOT good.
> 
> She read my notes and immediately knew where it was from, she said she was very disappointed in me, and I could tell she was angry. Our date was ruined. I didn't have notes to cover this scenario, so I basically panicked. I am ashamed to say I went full on beta. Not a little bit beta. We're talking Snuggle the bear beta here. I apologized over and over...and over again. I begged for another chance. It was all in vain. In the end she said we were better off as "friends". I got friend zoned :frown2:, it really bothers me because I think it was working until she found out. I wish I had it to do over again. With that said I haven't lost hope. She is continuing to date other people, but I think if I keep at it eventually she will see that I am worth a look. I know it sounds like I'm being a beta orbiter here but I don't see it that way at all. Mainly because I do think that at some point she will appreciate the fact that I have been here all along. I am already making progress! Just the other day she said she wanted to try something new with me, its called friends _*without* _ benefits. I'm still not exactly sure how its any different than just friends:scratchhead:? But hey....I have a title now so I guess that means something. I don't think she would game me. I will definitely keep everyone in the loop with updates. Again...this post is one hundred percent true, and not at all tongue in cheek. /End Jack


 @faithfulwife was angry because she thinks MMSL is a pile of crap and it only works on dumb people who are nut cases? And she realized it was working on her?


----------



## Blondilocks

manwithnoname said:


> @faithfulwife was angry because she thinks MMSL is a pile of crap and it only works on dumb people who are nut cases? And she realized it was working on her?


Man, you have balls! I see one mince-meat pie on the horizon.


----------



## manwithnoname

Blondilocks said:


> Man, you have balls! I see one mince-meat pie on the horizon.


Yeah, kinda scared now.

She's cool and funny, I enjoy her posts, but in the name of science I need clarification on my observation!


----------



## ConanHub

ConanHub said:


> Based on my own anecdotal evidence that I have witnessed, there might be verity in your post.
> 
> I am just starting a book called "Untrue" by Wednesday Martin that might show a different story.
> 
> I think humans, male and female, have mostly the same failings and temptations.


To clarify.... I don't believe for an instant that men are more loyal than women.

I have observed more exit affairs by women or affairs that, when discovered, led to the woman leaving her husband for her lover which was often partially the result of her own shame.

My anecdotal evidence is possibly just that because of societal pressures being different for men and women, women might well be just as happy as men to get a side piece while keeping their home intact.

I do not see radical differences in bad behavior from one gender to the next.

I do believe there is an increasing number of women who want their families intact and thriving while they have extramarital sex.

I am reading accounts right now about women who want to mess around but do not want to leave their husbands and they also want their husbands fidelity.

That is so very human on a basic level as to be no different than the same view held by many male cheaters.


----------



## Faithful Wife

manwithnoname said:


> Blondilocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you have balls! I see one mince-meat pie on the horizon.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, kinda scared now.
> 
> She's cool and funny, I enjoy her posts, but in the name of science I need clarification on my observation!
Click to expand...

 @ReformedHubby was joshing you. He was making fun of all of these concepts and then poking fun at me and himself, too.

Sorry not a more drama filled answer! Just a joke.


----------



## BluesPower

Faithful Wife said:


> Why would you have to travel a long way to date someone online?
> 
> With the newer apps you can literally see how close someone is to you in miles. There are dozens if not hundreds within a few miles of me. No reason to date outside of your comfortable travel distance.
> 
> Course it doesn’t help me since @ReformedHubby lives about 3,000 miles from me. (Insert crying face)


I just did not see the need. I live in a big city so if I thought someone was cool, it could be a hour and a half drive to have dinner. 

But really, I meet woman all the time, which is kind of an issue now that I am in a relationship, so I just did not see the need to spend time doing OLD. 

I guess it would have been worth it if I had trouble meeting people or even the right people so I could see the value in it for that type of situation. 

I did go through a lot of crazy before I met my GF though, I am just so glad we found each other. 

Her number one attribute, even before her looks, sexual abilities, and general wonderfulness, is that she is not crazy. She is not even a little crazy. 

I was not sure that even existed until I met her... life is good...


----------



## manwithnoname

Faithful Wife said:


> @ReformedHubby was joshing you. He was making fun of all of these concepts and then poking fun at me and himself, too.
> 
> Sorry not a more drama filled answer! Just a joke.


Thanks for the clarification. I thought I was on to some groundbreaking science! 

I fell for the "I swear that what I am about to say is one hundred percent the truth." 

Does that mean I'm too trusting?

Nah.


----------



## Faithful Wife

manwithnoname said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> @ReformedHubby was joshing you. He was making fun of all of these concepts and then poking fun at me and himself, too.
> 
> Sorry not a more drama filled answer! Just a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I thought I was on to some groundbreaking science!
> 
> I fell for the "I swear that what I am about to say is one hundred percent the truth."
> 
> Does that mean I'm too trusting?
> 
> Nah.
Click to expand...

 @ReformedHubby doesn’t need game books like MMSL. 

And he has a good sense of humor.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BluesPower said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you have to travel a long way to date someone online?
> 
> With the newer apps you can literally see how close someone is to you in miles. There are dozens if not hundreds within a few miles of me. No reason to date outside of your comfortable travel distance.
> 
> Course it doesn’t help me since @ReformedHubby lives about 3,000 miles from me. (Insert crying face)
> 
> 
> 
> I just did not see the need. I live in a big city so if I thought someone was cool, it could be a hour and a half drive to have dinner.
> 
> But really, I meet woman all the time, which is kind of an issue now that I am in a relationship, so I just did not see the need to spend time doing OLD.
> 
> I guess it would have been worth it if I had trouble meeting people or even the right people so I could see the value in it for that type of situation.
> 
> I did go through a lot of crazy before I met my GF though, I am just so glad we found each other.
> 
> Her number one attribute, even before her looks, sexual abilities, and general wonderfulness, is that she is not crazy. She is not even a little crazy.
> 
> I was not sure that even existed until I met her... life is good...
Click to expand...

I thought you meant that doing OLD would require you to travel to meet someone. I think what you’re saying now is that being in a big city could make someone who isn’t that far away seem much farther with traffic.

Glad you met someone the old fashioned way!


----------



## Buddy400

ConanHub said:


> He treated hypergamy as gospel.
> 
> It is very difficult to consider giving credence to anyone who uses unproven hypothesis as foundational to their conclusions.


My problem with "hypergamy" is that it doesn't seem to be anything unique to women or innately bad.

The only time it would matter is if your LTR partner is constantly looking to "trade up". 

I hear that most cheaters "affair down", so that doesn't fit. 

And it seems as if men cheat at least as often as women.

The only possibly relevant point might be that it means women are less likely to be satisfied with their partner than men are (for which there IS some evidence). Any woman who considers herself above average might resent having to "settle" for a below average partner (which is more likely if women really do consider 85% of men as being below average).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> My problem with "hypergamy" is that it doesn't seem to be anything unique to women or innately bad.
> 
> The only time it would matter is if your LTR partner is constantly looking to "trade up".
> 
> I hear that most cheaters "affair down", so that doesn't fit.
> 
> And it seems as if men cheat at least as often as women.
> 
> The only possibly relevant point might be that it means women are less likely to be satisfied with their partner than men are (for which there IS some evidence). Any woman who considers herself above average might resent having to "settle" for a below average partner (which is more likely if women really do consider 85% of men as being below average).


There is also evidence like I stated that men, while believing more women to be attractive, only target (message or contact) the top 10% of women. The message is that men will not go for a plain Jane. He only goes for the cheerleader who is out of his league. This same stat has been shown over and over on these sites.

So from this shouldn’t women conclude that no matter what a guy looks like and no matter what we look like, he will always toss us if Megan Fox winks at him?


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> There is also evidence like I stated that men, while believing more women to be attractive, only target (message or contact) the top 10% of women. The message is that men will not go for a plain Jane. He only goes for the cheerleader who is out of his league. This same stat has been shown over and over on these sites.
> 
> So from this shouldn’t women conclude that no matter what a guy looks like and no matter what we look like, he will always toss us if Megan Fox winks at him?


This also goes along with the myth that average looking women can get laid anytime they want but average men can't.

I believe they are having a scewed view of reality.

I see pretty desperate average women all the time who definitely could not get laid anytime unless they were targeting mutants, hunchbacks and men who are way out of age range.

I guarantee an average guy could get laid like tile if he had no standards.

These arguments seem totally devoid of awareness of reality.


----------



## Blondilocks

manwithnoname said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I thought I was on to some groundbreaking science!
> 
> I fell for the "I swear that what I am about to say is one hundred percent the truth."
> 
> Does that mean I'm too trusting?
> 
> Nah.


We were had. There will be a lump of coal in his stocking.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Quote from an article about the 2009 ok Cupid survey:

Some of the conclusions aren’t surprising. The “most attractive” women receive five times as many messages as the average female does, with 2/3 of all male messages going to the top 1/3 of women. And women tend to favor the most attractive men, though the ratio is less extreme.

But there are a few interesting phenomena. For one, men on the site tend to be more generous than women when it comes to rating attractiveness, leading to a nice bell curve with the bulk of ratings falling around ‘average’. But despite their fair ratings, they tend to ignore many of the women they find reasonably attractive and primarily target the most attractive females.


----------



## Rubix Cubed

Do you folks really buy all these generalizations? Is it that cookie cutter? 

@ReformedHubby

You did it all wrong with the notes. A true MMSLP guy would have been hip to current technology and used AR glasses with a heads-up display instead of paper notes. Geeez get with it.


----------



## wilson

One thing about all these kinds of guides is that they do work. They may not work 100% or work on a particular woman, but a guy who learns and executes them properly will eventually have success. 

It's the same like with those Nigerian email scams. They do work no matter how ridiculous they may seem to you. Just because they don't work on you doesn't mean that everyone will also reject them. For the scammer, the challenge is to find the person who will fall for the scam. The scammer isn't concerned with making *you* fall for the scam. The scammer knows that it's just a matter of trying the scheme out on enough people to find one who will fall for it.

A lot of the redpill and MMSLP guides are probably the same way. It provides a structure for interacting with women which will be successful with *some* women. If a guy is just concerned with getting laid and doesn't care too much about who it's with, these guides may provide much more success than he would otherwise achieve.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> This also goes along with the myth that average looking women can get laid anytime they want but average men can't.


Right. And also that nerds never catch the girl, while plain janes can catch the jock.

It just doesn’t happen like that.

While I was going through adolescence, ALL girls loved nerds. We ALL hung around nerd boys trying to get their attention all the time!

This is not weird at all because about 90% of adolescent boys present as nerds until they are about 20. 

Many of them were not aware enough to realize what the girls were doing. Or they were simply too hormonally immature to respond to the flirting. 

I literally spent every night of my high school life listening to some girl talk about a nerd she was in love with who didn’t know she existed, or had friend zoned her, or it else was me who was talking.

When we look at pics of what these boys looked like they look like....boys. Boys who were sweet and clueless and had no idea what kind of sexual power was about to unleash on them once they fully matured. They were too innocent to respond. 

When one of them took the plunge and responded to one of us dorky but flirty girls, and maybe became bf/gf for a short time, it usually went side ways very fast because she would overwhelm him with her enthusiasm.

So we girls learned that boys were not always into us, they ran from us a lot, they wanted us as friends (they made us orbiters). We couldn’t always figure out how to get to the kissing part.

When I hear the tales of how average men don’t generate interest from average women, I just don’t understand it. It’s happening everywhere all the time. My example above about high school is pretty similar to what I’ve heard women say later in their adult dating years. Namely that men aren’t just the horny, will pursue any willing woman, skirt chasing bimbos that the stereo type claims. And that they don’t generate interest from just every man.


----------



## Faithful Wife

wilson said:


> One thing about all these kinds of guides is that they do work. They may not work 100% or work on a particular woman, but a guy who learns and executes them properly will eventually have success.
> 
> It's the same like with those Nigerian email scams. They do work no matter how ridiculous they may seem to you. Just because they don't work on you doesn't mean that everyone will also reject them. For the scammer, the challenge is to find the person who will fall for the scam. The scammer isn't concerned with making *you* fall for the scam. The scammer knows that it's just a matter of trying the scheme out on enough people to find one who will fall for it.
> 
> A lot of the redpill and MMSLP guides are probably the same way. It provides a structure for interacting with women which will be successful with *some* women. If a guy is just concerned with getting laid and doesn't care too much about who it's with, these guides may provide much more success than he would otherwise achieve.


I do like the comparison between the integrity of PUA scammers and Nigerian email scammers. Same.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Quote from an article about the 2009 ok Cupid survey:
> 
> Some of the conclusions aren’t surprising. The “most attractive” women receive five times as many messages as the average female does, with 2/3 of all male messages going to the top 1/3 of women. And women tend to favor the most attractive men, though the ratio is less extreme.
> 
> But there are a few interesting phenomena. For one, men on the site tend to be more generous than women when it comes to rating attractiveness, leading to a nice bell curve with the bulk of ratings falling around ‘average’. But despite their fair ratings, they tend to ignore many of the women they find reasonably attractive and primarily *target the most attractive females.*


It is interesting stuff. When I first started dating again around three years ago, my now ex girlfriend showed me her Zoosk profile before she shut it down. It was insane. I had zero idea that attractive women get that that much attention on OLD. She was clocking around 5 to 6 hundred messages a week. She honestly would only open a handful. Guys complain about OLD but if you only send messages to women that look like Victoria Secret models you aren't going to have much success. It doesn't mean those women are shallow, looks is really all you have to go on in OLD. In retrospect had I not met her in a bar we never would have dated. I will admit I did think she was somewhat out of my league. Its ironic really. If fellas really want to swing for the fences, you're better off doing it in real life as opposed to OLD. In OLD you are just one of 100s of messages a week.


----------



## Bananapeel

ReformedHubby said:


> I think this thread needs some levity, so there is something I must confess. I swear that what I am about to say is one hundred percent the truth. Some may be aware that @faithfulwife and I went on a date somewhat recently. As a guy who has read MMSL I thought that some of the elements of the book might be helpful on my date. So I scribbled down some notes and took some excerpts from certain portions of the book and stowed them in my pocket. I read them before she picked me up, and during dinner I took a brief bathroom break to go over my notes some more. I have to say...it was working like a charm. She was eating it up. Things were going really really well. After I paid the check we decided to go for a brief walk. Thats when it happened, I must not have placed my notes securely in my pocket. Its windy in the city she lives in. Next thing I knew after a gust of wind my notes flew everywhere. A few strangers were kind enough to pick them up. The problem was that one of them gave one of the papers to @faithfulwife to hand to me. What happened next was NOT good.
> 
> She read my notes and immediately knew where it was from, she said she was very disappointed in me, and I could tell she was angry. Our date was ruined. I didn't have notes to cover this scenario, so I basically panicked. I am ashamed to say I went full on beta. Not a little bit beta. We're talking Snuggle the bear beta here. I apologized over and over...and over again. I begged for another chance. It was all in vain. In the end she said we were better off as "friends". I got friend zoned :frown2:, it really bothers me because I think it was working until she found out. I wish I had it to do over again. With that said I haven't lost hope. She is continuing to date other people, but I think if I keep at it eventually she will see that I am worth a look. I know it sounds like I'm being a beta orbiter here but I don't see it that way at all. Mainly because I do think that at some point she will appreciate the fact that I have been here all along. I am already making progress! Just the other day she said she wanted to try something new with me, its called friends _*without* _ benefits. I'm still not exactly sure how its any different than just friends:scratchhead:? But hey....I have a title now so I guess that means something. I don't think she would game me. I will definitely keep everyone in the loop with updates. Again...this post is one hundred percent true, and not at all tongue in cheek. /End Jack


That was the funniest thing I heard all day. Brilliantly done!


----------



## Tiggy!

Just looked up Chad and found out his last name is Thundercock And Tyrone last name is Titandick
:rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blondilocks said:


> We were had. There will be a lump of coal in his stocking.


I do want to post for the record, that @ReformedHubby and I are not dating. We did meet and had a couple of excellent dates! But we are good friends, and that’s how it will stay.

I was reminded too that TAM is not a dating site, so I don’t want to give anyone that impression.

We are joshing with each other here and that’s all it is. Just want to make sure everyone gets that and knows we aren’t dating each other or anything like that. It’s fun to joke with him here, and if you knew him in person all of his posts would be even funnier. He’s got excellent comedic timing. :grin2:


----------



## ConanHub

Tiggy! said:


> Just looked up Chad and found out his last name is Thundercock And Tyrone last name is Titandick
> :rofl:


Hahaha!:laugh:


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this 100%. What I don't get is the doltish blindness it takes to ignore it!
> 
> 
> 
> People like to look at attractive people.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty simple but there are many who are only focusing on women who look while ignoring the men who do.
> 
> 
> 
> I look all the time! I'm not looking to trade up. I found my mate and that is that but I will always look at people because it is fun and I love the diversity.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe for an instant that Mrs. C is looking to trade up either.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't like she couldn't have. I honestly haven't been aware of any potential suitors who could match me physically but she has garnered serious attention from some very well to do gentleman who definitely had me beat in the financial arena. These weren't slobs but well groomed, good looking and sophisticated men who were smooth and knew how to treat a lady.
> 
> 
> 
> None of them ever stood a chance because apparently my Mrs. is an extremely rare female that didn't get on the hypergamy express.
> 
> 
> 
> She appreciates a hot bod or an attractive gentleman the same as any woman but she is extremely faithful and even territorial of her mate.
> 
> 
> 
> Is hypergamy supposed to be imbedded in all women?




No. It’s embedded into all people who are trying to date. Once you found your mate you are happy with, you typically are supposed to stop ****ing around.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

ReformedHubby said:


> LoL, I know right! Thats where they lost me. Its an absurd and slanted view. I honestly can't believe they think successful men are loyal. Ummmm.....successful men take FULL advantage, and get away with it for the most part.



Define ‘successful’. You mean the guy who bangs (certain type of) chicks on the back of his looks, pays alimony for a bunch of kids who hate him and dies alone? There must be something else to it because that doesn’t sound either appealing nor successful to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> To clarify.... I don't believe for an instant that men are more loyal than women.



Man, this thread is as tiresome to read as war and peace.
You misunderstood. The notion was not that ‘men are more loyal’, but that men, on average, VALUE LOYALTY more than women, on average. 

Let’s see...who do you think is more likely to forgive the following: you forgiving your wife, for banging the pool boy for having a bigger Dshonson than you or your wife forgiving you, for banging the bar chick while drunk.

I don’t really think there’s anything that’s of much use that can be derived from this observation; there will be plenty of backstabbing men just as there will be plenty of extremely loyal women to make this observation of not much use; my wife is one of the most loyal people I ever met. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub

inmyprime said:


> Man, this thread is as tiresome to read as war and peace.
> You misunderstood. The notion was not that ‘men are more loyal’, but that men, on average, VALUE LOYALTY more than women, on average.
> 
> Let’s see...who do you think is more likely to forgive the following: you forgiving your wife, for banging the pool boy for having a bigger Dshonson than you or your wife forgiving you, for banging the bar chick while drunk.
> 
> I don’t really think there’s anything that’s of much use that can be derived from this observation; there will be plenty of backstabbing men just as there will be plenty of extremely loyal women to make this observation of not much use; my wife is one of the most loyal people I ever met.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lay off the caffeine Hammy.


----------



## ConanHub

inmyprime said:


> Man, this thread is as tiresome to read as war and peace.
> You misunderstood. The notion was not that ‘men are more loyal’, but that men, on average, VALUE LOYALTY more than women, on average.
> 
> Let’s see...who do you think is more likely to forgive the following: you forgiving your wife, for banging the pool boy for having a bigger Dshonson than you or your wife forgiving you, for banging the bar chick while drunk.
> 
> I don’t really think there’s anything that’s of much use that can be derived from this observation; there will be plenty of backstabbing men just as there will be plenty of extremely loyal women to make this observation of not much use; my wife is one of the most loyal people I ever met.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


War and Peace was quite awesome BTW.


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> War and Peace was quite awesome BTW.



Agreed. But way too long and a bit repetitive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> This also goes along with the myth that average looking women can get laid anytime they want but average men can't.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are having a scewed view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> I see pretty desperate average women all the time who definitely could not get laid anytime unless they were targeting mutants, hunchbacks and men over 60.
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee an average guy could get laid like tile if he had no standards.
> 
> 
> 
> These arguments seem totally devoid of awareness of reality.



The only conclusion one can reasonably derive from the observation that men only message ‘top tier women’ (whatever that means) while average women message average guys (again, whatever standards are used - this is a mystery to me), is that some of those men are idiots and some of those women are desperate. No more and no less.
In the real world, things are significantly more nuanced. When I ‘selected’ my mate, attraction was a big part but looks were by far not the only quality I was looking for. There is no chance I can envisage selecting a compatible partner from a photograph on an online dating site that requires a time span of a single life time only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SpinyNorman

shortbus said:


> No More Mr. Nice Guy and The Manipulated Man should also be required reading.


I like to read but if anyone requires me to read any of these, they are in for disappointment.


----------



## uhtred

I've always thought that the idea of "top tier" women and men was very strange. Different people rank different things. Yes, there is a lot of overlap, but also a lot of differences. In particular there is this idea of appearance being critical which seems strange to me. Wouldn't most people prefer someone who was great to talk to, and awesome in bed, but average looking, to someone who is the most attractive person in the world, but was average in bed and in conversation? Unless you are going to have them preserved and hung on your wall as art, is appearance all that critical? 






inmyprime said:


> The only conclusion one can reasonably derive from the observation that men only message ‘top tier women’ (whatever that means) while average women message average guys (again, whatever standards are used - this is a mystery to me), is that some of those men are idiots and some of those women are desperate. No more and no less.
> In the real world, things are significantly more nuanced. When I ‘selected’ my mate, attraction was a big part but looks were by far not the only quality I was looking for. There is no chance I can envisage selecting a compatible partner from a photograph on an online dating site that requires a time span of a single life time only.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ReformedHubby

inmyprime said:


> *Define ‘successful’. You mean the guy who bangs (certain type of) chicks on the back of his looks, pays alimony for a bunch of kids who hate him and dies alone?* There must be something else to it because that doesn’t sound either appealing nor successful to me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't mean to offend but honestly your post is just as hilarious to me as everything else in this thread. For me at least, discussion threads are entertaining. I certainly wouldn't find humor in a thread about someone's personal issues....but I digress. I find your response funny because what you describe is misery, not success. Do you really think guys that get laid a lot are miserable and die alone? I'm sure that the guys that read material on how to get laid more would really like to be miserable too if thats the case.


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> I've always thought that the idea of "top tier" women and men was very strange. Different people rank different things. Yes, there is a lot of overlap, but also a lot of differences. In particular there is this idea of appearance being critical which seems strange to me. Wouldn't most people prefer someone who was great to talk to, and awesome in bed, but average looking, to someone who is the most attractive person in the world, but was average in bed and in conversation? Unless you are going to have them preserved and hung on your wall as art, is appearance all that critical?


For me, yes attraction is absolutely critical. I don’t know why some people don’t feel that way.

But some of us are apparently different that way. Yes I have to be physically attracted to someone before I want to have sex with them. A whole lot of other factors have to be present too, things that trigger my sexual attraction above physical attraction. But the physical part simply has to be there first.


----------



## BluesPower

ReformedHubby said:


> I find your response funny because what you describe is misery, not success. Do you really think guys that get laid a lot are miserable and die alone? I'm sure that the guys that read material on how to get laid more would really like to be miserable too if thats the case.


First of all, a lot of us don't really understand where IMP is coming from all the time, but we try. 

You know, about guys getting laid a lot... You know it is fun, now doubt, esp when young. That is all great. 

I have had fun with it, but at some point, to me, you just want more. I think unless you are just a man child you get to a point that you want to find someone permanent. 

You want a real relationship, or at least I did. It all sounds great talking about it, and I will not lie - it was fun, but it does get exhausting over time. 

Several times in my life I have had several girls that I saw, all above board of course. And for a while that can be really fun, you have a steady variety, but the same thing always happens. Somebody catches feelings and wants more or wants to be exclusive, or whatever. 

So it sounds really cool to a lot of people, but the reality is that it is way more trouble, at some point, than it is worth. 

For me, at this point in my life, having someone that you love, and of course sexually compatible with, means way more to me that a bunch of strange...


----------



## Faithful Wife

BluesPower said:


> ReformedHubby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your response funny because what you describe is misery, not success. Do you really think guys that get laid a lot are miserable and die alone? I'm sure that the guys that read material on how to get laid more would really like to be miserable too if thats the case.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, a lot of us don't really understand where IMP is coming from all the time, but we try.
> 
> You know, about guys getting laid a lot... You know it is fun, now doubt, esp when young. That is all great.
> 
> I have had fun with it, but at some point, to me, you just want more. I think unless you are just a man child you get to a point that you want to find someone permanent.
> 
> You want a real relationship, or at least I did. It all sounds great talking about it, and I will not lie - it was fun, but it does get exhausting over time.
> 
> Several times in my life I have had several girls that I saw, all above board of course. And for a while that can be really fun, you have a steady variety, but the same thing always happens. Somebody catches feelings and wants more or wants to be exclusive, or whatever.
> 
> So it sounds really cool to a lot of people, but the reality is that it is way more trouble, at some point, than it is worth.
> 
> For me, at this point in my life, having someone that you love, and of course sexually compatible with, means way more to me that a bunch of strange...
Click to expand...

I think those of us who love sex would agree with you. We want a partner and love and all the other things too.

And then we still want lots of sex with the partner. So it doesn’t really change anything in that sense. Highly sexual people actually have more sex when in relationships than when single.

We had been talking about men who sleep all over town in the abstract. No one here was referring to doing that themselves.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> Of course it does. See men are saintly in the fact that they only screw a side piece and do not blow up the marriage like ***** women do. Clearly they are simply doing what men do and trying to keep a wife and kids happy at the same time. He deserves his side piece. It helps him make his wife happiest because he is such a great husband. But those ***** women, how dare they **** someone and dump their husband? She should have....just kept ****ing the side piece? Right? Oh no wait, that is her **** holding the husband which also proves she’s a *****.
> 
> But as upside down said, when a man screws the side piece it is evidence of his good loyal husband genes. When a woman does the same she’s a cuckholding *****.
> 
> Ahh the lovely and completely sane and scientific manosphere.


I didn't say any such thing. But I do think men have a naturally higher propensity to stray simply because they have a far greater amount of testosterone, which determines our sex drive. So why do women cheat just as much? Cycling, hypergamy, words of affirmation? I'm not sure, but I do find it interesting.


----------



## Bananapeel

Testosterone isn't the only thing that determines ones sex drive. It is just one component.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Quote from an article about the 2009 ok Cupid survey:
> 
> Some of the conclusions aren’t surprising. The “most attractive” women receive five times as many messages as the average female does, with 2/3 of all male messages going to the top 1/3 of women. And women tend to favor the most attractive men, though the ratio is less extreme.
> 
> But there are a few interesting phenomena. For one, men on the site tend to be more generous than women when it comes to rating attractiveness, leading to a nice bell curve with the bulk of ratings falling around ‘average’. But despite their fair ratings, they tend to ignore many of the women they find reasonably attractive and primarily target the most attractive females.


The explanation of this, that seems reasonable to me, is that guys WANT the most attractive women (although, if they knew better, they might not) BUT will accept and BE CONTENT with the best they can get. Sort of like throwing out as big a net as possible and keeping the biggest fish you catch. SO, they know many women are out of their league but give it a shot anyway.

Whereas women only search out the men they are attracted to.

IF this is what happens, then those women unable to get the attention or commitment from men they are attracted to might settle for men they are less attracted to.

The result would be that, when polling a group of men and women about their happiness with their marriage, men will (on average) rank their marriage pretty well while the women (generally) will rank their marriage much lower. In real life, this seems to be exactly what happens. It's the WAW syndrome where the guy is completely unaware that his wife was unhappy (though, to me, it seems that it's usually his problem for not noticing).


----------



## Buddy400

ConanHub said:


> This also goes along with the myth that average looking women can get laid anytime they want but average men can't.
> 
> I believe they are having a scewed view of reality.
> 
> I see pretty desperate average women all the time who definitely could not get laid anytime unless they were targeting mutants, hunchbacks and men who are way out of age range.
> 
> I guarantee an average guy could get laid like tile if he had no standards.
> 
> These arguments seem totally devoid of awareness of reality.


This is what almost every guy who got laid whenever he wants (Group A) says.

And it's the opposite of what every guy who rarely got laid when he wanted (Group B) says.

The two groups have completely different experiences and, therefore, completely different opinions.

Group B understands and acknowledges that Group A exists and that what they say is their actual experience.

Group A just thinks that Group B are just a bunch of losers who must be doing something wrong (or they'd be in Group A).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> The explanation of this, that seems reasonable to me, is that guys WANT the most attractive women (although, if they knew better, they might not) BUT will accept and BE CONTENT with the best they can get. Sort of like throwing out as big a net as possible and keeping the biggest fish you catch. SO, they know many women are out of their league but give it a shot anyway.
> 
> Whereas women only search out the men they are attracted to.


Except no, that's not what happens. They don't message the woman they would be "content" with at all. They only message the cheerleaders. It is not a "big net" it is a net only cast at one group of women, the ones who are a tiny percentage of the population. The others, they don't see at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> So why do women cheat just as much?


So you honestly don't know the answer to this question?


----------



## Buddy400

ConanHub said:


> War and Peace was quite awesome BTW.


I had to give it up because I couldn't keep the Russian names straight (and then the variations of those Russian names!)


----------



## Tiggy!

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I didn't say any such thing. But I do think men have a naturally higher propensity to stray simply because they have a far greater amount of testosterone, *which determines our sex drive.* So why do women cheat just as much? Cycling, hypergamy, words of affirmation? I'm not sure, but I do find it interesting.



That's going on the assumption that women need equal amount's of Testosterone as men to experience a similar sex drive.


----------



## Tiggy!

Buddy400 said:


> *The explanation of this, that seems reasonable to me, is that guys WANT the most attractive women (although, if they knew better, they might not) BUT will accept and BE CONTENT with the best they can get. Sort of like throwing out as big a net as possible and keeping the biggest fish you catch. SO, they know many women are out of their league but give it a shot anyway.*
> 
> Whereas women only search out the men they are attracted to.
> 
> IF this is what happens, then those women unable to get the attention or commitment from men they are attracted to might settle for men they are less attracted to.
> 
> The result would be that, when polling a group of men and women about their happiness with their marriage, men will (on average) rank their marriage pretty well while the women (generally) will rank their marriage much lower. In real life, this seems to be exactly what happens. It's the WAW syndrome where the guy is completely unaware that his wife was unhappy (though, to me, it seems that it's usually his problem for not noticing).


The ok cupid survey showed that the majority of men only contacted the top 10% women.


----------



## ConanHub

Buddy400 said:


> This is what almost every guy who got laid whenever he wants (Group A) says.
> 
> And it's the opposite of what every guy who rarely got laid when he wanted (Group B) says.
> 
> The two groups have completely different experiences and, therefore, completely different opinions.
> 
> Group B understands and acknowledges that Group A exists and that what they say is their actual experience.
> 
> Group A just thinks that Group B are just a bunch of losers who must be doing something wrong (or they'd be in Group A).


I know what I said is a fact. An average guy could get laid in every way he wanted if he had no height, weight, age, breast size or beauty standards.

There is a lot of unfed ***** out there that would devour the average guy.

According to what I have seen and what dating sights back up, is that most average guys aim too high and ignore a lot of available women right in front of them.

I did get to play with models, cheerleaders and everything else that came with two x chromosomes attached and I understand that most average guys don't go where I did. That doesn't eliminate the reality that they could get laid by a lot of hungry women if they wanted to.

There problem is seeing who I was playing with and ignoring anything else.

There is a plague of sex hungry women that have very normal looks or even what might be considered plain.

I am often astounded by how many overweight and fairly average to plain men overestimate their pull and overlook the cornucopia of kitty they have available.


----------



## ConanHub

Buddy400 said:


> I had to give it up because I couldn't keep the Russian names straight (and then the variations of those Russian names!)


I'm kind of in love with the Russian language and culture so it was very enjoyable for me.


----------



## BarbedFenceRider

"most average guys aim too high and ignore a lot of available women right in front of them."


I hardly call the 400lb. land whale an "available" woman that should be exploited. Talk about demasculization. Just how does one get energized into this? (Provided there are no fetish issues and stuff...).

My brother had an interesting though when I was mulling over the need to "start over" and such....He said that OLD and other sites are just mostly clearing houses for failed relationships and personality disorders....

He and I were commenting on the availability of women near us. He was saying, "well look, there IS a reason they are divorced and bitter". Do you really want that in your life right now?


----------



## uhtred

For me there is a sort of minimal level of physical attractiveness, but above that level, other things are more important to what women I find attractive, and if single would want to have sex with. 




Faithful Wife said:


> For me, yes attraction is absolutely critical. I don’t know why some people don’t feel that way.
> 
> But some of us are apparently different that way. Yes I have to be physically attracted to someone before I want to have sex with them. A whole lot of other factors have to be present too, things that trigger my sexual attraction above physical attraction. But the physical part simply has to be there first.


----------



## ConanHub

BarbedFenceRider said:


> "most average guys aim too high and ignore a lot of available women right in front of them."
> 
> 
> I hardly call the 400lb. land whale an "available" woman that should be exploited. Talk about demasculization. Just how does one get energized into this? (Provided there are no fetish issues and stuff...).
> 
> My brother had an interesting though when I was mulling over the need to "start over" and such....He said that OLD and other sites are just mostly clearing houses for failed relationships and personality disorders....
> 
> He and I were commenting on the availability of women near us. He was saying, "well look, there IS a reason they are divorced and bitter". Do you really want that in your life right now?


I was actually commenting on the myth that average women can get laid more than average men.

If either gender didn't have standards, they can get all the sex they want.

For some reason, a lot of guys don't seem to comprehend that having sex with anything isn't appealing to most women the same way it wouldn't be for them.

I also see a lot of ladies that are far healthier than the one you described that fit what I was talking about.

A lot of ladies aim a bit high as well but some score so maybe taking a shot is worth it?

Regardless, there isn't a great disparity between the average looking sexes in how much sex they can obtain.

Relationship material is hard to come by for both sexes as well.


----------



## 269370

ReformedHubby said:


> Do you really think guys that get laid a lot are miserable and die alone?



Of course not. At least not always. I was referring to the ‘loyalty’ argument. If you (the general you) get laid a lot and also find the word loyalty foreign (as has been argued on this thread), then the outcome, doesn’t seem very promising to me. In fact, it is quite predictable. Yet that is what is being touted here as ‘successful’. 

And: agreed. This thread is quite hilarious.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

uhtred said:


> For me there is a sort of minimal level of physical attractiveness, but above that level, other things are more important to what women I find attractive, and if single would want to have sex with.



Attraction maybe means different things to different people. You can be attracted to someone’s ass, or you could be attracted to someone’s intellect, personality and temperament. 
I need to be attracted to both the ass and the personality to be interested. (Or the ass’ temperament ). Raw attraction is definitely not to be underestimated. But beauty without substance could (potentially) turn me gay one day...

https://youtu.be/u6QTve8XSv8




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Tiggy! said:


> That's going on the assumption that women need equal amount's of Testosterone as men to experience a similar sex drive.


Of course women would need similar amounts of testosterone to experience the same sex drive. That is the hormone that regulates our sex drive.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> So you honestly don't know the answer to this question?


Well, you think women cheat because the men are bad in bed. Why do you think that? Maybe among your cluster of friends, but from what I hear most of it is some douche blowing flowers up their ass and the bimbo actually believing it.


----------



## 269370

It’s very difficult for me to believe the ‘if only men were better in bed, their problems would be solved’ argument. 
What I often observed is quite different: when a woman idolises her man, all he needs to do is wiggle his little finger, and the woman will think that it’s the best sex move she has ever experienced...
It’s REALLY difficult to be bad in bed if you are attractive enough to someone who REALLY wants to **** you badly enough. Trust me, I tried 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

inmyprime said:


> It’s very difficult for me to believe the ‘if only men were better in bed, their problems would be solved’ argument.
> What I often observed is quite different: when a woman idolises her man, all he needs to do is wiggle his little finger, and the woman will think that it’s the best sex move she has ever experienced...
> It’s REALLY difficult to be bad in bed if you are attractive enough to someone who REALLY wants to **** you badly enough. Trust me, I tried
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Right, its all psychological. Unless you got a micro **** then it might be that.


----------



## Tiggy!

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Of course women would need similar amounts of testosterone to experience the same sex drive. That is the hormone that regulates our sex drive.


As well as many other functions, also it's one if the hormones that regulates sex drives, Estrogen and Progesterone is also plays a big part (especially in women).
Testosterone is important in females but we aren't men, it plays a ****** factor in males than it does females (plus high levels of testosterone in females is associated with infertility).

You say of course women need similar amounts of testosterone, where are you getting this information from?


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, you think women cheat because the men are bad in bed. Why do you think that? Maybe among your cluster of friends, but from what I hear most of it is some douche blowing flowers up their ass and the bimbo actually believing it.


No, I said if your woman is a sexual person and she isn't sleeping with you, it is because you suck in bed. 

Women cheat for the same reason men do. To bang some strange.

That's all there is to it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Of course women would need similar amounts of testosterone to experience the same sex drive. That is the hormone that regulates our sex drive.


Have you ever actually read any information about sex hormones and the role they play in desire? I guess the answer is no, based on the quote above.

If you are going to get your anatomy and biology lessons from a bunch of dudes in basements, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## 269370

Apparently women cheat on their husbands out of love and a desire to save their marriages, according to this very scientific study:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-secret-lives-of-cheating-wives-a8397686.html

Who would have thunk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> For me there is a sort of minimal level of physical attractiveness, but above that level, other things are more important to what women I find attractive, and if single would want to have sex with.


Yes I have my own minimal level of physical attraction I need to *feel* for the person. It is entirely based on how my body reacts to them. If I don't feel that minimal level, I just won't get to know them better anyway. (This is assuming we are talking only about a person you are considering dating).


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you think women cheat because the men are bad in bed. Why do you think that? Maybe among your cluster of friends, but from what I hear most of it is some douche blowing flowers up their ass and the bimbo actually believing it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said if your woman is a sexual person and she isn't sleeping with you, it is because you suck in bed.
> 
> Women cheat for the same reason men do. To bang some strange.
> 
> That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, but that is kind of the point of the book you say is crap. It works, now it may not work on your wife if you've pigeonholed yourself as her girlfriend after XX years. But it will work on new women.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course women would need similar amounts of testosterone to experience the same sex drive. That is the hormone that regulates our sex drive.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever actually read any information about sex hormones and the role they play in desire? I guess the answer is no, based on the quote above.
> 
> If you are going to get your anatomy and biology lessons from a bunch of dudes in basements, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...

Yes and testosterone is by far the leading one. If women take it, their sex drive increases. If you finish inside a woman, her sex drive increases. Sure, there are other hormones, but those arent the ones that make you want to bang someones brains out.


----------



## Tiggy!

Faithful Wife said:


> Have you ever actually read any information about sex hormones and the role they play in desire? I guess the answer is no, based on the quote above.
> 
> If you are going to get your anatomy and biology lessons from a bunch of dudes in basements, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.




:iagree:
Our hormones aren't a diluted version of men's.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Yes and testosterone is by far the leading one. If women take it, their sex drive increases. If you finish inside a woman, her sex drive increases. Sure, there are other hormones, but those arent the ones that make you want to bang someones brains out.


I'm officially done posting directly to you based on the above. There's no point arguing what is already studied and scientific, with someone who just wants to turn it all back into voodoo.


----------



## Tiggy!

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Yes and testosterone is by far the leading one. If women take it, their sex drive increases. If you finish inside a woman, her sex drive increases. Sure, there are other hormones, but those arent the ones that make you want to bang someones brains out.


Women aren't given the same amount of testosterone as men in hormone therapy. Women are also given Progesterone and Estrogen to increase sex drive.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and testosterone is by far the leading one. If women take it, their sex drive increases. If you finish inside a woman, her sex drive increases. Sure, there are other hormones, but those arent the ones that make you want to bang someones brains out.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm officially done posting directly to you based on the above. There's no point arguing what is already studied and scientific, with someone who just wants to turn it all back into voodoo.
Click to expand...

Lol, it is science. You can google, right? Look it up.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Tiggy! said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and testosterone is by far the leading one. If women take it, their sex drive increases. If you finish inside a woman, her sex drive increases. Sure, there are other hormones, but those arent the ones that make you want to bang someones brains out.
> 
> 
> 
> Women aren't given the same amount of testosterone as men in hormone therapy. Women are also given Progesterone and Estrogen to increase sex drive.
Click to expand...

Only because its probably not safe for women to take recreationally. It has been proven to increase libido in women. And men have way more.


----------



## Tiggy!

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Lol, it is science. You can google, right? Look it up.


The problem is FW already has looked it up and can see what you're saying is bs.


----------



## Tiggy!

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Only because its probably not safe for women to take recreationally. It has been proven to increase libido in women. And men have way more.


Of coarse men have way more its a Androgen, men need more.
Estradiol has been proven to increase libido in women and women have more than men, by your logic that means men's sex drive is automatically lower than women's.


----------



## Bananapeel

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Lol, it is science. You can google, right? Look it up.


That's your problem. Go to *Pubmed * not google. Google does have scientific papers show up on it but it also is just a general search engine that isn't restricted to science. Go to peer reviewed scientific papers if you want to accurately quote something as science.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bananapeel said:


> That's your problem. Go to *Pubmed * not google. Google does have scientific papers show up on it but it also is just a general search engine that isn't restricted to science. Go to peer reviewed scientific papers if you want to accurately quote something as science.


Perhaps a man can get him to realize he is under-educated.

Thanks for trying, at least.


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> For me there is a sort of minimal level of physical attractiveness, but above that level, other things are more important to what women I find attractive, and if single would want to have sex with.


That's my Go To advice: find a member of the opposite sex you find attractive (hopefully something that not everyone finds attractive) but not too attractive.

My wife has a large nose and a great rack.

I don't care about big noses (kinda like them, actually), but I LOVE great racks. And, she's smart. And, she's low maintenance. And she's funny........


----------



## Buddy400

Bananapeel said:


> That's your problem. Go to *Pubmed * not google. Google does have scientific papers show up on it but it also is just a general search engine that isn't restricted to science. Go to peer reviewed scientific papers if you want to accurately quote something as science.


I'm not sure what's being said here.

Is it being said that testosterone isn't the primary driver of male libido? 

Is it being said that giving testosterone to women doesn't affect their libido?

Do men and women, despite having completely different sets of hormones and completely different evolutionary goals, somehow have the exact same (as genders, not individuals) libido?

I don't know how many hundreds of books, blogs, etc talk about how men and women's sex drives have very different components, but it's a lot.

It's all misogynistic BS?


----------



## Tiggy!

Buddy400 said:


> I'm not sure what's being said here.
> 
> Is it being said that testosterone isn't the primary driver of male libido?
> 
> Is it being said that giving testosterone to women doesn't affect their libido?
> 
> Do men and women, despite having completely different sets of hormones and *completely different evolutionary goals*, somehow have the exact same (as genders, not individuals) libido?
> 
> I don't know how many hundreds of books, blogs, etc talk about how men and women's sex drives have very different components, but it's a lot.
> 
> It's all misogynistic BS?


Nope it's being said Testosterone in female and male's hormones aren't comparable because men and women hormones work very differently.

It's not that what's being said in this thread is misogynist, it's that it's illogical. Opinions are being spouted as evolution and science and no actual evidence to back up these opinions has been shown.

Completely different evolution goals, what goals?

Why would males and female's have completely different evolutionary goals, we're the same species.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Tiggy! said:


> Nope it's being said Testosterone in female and male's hormones aren't comparable because men and women hormones work very differently.
> 
> It's not that what's being said in this thread is misogynist, it's that it's illogical. Opinions are being spouted as evolution and science and no actual evidence to back up these opinions has been shown.
> 
> Completely different evolution goals, what goals?
> 
> Why would males and female's have completely different evolutionary goals, we're the same species.


I'd argue both sexes have different pathes to the same goal. 

Men are hardwired to spread their DNA in as many directions as possible to ensure maximum chance of his offsprings survival. Quantity game.

Womens evolutionary goal is to gain access to the best DNA to ensure survival of their offspring. Quality game.

They both work in tandem of helping to ensure the survival of the human race. Not so much anymore, but certainly for most of mans history, survival of the fittest was a real thing. These differing mating strategies are still obvious today on both sexes.


----------



## Faithful Wife

@Tiggy! But to them, we are not the same species. Men and women are at war over sex, according to them. 

Meanwhile, most normal men and women are paired up and having sex.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I am just going to leave this right here. With all the discussion surrounding attraction and the "science" behind it. As well as how women have an easier path to obtaining sex, I am actually curious what you guys think of the term *Alpha Widow*. I totally swear I am not trying to stir the pot >. The definition is as follows:

*A woman, usually with average sexual market value (SMV), who sleeps with a high sexual market value male , a/k/a the alpha male, who does not wish to have a long-term relationship with the woman. The woman views the alpha male as superior to most, if not all, of the other men pursuing her, and so the woman continues to lust after the alpha male she cannot have, sacrificing future long-term relationships with lower-SMV men, making her a "widow", in a sense, to the original alpha male.*

Its 8 AM where I live...but for some reason I am in a mood for popcorn.


----------



## oldshirt

ReformedHubby said:


> I am just going to leave this right here. With all the discussion surrounding attraction and the "science" behind it. As well as how women have an easier path to obtaining sex, I am actually curious what you guys think of the term *Alpha Widow*. I totally swear I am not trying to stir the pot >. The definition is as follows:
> 
> *A woman, usually with average sexual market value (SMV), who sleeps with a high sexual market value male , a/k/a the alpha male, who does not wish to have a long-term relationship with the woman. The woman views the alpha male as superior to most, if not all, of the other men pursuing her, and so the woman continues to lust after the alpha male she cannot have, sacrificing future long-term relationships with lower-SMV men, making her a "widow", in a sense, to the original alpha male.*
> 
> Its 8 AM where I live...but for some reason I am in a mood for popcorn.


While I generally try to avoid all this "alpha" talk and I don't really think that it has anything to do with "alpha males" per se, I do think there is something to the general concept. 

I do think that both men and women both kind of struggle with what is being discussed there. 

However instead of 'alpha widow' I prefere to use the term "Sexual High Water Mark."

I think we all have a high water mark and if our high water mark is with our partner, things are ok. 

If our high water mark was with someone else in our past and present suitors aren't measuring up, then it does cause some discontent and disturbance. 

And yes, I have known both men and women who have pined for years and have for all practical purposes taken themselves off the market to wallow in their despair when they struggle to find someone that measured up to their high water mark. 

This topic is probably worthy of it's own thread.


----------



## BluesPower

ReformedHubby said:


> I am just going to leave this right here. With all the discussion surrounding attraction and the "science" behind it. As well as how women have an easier path to obtaining sex, I am actually curious what you guys think of the term *Alpha Widow*. I totally swear I am not trying to stir the pot >. The definition is as follows:
> 
> *A woman, usually with average sexual market value (SMV), who sleeps with a high sexual market value male , a/k/a the alpha male, who does not wish to have a long-term relationship with the woman. The woman views the alpha male as superior to most, if not all, of the other men pursuing her, and so the woman continues to lust after the alpha male she cannot have, sacrificing future long-term relationships with lower-SMV men, making her a "widow", in a sense, to the original alpha male.*
> 
> Its 8 AM where I live...but for some reason I am in a mood for popcorn.


I am not evolved enough to not use alpha beta, so I will use it. 

Women, most women, can always get laid if they want to. Fact. For men, it must be different, not that I understand it or have ever had a problem with it. 

Now, your bolded part, while a little enigmatic, is a thing. I have women, to this day, that I broke up with that I could call, tell them to meet me at a hotel, and bang them for lunch. Some are married, some are single, and some have boyfriends. I could literally do this, I think with about 7 different women from my past. 

And nobody start with me, I am not going to do it, I could do it if I was the POS that I used to be, which I am not. 

I am not the most alpha guy out there, I am 54, decent looking, better than average in bed. 

Why are some women like this, I have no idea. Some of these women that I am talking about, literally don't seem to be able to find someone "Like me" for some reason. I think that it is all in their heads. 

I will say this, some of the women that are still "in love" or "in lust" with me, I treated very poorly. I was a bad person then, and frankly I carry a huge amount of guilt about a lot of this. I have actively tried to get them to move on, some have, but they still would come running if I called. 

I will never understand it... I don't know if they do...


----------



## Faithful Wife

BluesPower said:


> I am not evolved enough to not use alpha beta, so I will use is.
> 
> Women, most women, can always get laid if they want to. Fact. For men, it must be different, not that I understand it or have ever had a problem with it.
> 
> Now, your bolded part, while a little enigmatic, is a thing. I have women, to this day, that I broke up with that I could call, tell them to meet me at a hotel, and bang them for lunch. Some are married, some are single, and some have boyfriends. I could literally do this, I think with about 7 different women from my past.
> 
> And nobody start with me, I am not going to do it, I could do it if I was the POS that I used to be, which I am not.
> 
> I am not the most alpha guy out there, I am 54, decent looking, better than average in bed.
> 
> Why are some women like this, I have no idea. Some of these women that I am talking about, literally don't seem to be able to find someone "Like me" for some reason. I think that it is all in their heads.
> 
> I will say this, some of the women that are still "in love" or "in lust" with me, I treated very poorly. I was a bad person then, and frankly I carry a huge amount of guilt about a lot of this. I have actively tried to get them to move on, some have, but they still would come running if I called.
> 
> I will never understand it... I don't know if they do...


It’s not really a mystery though. You had good sex with them, they want more of it.

Every guy I’ve ever had sex with pretty much has continued to want to have sex with me after we have broken up. It is just a normal feeling. I don’t believe it was that I’m so special, it’s because the sex was good and they would do it again if I would.

Not complicated all.


----------



## ConanHub

There is far too much weight still given to Darwin's bull **** thought process.

Reading his crap is less enjoyable than pulling teeth.

He was one of the most myopic, self absorbed egomaniacs I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

He measured all his observations through the lense of his absolute belief that he was superior to everything else in creation. 

He truly believed he was the apex of the world and everyone rested in his shadow.

He impugned women's intelligence so often as to lose track but he once considered women not very bright because they didn't find him or men like him, attractive sexually.

He considered natives of different countries he visited to be far lower creatures than him because they had darker skin and couldn't speak English as well as him, not observing they spoke more languages than him.

This is the same brain trust that determined that women were not sexual creatures but men were.

Believe this pathetic fart at your own peril.

I have found Darwin to be provably wrong about most of his observations throughout my life.

Women are exceptionally sexual creatures who are aggressive when circumstances allow and great hunters of men and in a real sense as well.

The women of my family all have outrageous sex drives and almost all are established big game hunters as well.

We descend from Celts who knew a hell of a lot more than Darwin ever could about female sexuality.


----------



## oldshirt

Faithful Wife said:


> It’s not really a mystery though. You had good sex with them, they want more of it.
> 
> Every guy I’ve ever had sex with pretty much has continued to want to have sex with me after we have broken up. It is just a normal feeling. I don’t believe it was that I’m so special, it’s because the sex was good and they would do it again if I would.
> 
> Not complicated all.


yeah I get that and that makes sense that if something is nice and enjoyable that you want to do it again. That is straight forward and uncomplicated. Heck, if given the chance, I would probably hook up with all but a few of the women I have been with in the past. Most were great people and good lovers etc and it was an enjoyable experience worth enjoying again if given the chance.

But the alpha widow/widower thing is a different general concept. It is not just about wanting to get with someone again. 

It is about where no one else measures up and so that it either poisons the current relationship or makes someone completely take themselves off of the market because no one else measures up in their eyes.

It is where there is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction, frustration, yearning and even turning into resentment, bitterness and hostility in a current relationship because the current partner is not performing to the level of past high water mark.


----------



## oldshirt

Faithful Wife said:


> .
> 
> Every guy I’ve ever had sex with pretty much has continued to want to have sex with me after we have broken up. It is just a normal feeling. I don’t believe it was that I’m so special, it’s because the sex was good and they would do it again if I would.
> 
> .


Let me differentiate it a little more. 

Assuming the sex was not actually bad and that you did not abuse or mistreat anyone, pretty much every guy probably would like to bang one out with you again if you would have them simply because that's what guys do LOL Men never truly break up with women sexually and would probably almost always be "on call" if that woman were to booty call them or call them up out of reserves or something. 

However if one of these men was having difficulty in having a happy and healthy sex life with a current partner(s) because those other women weren't measuring up to the sexual chemistry and dynamics that he had with you and he was becoming frustrated and resentful towards her because she wasn't performing in the way he was accustomed with you - then he could be considered an alpha widower. 


The concept of alpha widow/widower is not so much wanting to hook up with someone again. 

It is where someone carries forward a degree of maladaption and dysfunction into their following sexual encounters and relationships because the sex is not measuring up to what they had had previously. 

I believe it is real and I believe it effects both men and women. 

As women are more critical of sexual relationships, they may perhaps be a bit more likely to not enter into sexual relationship if they don't think the next guy will measure up and will be more likely to become disillusioned and dissolve the relationship if he doesn't measure up than what a man would, but I think the general concept effects both genders nonetheless.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oldshirt said:


> yeah I get that and that makes sense that if something is nice and enjoyable that you want to do it again. That is straight forward and uncomplicated. Heck, if given the chance, I would probably hook up with all but a few of the women I have been with in the past. Most were great people and good lovers etc and it was an enjoyable experience worth enjoying again if given the chance.
> 
> But the alpha widow/widower thing is a different general concept. It is not just about wanting to get with someone again.
> 
> It is about where no one else measures up and so that it either poisons the current relationship or makes someone completely take themselves off of the market because no one else measures up in their eyes.
> 
> It is where there is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction, frustration, yearning and even turning into resentment, bitterness and hostility in a current relationship because the current partner is not performing to the level of past high water mark.


Yes I know what the concept is about for the red pill crowd.

They took a normal occurrence that happens to both genders, namely carrying a torch for someone, and they decided that when men do it, it is normal, but when women do it, it is because they are hung up on a Chad or Tyrone and it is somehow evil when she does it.

Again, it just shows the constant insecurity the red pill crowd have that every woman wants a more alpha man than they are. 

The entire red pill crowd is hung up on one or more Stacy’s and that’s exactly their problem and reason they can’t form healthy relationships.

The projection in that group is very easy to see.

The rest of the world just sees people doing people things. We see a man carrying a torch for some woman and we see a woman carrying a torch for some man and we don’t try to demonize one group and not the other. They are doing the same thing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oldshirt said:


> I believe it is real and I believe it effects both men and women.


I also believe it is real, it’s called carrying a torch. And the fact that it applies to both men and women is why it is not actually a red pill topic.


----------



## BluesPower

Faithful Wife said:


> It’s not really a mystery though. You had good sex with them, they want more of it.
> 
> Every guy I’ve ever had sex with pretty much has continued to want to have sex with me after we have broken up. It is just a normal feeling. I don’t believe it was that I’m so special, it’s because the sex was good and they would do it again if I would.
> 
> Not complicated all.


I really hope you are correct. I do think you are right about some of them, they just want to get laid properly. Because honestly, I am not all that. Better than average, yeah, best lover, most wonderful guy in the world, I don't think so...

However, I do have several that kind of fit into @oldshirt 's category (below). Those, still try to get back with me. And, by all rational thought, they really, really should not want to be with me any more. 

I mean, we may have had a good thing for a while, maybe a great thing, but you know, time to move on. 

It just makes me feel bad... even though it is not really my fault that they will not move on...




oldshirt said:


> yeah I get that and that makes sense that if something is nice and enjoyable that you want to do it again. That is straight forward and uncomplicated. Heck, if given the chance, I would probably hook up with all but a few of the women I have been with in the past. Most were great people and good lovers etc and it was an enjoyable experience worth enjoying again if given the chance.
> 
> But the alpha widow/widower thing is a different general concept. It is not just about wanting to get with someone again.
> 
> It is about where no one else measures up and so that it either poisons the current relationship or makes someone completely take themselves off of the market because no one else measures up in their eyes.
> 
> It is where there is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction, frustration, yearning and even turning into resentment, bitterness and hostility in a current relationship because the current partner is not performing to the level of past high water mark.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BluesPower said:


> I really hope you are correct. I do think you are right about some of them, they just want to get laid properly. Because honestly, I am not all that. Better than average, yeah, best lover, most wonderful guy in the world, I don't think so...
> 
> However, I do have several that kind of fit into @oldshirt 's category (below). Those, still try to get back with me. And, by all rational thought, they really, really should not want to be with me any more.
> 
> I mean, we may have had a good thing for a while, maybe a great thing, but you know, time to move on.
> 
> It just makes me feel bad... even though it is not really my fault that they will not move on...


I have a bunch of dudes I feel bad for, too. In the sense that they seem to be hung up on me.

I don’t know why anyone would think there’s any reason to differentiate between men and women who have people who are hung up on them, or being the ones hung up. Just normal behavior. Even the ones we didn’t always treat well may be hung up on us, it usually just means we dated someone who was unhealthy and we typically are also unhealthy when we do that. Unhealthy people are the most likely to be hung up on someone who has moved on. There’s no male or female claim on carrying torches.


----------



## oldshirt

Faithful Wife said:


> I also believe it is real, it’s called carrying a torch. And the fact that it applies to both men and women is why it is not actually a red pill topic.


Then at the risk of hijacking yet another thread, let's move this into it's own thread as it is something I think is worth discussing in it's own right.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oldshirt said:


> Then at the risk of hijacking yet another thread, let's move this into it's own thread as it is something I think is worth discussing in it's own right.


I hope you’ll open the discussion as gender neutral versus the red pill version.


----------



## Buddy400

Tiggy! said:


> Completely different evolution goals, what goals?
> 
> Why would males and female's have completely different evolutionary goals, we're the same species.


"Evolutionary goals" was a bad term on my part. The "evolutionary goals" are the same: pass on their genes.

However, the ways they do this are usually completely different.

Have you ever watched "Planet Earth", "Blue Planet", anything on National Geographic?

In almost every case, the behaviors and actions of the sexes is completely different due to different evolutionary imperatives. 

Male and female lions are the same species, how they go about improving their chances of passing on their genes is completely different.


----------



## Buddy400

ConanHub said:


> There is far too much weight still given to Darwin's bull **** thought process.
> 
> Reading his crap is less enjoyable than pulling teeth.
> 
> He was one of the most myopic, self absorbed egomaniacs I have ever had the displeasure of reading.
> 
> He measured all his observations through the lense of his absolute belief that he was superior to everything else in creation.
> 
> He truly believed he was the apex of the world and everyone rested in his shadow.
> 
> He impugned women's intelligence so often as to lose track but he once considered women not very bright because they didn't find him or men like him, attractive sexually.
> 
> He considered natives of different countries he visited to be far lower creatures than him because they had darker skin and couldn't speak English as well as him, not observing they spoke more languages than him.
> 
> This is the same brain trust that determined that women were not sexual creatures but men were.
> 
> Believe this pathetic fart at your own peril.
> 
> I have found Darwin to be provably wrong about most of his observations throughout my life.
> 
> Women are exceptionally sexual creatures who are aggressive when circumstances allow and great hunters of men and in a real sense as well.
> 
> The women of my family all have outrageous sex drives and almost all are established big game hunters as well.
> 
> We descend from Celts who knew a hell of a lot more than Darwin ever could about female sexuality.


You may not like Darwin personally, but it sounds like you just may not believe in evolution at all. 

Of course, it's fine for you to believe whatever you want, I'd just like to clear that up.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I hope you’ll open the discussion as gender neutral versus the red pill version.


If the issue wasn't actually gender neutral, is there a way to discuss it while paying no attention to whatever the red pill version is?

Or is the idea that any claim that something is NOT gender neutral is, by definition, "Red Pill"?


----------



## ConanHub

Buddy400 said:


> You may not like Darwin personally, but it sounds like you just may not believe in evolution at all.
> 
> Of course, it's fine for you to believe whatever you want, I'd just like to clear that up.


I have found no argument that has convinced me that evolution is viable. That said, there are far better people than Darwin to consider if you are convinced yourself.

I find it hard to comprehend anyone giving credence to Darwin unless they are misogynistic, myopic, racists like him.

I have never understood the reverence given to that pathetic excuse for a scientist and man.


----------



## oldshirt

Faithful Wife said:


> I hope you’ll open the discussion as gender neutral versus the red pill version.



Yeah I do not really see it as a red pill issue either. 

It was the manosphere and PUA communities that coined the term 'alpha widow' but it is a part of humanity that really isn't a PUA issue or MMSL issue. 

In fact I think the red pill slant on it is a bit defeatist in it's philosophy as if someone has gotten down with Chad, then no Melvin shall ever stand a chance.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oldshirt said:


> In fact I think the red pill slant on it is a bit defeatist in it's philosophy as if someone has gotten down with Chad, then no Melvin shall ever stand a chance.


Every red pill slant is defeatist against themselves, while simultaneously vilifying all Stacy’s and wanting to **** her, and simultaneously vilifying all Chad/Tyrone’s and wanting to be him. Every issue is in one way or another about how Stacy only ****s Chad and how much they hate Stacy and Chad.

And being such sunny, positive people, they wonder why they can’t attract women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> If the issue wasn't actually gender neutral, is there a way to discuss it while paying no attention to whatever the red pill version is?
> 
> Or is the idea that any claim that something is NOT gender neutral is, by definition, "Red Pill"?


I don’t know why you would want to discuss it from the red pill perspective, but feel free. It is just more nonsense to me about Stacy and Chad and how Stacy won’t **** a red pill dude and how it is Chad’s fault (but also Stacy’s for riding the **** carousel).

If that is an interesting discussion to you, I don’t understand why. But feel free.


----------



## Buddy400

BluesPower said:


> Women, most women, can always get laid if they want to.


It's interesting that you, a man perceived as an ally of those who oppose the "Red Pill", can say things like this and draw no response.

While others, identified by some as Red Pill apologists, get push-back for proposing the same idea.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

ConanHub said:


> *I have found no argument that has convinced me that evolution is viable*. That said, there are far better people than Darwin to consider if you are convinced yourself.
> 
> I find it hard to comprehend anyone giving credence to Darwin unless they are misogynistic, myopic, racists like him.
> 
> I have never understood the reverence given to that pathetic excuse for a scientist and man.


Is this a complete statement or is there something you left out?


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I don’t know why you would want to discuss it from the red pill perspective, but feel free. It is just more nonsense to me about Stacy and Chad and how Stacy won’t **** a red pill dude and how it is Chad’s fault (but also Stacy’s for riding the **** carousel).
> 
> If that is an interesting discussion to you, I don’t understand why. But feel free.


Exactly wrong, I *don't* wish to discuss it (or anything) from a Red Pill perspective.

I would want to discuss things on their own merits, free of any preconceptions that come with being identified with one "side" or the other.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> It's interesting that you, a man perceived as an ally of those who oppose the "Red Pill", can say things like this and draw no response.
> 
> While others, identified by some as Red Pill apologists, get push-back for proposing the same idea.


I actually was going to point that out, but it’s already been said and then refuted over and over (including by me). Eventually I get tired of repeating myself.

And for the record, his response sounded exactly red pill to me. I don’t see him as an ally. I don’t think he studies red pill, but he says red pill things along the lines of “alpha ****s, beta bucks” almost every day here and I do not bother with those posts of his any more because it makes no difference.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Exactly wrong, I *don't* wish to discuss it (or anything) from a Red Pill perspective.
> 
> I would want to discuss things on their own merits, free of any preconceptions that come with being identified with one "side" or the other.


My apologies, I misread the other post.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Every red pill slant is defeatist against themselves,


It seems like it would be important to identify the various Red Pill "slants".

To me, it looks like a bunch of different groups:

Men's Rights, who claim to focused primarily on laws that the feel discriminate against men (I don't see anything wrong with this on it's face. I'd have to consider each point separately).

PUA, those who claim to use true knowledge of women to pick up women and use them for sex (As long as everything is consensual, it seems like it should be easy enough for women to avoid them. Anything non-consensual would, of course, be a problem.)

MMSL, I'm not sure of a label for this, but it would seem to focus on men gaining knowledge about women in order to attract (or avoid repulsing) women and having better, more satisfying relationships with them. This may involve them thinking things about women that many women would prefer them not to think, but I really don't see a downside).

MGOW, this is men who claim to no longer want anything at all to do with women. They may have a bad opinion of women but, since they claim to not want any interaction with them, I can't see any harm to women.

incels - These would seem to just be men who rarely attract women and just whine about it or claim that they are somehow "owed" sex from women. These guys are pathetic but, for the most part, harmless and women already avoid them anyway.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes I know what the concept is about for the red pill crowd.
> 
> They took a normal occurrence that happens to both genders, namely carrying a torch for someone, and they decided that when men do it, it is normal, but when women do it, it is because they are hung up on a Chad or Tyrone and it is somehow evil when she does it.
> 
> Again, it just shows the constant insecurity the red pill crowd have that every woman wants a more alpha man than they are.
> 
> The entire red pill crowd is hung up on one or more Stacy’s and that’s exactly their problem and reason they can’t form healthy relationships.
> 
> The projection in that group is very easy to see.
> 
> The rest of the world just sees people doing people things. We see a man carrying a torch for some woman and we see a woman carrying a torch for some man and we don’t try to demonize one group and not the other. They are doing the same thing.


A true red pill man would never carry a torch for anyone. Thats what they warn against. These people zero out and some put a gun in their mouth. 

I think its no secret most people that become RP were once just average dutiful blue-pill men taught to open doors for women, treat them as equals and be what they thought was the feminized version of the perfect man. They weren't alpha, they may even have detested alpha males. They were brought up to pedastal women.

Then they got burnt, divorced/cheated on, whatever, they zeroed out, and they started re-examining their conditioning. They come across something and the sh!t makes sense. To a lesser extent, many MM find their way over there because they are stuck in a sexless marriage and doing the laundry and dishes just isn't getting it done. So, they change things up.


----------



## BluesPower

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> A true red pill man would never carry a torch for anyone. Thats what they warn against. These people zero out and some put a gun in their mouth.
> 
> I think its no secret most people that become RP were once just average dutiful blue-pill men taught to open doors for women, treat them as equals and be what they thought was the feminized version of the perfect man. They weren't alpha, they may even have detested alpha males. They were brought up to pedastal women.
> 
> Then they got burnt, divorced/cheated on, whatever, they zeroed out, and they started re-examining their conditioning. They come across something and the sh!t makes sense. To a lesser extent, many MM find their way over there because they are stuck in a sexless marriage and doing the laundry and dishes just isn't getting it done. So, they change things up.


The red pill stuff is horse crap, sorry guys. 

You either know how to ****, and attract women or you don't. 

But you certainly don't learn it from a bunch of losers that live in their moms basements. 

Again and again, this is not how it works, it never will be. Not all woman are bad, it is just a fact. 

Some of them just want to be loved and ****ed properly by a strong man, not a weak little sissy. 

Not all woman are good, but a sane man should be able to spot them. Not all men are good, and they are not all bad. 

Alpha beta, as a frame of reference, for discussing different aspects of masculinity, that is fine. 

But if you hate all women because you are not getting laid, then you are a beta... So stop it...


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

BluesPower said:


> The red pill stuff is horse crap, sorry guys.
> 
> You either know how to ****, and attract women or you don't.
> 
> But you certainly don't learn it from a bunch of losers that live in their moms basements.
> 
> Again and again, this is not how it works, it never will be. Not all woman are bad, it is just a fact.
> 
> Some of them just want to be loved and ****ed properly by a strong man, not a weak little sissy.
> 
> Not all woman are good, but a sane man should be able to spot them. Not all men are good, and they are not all bad.
> 
> Alpha beta, as a frame of reference, for discussing different aspects of masculinity, that is fine.
> 
> But if you hate all women because you are not getting laid, then you are a beta... So stop it...


Its not horsesh!t if you can learn from it. I've seen 'weak little sissies' transform themselves into bada$$es with a gym routine and learning some game. Its not something that can't be learned, atleast to some degree. They may revert back to being betas once they are in a relationship who knows. But atleast they got some tail and self-respect in the process.


----------



## Rubix Cubed

ReformedHubby said:


> I am just going to leave this right here. With all the discussion surrounding attraction and the "science" behind it. As well as how women have an easier path to obtaining sex, I am actually curious what you guys think of the term *Alpha Widow*. I totally swear I am not trying to stir the pot >. The definition is as follows:
> 
> *A woman, usually with average sexual market value (SMV), who sleeps with a high sexual market value male , a/k/a the alpha male, who does not wish to have a long-term relationship with the woman. The woman views the alpha male as superior to most, if not all, of the other men pursuing her, and so the woman continues to lust after the alpha male she cannot have, sacrificing future long-term relationships with lower-SMV men, making her a "widow", in a sense, to the original alpha male.*
> 
> Its 8 AM where I live...but for some reason I am in a mood for popcorn.


 I think this(Alpha Widow) all boils down to you want what you can't have and the longer you want and do without the more you tend to romanticize or idealize it making it unattainable because the idealized version never existed to begin with.


----------



## oldshirt

BluesPower said:


> The red pill stuff is horse crap, sorry guys.
> 
> You either know how to ****, and attract women or you don't.
> 
> But you certainly don't learn it from a bunch of losers that live in their moms basements.


I also disagree. I have definitely benefitted from some RP teachings and have benefitted from some PUA material and have benefitted from some MMSL stuff. 

And I have also benefitted from being taught some politically correct, pinko, snowflake stuff and pedestalizing women. 

And I definitely do not agree that people cannot learn. In everything else in the world we are expected to learn and seek knowledge and develop skills. We expect our mechanic to have learned how a car works and learned to fix them before letting him/her work on our car. We expect our doctor to have attended and passed medical school and residency. I can go on forever but my point is we don't expect our mechanic or our doctor to rely on natural ability and good looks so why do we expect attracting a mate to be strictly natural and based on innate abilities and appearance???

Cont....


----------



## oldshirt

cont....

Now as far as the nerds in their mom's basement learning from and teaching each other, that also has merit. 

The Chads were out getting chasing tail and scoring so they didn't have time to teach the Melvins. 

So the Melvins used their skills of observation and skills of trial and error and then journaled the results in somewhat of a peer-review format.

They watched Chad then tried to look, dress and act like him. Many crashed and burned so they reported their failures and what didn't work. Like good little scientists they tweeked the variables and lo and behold one of them got laid one night so they broke down the sequences and variables and tried to piece together what worked and what did not. 

Some started catching on and before too long they were out of the basement and out dating and hooking up. 

Then they shared their methods and techniques with others and coached them through to the process and would whack them upside the head if they were talking crazy and would cheer them on and pat them on the back if they were doing stuff that was thought to be beneficial. 

In other words people that had been through experiences and came out the other side were sharing their perspectives and experiences and were coaching those coming up through the same issues.

Who does that sound like here on TAM????????

Isn't that what we're doing here???? 

To say that the PUA community has no benefit since it's people in basements on computers, then TAM has no benefit because that's exactly what we are doing ourselves.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I’ll just keep my popcorn handy while you guys discuss the different types of males and why they do or don’t get laid.


----------



## Bananapeel

A problem with the alpha-beta stuff being discussed is most men are mix of both personality traits...it's not a black and white issue. Plus, different personality traits can be expressed by the same man differently in different social situations with different women. That's part of the premise of why men can learn and change, if they desire to.

Edit: If you look at my posts from 3 years ago after I found out my wife was cheating and compare them to my posts now you'd see there has been a very large shift in my personality and relationship styles. I think many other people would find the same thing and realize that change is something that happens naturally throughout all of our lives. The various books and websites can help direct changes, if people are looking for a direction and benefit from that type of instruction.


----------



## Lila

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> A true red pill man would never carry a torch for anyone. Thats what they warn against. These people zero out and some put a gun in their mouth.
> 
> I think its no secret most people that become RP were once just average dutiful blue-pill men taught to open doors for women, treat them as equals and be what they thought was the feminized version of the perfect man. They weren't alpha, they may even have detested alpha males. They were brought up to pedastal women.
> 
> *Then they got burnt, divorced/cheated on, whatever, they zeroed out, and they started re-examining their conditioning. They come across something and the sh!t makes sense. To a lesser extent, many MM find their way over there because they are stuck in a sexless marriage and doing the laundry and dishes just isn't getting it done. So, they change things up.*



Do you think it's a good thing to become an angry, hate filled, cult member that constantly views women as conniving, manipulative, whoring ****s, and who blames them for all of the bad things that happened in his life? 

As I said earlier,the biggest problem with MMSLP, Rational Male, and most of the other Red Pill tripe out there is that it's based solely on opinion and made up b.s.. Athol Kay, Rollo Tomasi and the rest of those authors are snake oil salesmen peddling fuel to a very angry market. They feed hurt, lonely, and angry men with a hate filled message that they in turn use to justify atrocious behavior. It's not a positive message nor is it based on SCIENCE as they very wrongly claim. 

Mark Manson is probably a leading author for self improvement and dating, particularly with men. He is blunt and brutally honest but gets his message across without hate filled language towards either sex. Even he thinks RP is cultish and full of b.s. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw08wXZ9WhAr7UrzsK6XwtPJ&ust=1545340460490724


----------



## Lila

BarbedFenceRider said:


> "most average guys aim too high and ignore a lot of available women right in front of them."
> 
> 
> I hardly call the 400lb. land whale an "available" woman that should be exploited. Talk about demasculization. Just how does one get energized into this? (Provided there are no fetish issues and stuff...).[/b]


You've obviously not ventured into the single scene in a long while. The vast majority of women dating are not 400lbs or even close. However, if you as a man are 400 lbs and expect a trim and fit woman to fall all over herself for you then you need a wake up call. 



> My brother had an interesting though when I was mulling over the need to "start over" and such....He said that OLD and other sites are just mostly clearing houses for failed relationships and personality disorders....
> 
> He and I were commenting on the availability of women near us. He was saying, *"well look, there IS a reason they are divorced and bitter". *Do you really want that in your life right now?


There are two things wrong with your brothers thinking. 

1) implying that there must be something wrong with someone because they are divorced is blaming all of the betrayed spouses who chose to divorce, the abused spouses who decided they had enough,and the left behind spouses who were blind sided by their walk away spouses. 

2). Unhappily married people are no less bitter and angry than divorced ones. The only difference is they are choosing to remain unhappily married.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Lila said:


> Do you think it's a good thing to become an angry, hate filled, cult member that constantly views women as conniving, manipulative, whoring ****s, and who blames them for all of the bad things that happened in his life?
> 
> As I said earlier,the biggest problem with MMSLP, Rational Male, and most of the other Red Pill tripe out there is that it's based solely on opinion and made up b.s.. Athol Kay, Rollo Tomasi and the rest of those authors are snake oil salesmen peddling fuel to a very angry market. They feed hurt, lonely, and angry men with a hate filled message that they in turn use to justify atrocious behavior. It's not a positive message nor is it based on SCIENCE as they very wrongly claim.
> 
> Mark Manson is probably a leading author for self improvement and dating, particularly with men. He is blunt and brutally honest but gets his message across without hate filled language towards either sex. Even he thinks RP is cultish and full of b.s. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw08wXZ9WhAr7UrzsK6XwtPJ&ust=1545340460490724


That's your opinion and that's fair, I don't expect any female audience to applaud their message. But there are a lot of men that are clueless with preconceived beliefs that women should be treated as some dainty angels that can do no wrong. Then it doesn't match up with their reality and they look for other answers and low and behold there are other answers. Its not law, its just theories. Its trial and error and living. Its not science, none of these are, even that Mark Manson fellow. He is peddling to his own market.

There are no atrocious behavior that either writer pushes. It all about improving one's self and realizing ones options before its too late. Take what you need, leave the rest, as they say.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

oldshirt said:


> cont....
> 
> Now as far as the nerds in their mom's basement learning from and teaching each other, that also has merit.
> 
> The Chads were out getting chasing tail and scoring so they didn't have time to teach the Melvins.
> 
> So the Melvins used their skills of observation and skills of trial and error and then journaled the results in somewhat of a peer-review format.
> 
> They watched Chad then tried to look, dress and act like him.


Chad - the men want to be him, the women want to be with him.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Buddy400 said:


> It seems like it would be important to identify the various Red Pill "slants".
> 
> To me, it looks like a bunch of different groups:
> 
> Men's Rights, who claim to focused primarily on laws that the feel discriminate against men (I don't see anything wrong with this on it's face. I'd have to consider each point separately).


As far as the MRA, there is a good documentary on it called "The Red Pill". Its actually done by a feminist and she goes and interviews these MRA guys and then the Feminists that deride them. Its interesting watch, whatever perspective you are coming from.


----------



## Bananapeel

Lila said:


> *Do you think it's a good thing to become an angry, hate filled, cult member that constantly views women as conniving, manipulative, whoring ****s, and who blames them for all of the bad things that happened in his life?*
> 
> As I said earlier,the biggest problem with MMSLP, Rational Male, and most of the other Red Pill tripe out there is that it's based solely on opinion and made up b.s.. Athol Kay, Rollo Tomasi and the rest of those authors are snake oil salesmen peddling fuel to a very angry market. They feed hurt, lonely, and angry men with a hate filled message that they in turn use to justify atrocious behavior. It's not a positive message nor is it based on SCIENCE as they very wrongly claim.


This is probably an unfair assumption on your part. I've read those books and am not the way you describe those men at all. There's good and bad in all of the books and I'm guessing that the proponents focus on the parts they find value in and the opponents focus on the parts they find to be particularly negative.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bananapeel said:


> This is probably an unfair assumption on your part. I've read those books and am not the way you describe those men at all. There's good and bad in all of the books and I'm guessing that the proponents focus on the parts they find value in and the opponents focus on the parts they find to be particularly negative.


To me it is really obvious who here is a RP kinda guy and who isn't, based on the things they say. And I don't know or need to know the story behind any of them, I just know by their words here that they believe the RP stuff. Probably the same way it is obvious I am a feminist without my saying so.

And the same way some men are going to judge me based on that, I also judge based on RP alignment.

Thankfully, the internet is the only place I've ever encountered RP men, so I don't have to evaluate for that IRL very much.


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> I have found no argument that has convinced me that evolution is viable.






PigglyWiggly said:


> Is this a complete statement or is there something you left out?



I have to say, I’m shaking my head at this. What next: the earth is still flat and supported on giant   ? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> As far as the MRA, there is a good documentary on it called "The Red Pill". Its actually done by a feminist and she goes and interviews these MRA guys and then the Feminists that deride them. Its interesting watch, whatever perspective you are coming from.


I watched that with my wife.

My wife was very much on their side (more than I was).

I'm not sure what the objection is to this


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> implying that there must be something wrong with someone because they are divorced is blaming all of the betrayed spouses who chose to divorce, the abused spouses who decided they had enough,and the left behind spouses who were blind sided by their walk away spouses.


I'm sorry you ran into that opinion.

That's not the view of most.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> Thankfully, the internet is the only place I've ever encountered RP men, so I don't have to evaluate for that IRL very much.


Because RP men wear signs around their neck saying they are Red Pill. You'd never know because they figure out your a feminist probably right away and know they have an easy lay tonight.


----------



## Tiggy!

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Because RP men wear signs around their neck saying they are Red Pill. You'd never know because they figure out your a feminist probably right away and know they have an easy lay tonight.


I think she already has her hands full with Chad and Tyrone.


----------



## wilson

Has everyone seen this skit:

Inside Amy Schumer - Hello M'Lady: 




For the kind of guy who says 'hello m'lady' and helps his crush move into her boyfriend's house, some kind of RP guide is probably necessary to clue him into how the world works.


----------



## ConanHub

Tiggy! said:


> I think she already has her hands full with Chad and Tyrone.


I met a real Tyrone today. He was very short.


----------



## ConanHub

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Because RP men wear signs around their neck saying they are Red Pill. You'd never know because they figure out your a feminist probably right away and know they have an easy lay tonight.


????????


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because RP men wear signs around their neck saying they are Red Pill. You'd never know because they figure out your a feminist probably right away and know they have an easy lay tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> ????????
Click to expand...

Exactly.


----------



## Lila

Bananapeel said:


> This is probably an unfair assumption on your part. I've read those books and am not the way you describe those men at all. There's good and bad in all of the books and I'm guessing that the proponents focus on the parts they find value in and the opponents focus on the parts they find to be particularly negative.


 @Bananapeel are you a red pill subscriber? If not, then my comment did not apply to you. However if you need me to provide some proof that what I say is true, let me know. I can pm you links to some of the most popular red pill forums/blogs so you can read the responses. It's not pretty.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> implying that there must be something wrong with someone because they are divorced is blaming all of the betrayed spouses who chose to divorce, the abused spouses who decided they had enough,and the left behind spouses who were blind sided by their walk away spouses.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you ran into that opinion.
> 
> That's not the view of most.
Click to expand...

I haven't run into that opinion IRL but was just responding to something someone posted here. It's ridiculous to label all or most divorced people as defective.


----------



## Bananapeel

Lila said:


> @Bananapeel are you a red pill subscriber? If not, then my comment did not apply to you. However if you need me to provide some proof that what I say is true, let me know. I can pm you links to some of the most popular red pill forums/blogs so you can read the responses. It's not pretty.


First let me clear up a definition since there is more than one red pill being discussed on this thread. The documentary "The Red Pill" is an incredibly well done documentary on men's rights and is not the mysogenistic red pill forum, so I'm going to give my reply only in relationship to the red pill forum not the men's rights from the documentary. 

I am not a true red pill subscriber but I agree with parts of their philosophy. I've read the blogs, listened to Tom Leykis's radio show, and read a variety of books and taken the things that I find valuable from there, which is exactly how I like to live my life (with me in charge of my direction and making choices that are right for me). I don't hate women and don't see the need to manipulate women to get laid because it's just not necessary and isn't being true to myself. I also understand that there is a spectrum of men and women, so trying to pigeon hole people into a type is a waste of time. 

So, specifically what I subscribe to from the movement- 
I do believe that women as a whole have far more power in society than men and men that retain their power by being in control of their lives are generally very attractive to women. I do believe that women who are highly attracted to men will treat them differently than those they are less attracted to, so I make sure to keep attraction levels high in my relationships. Part of that is done by having options with other women and not being too available or committing quickly. It's also easy to do by maintaining boundaries in relationships and not being afraid to walk away because I know my self worth. I believe that the term "hypergamy" really should be applied differently and mean that women want the best partner they can get, which is exactly the same as what men want. I believe that many women settle for men they aren't highly attracted to because the men are good providers and many women would change out their mate for a better partner if one becomes available, although that doesn't apply to all women. I believe that many women are overvalued by men which causes a relationship power imbalance. I also believe that there is power struggle happening now in society between men and women that is emasculating a large portion of the male population. As per the red pill philosophy I think women's power is linked to their youth and beauty whereas men's power is linked to money/fame/power, and the gender power struggle is an attempt to extend women's peak power into later years as their youthful beauty naturally declines. From the MMSLP I agree that men need to step up their game and be the best they can be if they want to keep their wife attracted to them, and if the wife ceases to be attracted and loyal then the men need to divorce and find someone new that appreciates them. 

If you want a more accurate picture of my relationship style and how I've taken the better parts of red pill and incorporated it into my life in a positive manner, then read 3% man by Corey Wayne. That's very similar to my philosophy. I know you've read some of my posts and I'm not a bitter woman hater, but I also have a backbone and get what I want out of life. So I think there are some good things that can be taken from RP and some negative things as well, and it's up to the individual to sort through it rather than just assuming everyone that finds any value in the RP is misogynistic.


----------



## Buddy400

wilson said:


> Has everyone seen this skit:
> 
> Inside Amy Schumer - Hello M'Lady:
> 
> For the kind of guy who says 'hello m'lady' and helps his crush move into her boyfriend's house, some kind of RP guide is probably necessary to clue him into how the world works.


It looks as if Amy Schumer is a misogynistic Red Piller.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bananapeel said:


> As per the red pill philosophy I think women's power is linked to their youth and beauty whereas men's power is linked to money/fame/power, and the gender power struggle is an attempt to extend women's peak power into later years as their youthful beauty naturally declines.


Okie dokie, then. That's what I suspected were your thoughts, but knowing for sure is better.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Faithful Wife said:


> Okie dokie, then. That's what I suspected were your thoughts, but knowing for sure is better.


It's a last gasp from a culture that thought women were beneath them and could be controlled....imo


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Bananapeel said:


> I believe that the term "hypergamy" really should be applied differently and mean that women want the best partner they can get, which is exactly the same as what men want. .


I think that is much to simplistic view of the term.

From talk by social psychologist and author Roy Bauemister:

_"Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. I think this difference is the single most under-appreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced."
_
This kind of fleshes out the 80/20 Pareto principle, that a majority of women across the broadest SMV spectrum (80%) will always want for a ‘better than’ pairing (both sexual and provisional) than their own comparative SMV.

But the 80/20 rule only works when there is sexual freedom, not monogamy:

_According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates._

Pretty basic, nothing new, but it says that the 20% will not be available to the 80% of women because those men are likely not going to be locked down. So to fulfill a woman's biological imperative to reproduce within a monogamous relationship, she will 'settle' for someone around her own SMV for parental provisioning. But what hypergamy is:

_Evolutionary Psychology theory on the instinctual desire of humans of the female sex to discard a current mate when the opportunity arises to latch onto a subsequent mate of higher status due to the hindbrain impetus to find a male with the best ability to provide for her OWN offspring (already spawned or yet-to-be spawned) regardless of investments and commitments made to a current mate._

In an evolutionary sense, it makes perfect sense. Men's sexual preference is quantity (fathering as many children as possible to ensure the reproduction of man). Women's sexual preference is quality (ensuring the best genetic markers for her child and also the best provisioning). If another male comes along that may be offering a better deal, in her hindbrain it could be too good to pass up.


----------



## Faithful Wife

PigglyWiggly said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okie dokie, then. That's what I suspected were your thoughts, but knowing for sure is better.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a last gasp from a culture that thought women were beneath them and could be controlled....imo
Click to expand...

Yep. Sad really. That they think there’s a “war” over getting laid.


----------



## Buddy400

PigglyWiggly said:


> It's a last gasp from a culture that thought women were beneath them and could be controlled....imo


I'd say that, if anything, it's a last gasp from a culture that thought women were above them and needed to be controlled......


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Buddy400 said:


> I'd say that, if anything, it's a last gasp from a culture that thought women were above them and needed to be controlled......


There's not a single word in the bible that was written by women. In that context, I think you might be right.


----------



## Faithful Wife

PigglyWiggly said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okie dokie, then. That's what I suspected were your thoughts, but knowing for sure is better.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a last gasp from a culture that thought women were beneath them and could be controlled....imo
Click to expand...

Also sad because while they sit convinced they must create some kind of war just to get laid, meanwhile they don’t seem to notice that millions of everyday men and women find each other so easily, without causing a war or begging or gaming anyone, and happily couple up and have sex. 

Somehow this very obvious fact is overlooked. They want to believe that women are sitting home alone because men are going their own way. They actually believe they are punishing us. They think they are the ones who don’t want to get married so they took our big prize away, mwah ha ha! 

Again, meanwhile, millions of normal people get together and have fabulous sex and aren’t aware that there are some who believe there is a war over sex.


----------



## uhtred

Some. I certainly don't want to be a Chad, and many women I know don't want Chads. (except maybe bronzed and put in their houses as decorations....)




UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Chad - the men want to be him, the women want to be with him.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Faithful Wife said:


> Also sad because while they sit convinced they must create some kind of war just to get laid, meanwhile they don’t seem to notice that millions of everyday men and women find each other so easily, without causing a war or begging or gaming anyone, and happily couple up and have sex.
> 
> Somehow this very obvious fact is overlooked. They want to believe that women are sitting home alone because men are going their own way. They actually believe they are punishing us. They think they are the ones who don’t want to get married so they took our big prize away, mwah ha ha!
> 
> Again, meanwhile, millions of normal people get together and have fabulous sex and aren’t aware that there are some who believe there is a war over sex.


If they were to turn bi, the could help each other out...problem solved!!!


----------



## Buddy400

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> _Evolutionary Psychology theory on the instinctual desire of humans of the female sex to discard a current mate when the opportunity arises to latch onto a subsequent mate of higher status due to the hindbrain impetus to find a male with the best ability to provide for her OWN offspring (already spawned or yet-to-be spawned) regardless of investments and commitments made to a current mate._


I just don't see how, even if true, this is different from men or affects real relationships.

None of the stories of cheating here on TAM (either men or women) seem to involve "trading up".

Sure, prior to marriage (or a committed LTR), both sexes are, no doubt, considering other options that appear to be better. Is there some sort of rule that requires one to continue dating forever any one you date?

With the "hypergamy" theory, you'd think women with children would be dumping their husbands on a regular basis for anyone deemed as "better". That just doesn't seem to happen (perhaps, in part, because "better" guys aren't interested in raising other men's kids). Also, those women who pursue divorce because they "just aren't happy" don't seem to be doing it for the primary purpose of finding different, better men. In fact, I'd guess that it's for the purpose of avoiding men.

So, *if* the 80/20 rule is true and there's actually any long term affect of the 80/20 rule for couples, it would seem to be limited to more women being dissatisfied, long term, in their relationships (which does seem to be reality). They "settled" and now regret it but the option of not "settling" and still being in a committed relationship was never an actual option for them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

PigglyWiggly said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that, if anything, it's a last gasp from a culture that thought women were above them and needed to be controlled......
> 
> 
> 
> There's not a single word in the bible that was written by women. In that context, I think you might be right.
Click to expand...

Except biblical man certainly did not think women were above them.

Neither did the previous generations of men in the USA.

Sometimes RP men create drama around the idea that women and children need protection from other males. They claim this means they are putting us above themselves.

In my mind, any man who isn’t worried about protecting his own woman from bad men shouldn’t be a husband or father. If it confuses his gender role in his own mind to have to understand that women do need protection from bad men (especially if we have your child), then he just should only worry about himself and let another man take care of a woman and child.

Also they feel that because some little boys who are now men were told to never hit a girl even if she hits you, and other similar things, these men grew up with the impression that women are more valued than men are.

What they don’t seem to realize is that some men were not given the impression that women are more valued and some men have healthy attitudes about the equal value people have. These guys move along in life and don’t see the constant horrible things that RP guys claim are “the truth”.

If you have a set of men who have always been somewhat unsuccessful in sex or relationships, they will always seem to lash out at women in general and other men if they actually don’t hate women like they do.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Faithful Wife said:


> *Except biblical man certainly did not think women were above them.
> *
> Neither did the previous generations of men in the USA.
> 
> Sometimes RP men create drama around the idea that women and children need protection from other males. They claim this means they are putting us above themselves.
> 
> In my mind, any man who isn’t worried about protecting his own woman from bad men shouldn’t be a husband or father. If it confuses his gender role in his own mind to have to understand that women do need protection from bad men (especially if we have your child), then he just should only worry about himself and let another man take care of a woman and child.
> 
> Also they feel that because some little boys who are now men were told to never hit a girl even if she hits you, and other similar things, these men grew up with the impression that women are more valued than men are.
> 
> What they don’t seem to realize is that some men were not given the impression that women are more valued and some men have healthy attitudes about the equal value people have. These guys move along in life and don’t see the constant horrible things that RP guys claim are “the truth”.
> 
> If you have a set of men who have always been somewhat unsuccessful in sex or relationships, they will always seem to lash out at women in general and other men if they actually don’t hate women like they do.


I was being somewhat facetious. If women had been part of the writing of the bible, it most certainly would have been much improved. :wink2:


----------



## Faithful Wife

@PiggglyWiggly I know, I got it. It was brilliant. Heh heh.


----------



## uhtred

People's behavior really isn't all that driven by evolutionary pressure. Few men try to have as many offspring as possible, and some of he most popular sexual activities are not intended to result in pregnancy. 

The 80/40 number seems strange to me. I thought that in most cultures, most men and most women ended up married. Do you have a reference to the paper? How many generations back were they going? n






UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I think that is much to simplistic view of the term.
> 
> From talk by social psychologist and author Roy Bauemister:
> 
> _"Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. I think this difference is the single most under-appreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced."
> _
> This kind of fleshes out the 80/20 Pareto principle, that a majority of women across the broadest SMV spectrum (80%) will always want for a ‘better than’ pairing (both sexual and provisional) than their own comparative SMV.
> 
> But the 80/20 rule only works when there is sexual freedom, not monogamy:
> 
> _According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.
> 
> From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates._
> 
> Pretty basic, nothing new, but it says that the 20% will not be available to the 80% of women because those men are likely not going to be locked down. So to fulfill a woman's biological imperative to reproduce within a monogamous relationship, she will 'settle' for someone around her own SMV for parental provisioning. But what hypergamy is:
> 
> _Evolutionary Psychology theory on the instinctual desire of humans of the female sex to discard a current mate when the opportunity arises to latch onto a subsequent mate of higher status due to the hindbrain impetus to find a male with the best ability to provide for her OWN offspring (already spawned or yet-to-be spawned) regardless of investments and commitments made to a current mate._
> 
> In an evolutionary sense, it makes perfect sense. Men's sexual preference is quantity (fathering as many children as possible to ensure the reproduction of man). Women's sexual preference is quality (ensuring the best genetic markers for her child and also the best provisioning). If another male comes along that may be offering a better deal, in her hindbrain it could be too good to pass up.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Somehow this very obvious fact is overlooked. They want to believe that women are sitting home alone because men are going their own way. They actually believe they are punishing us. They think they are the ones who don’t want to get married so they took our big prize away, mwah ha ha!


It's very true that far less young women seem interested in committed relationships these days. However, there also seems to be a significant number of women approaching the end of their child bearing years and wanting children (and, the committed relationships that usually come along with them).

So, what women want and the degree to which they feel they're getting it is in flux.

Of course, this can be something of a "first world problem" that only affects those fortunate to have significant control over their lives. For many people, there's very little chance of them getting what they want. 

Certainly, women have less need to be in a committed relationship if they don't want children or have already had them; so I don't see many of them being "punished". 

As you point out, angry men who have problems with women are doing women a favor by taking themselves out of the dating pool.

However, if it works out that less men are willing to enter committed relationships than women who want them, then that will be a problem for _some_ women. Of course, the reverse could happen as well (less women interested in committed relationships than men).

We'll just have to wait and see how it works out in the long run.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Evolutionary Psychology theory on the instinctual desire of humans of the female sex to discard a current mate when the opportunity arises to latch onto a subsequent mate of higher status due to the hindbrain impetus to find a male with the best ability to provide for her OWN offspring (already spawned or yet-to-be spawned) regardless of investments and commitments made to a current mate._
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see how, even if true, this is different from men or affects real relationships.
> 
> None of the stories of cheating here on TAM (either men or women) seem to involve "trading up".
> 
> Sure, prior to marriage (or a committed LTR), both sexes are, no doubt, considering other options that appear to be better. Is there some sort of rule that requires one to continue dating forever any one you date?
> 
> With the "hypergamy" theory, you'd think women with children would be dumping their husbands on a regular basis for anyone deemed as "better". That just doesn't seem to happen (perhaps, in part, because "better" guys aren't interested in raising other men's kids). Also, those women who pursue divorce because they "just aren't happy" don't seem to be doing it for the primary purpose of finding different, better men. In fact, I'd guess that it's for the purpose of avoiding men.
> 
> So, *if* the 80/20 rule is true and there's actually any long term affect of the 80/20 rule for couples, it would seem to be limited to more women being dissatisfied, long term, in their relationships (which does seem to be reality). They "settled" and now regret it but the option of not "settling" and still being in a committed relationship was never an actual option for them.
Click to expand...

Thank you!


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> People's behavior really isn't all that driven by evolutionary pressure. Few men try to have as many offspring as possible, and some of he most popular sexual activities are not intended to result in pregnancy.


People's *conscious choices* aren't driven by evolutionary pressure.

But, most involuntary behavior is greatly affected by the DNA one inherits. (Steven Pinker, "The Blank Slate")

And most behavior is not driven primarily by conscious choices (too many references to list).

And DNA most certainly IS driven by evolutionary pressures.


----------



## uhtred

Not sure how you count "most". Is there a paper somewhere? 

I just don't see most people acting in ways to maximize their number of children. Even people who have the resources to do so, rarely try to have large numbers of children. (billionaires could probably support hundreds, maybe thousands of children if they wanted, but as a rule generally don't). 




Buddy400 said:


> People's *conscious choices* aren't driven by evolutionary pressure.
> 
> But, most involuntary behavior is greatly affected by the DNA one inherits. (Steven Pinker, "The Blank Slate")
> 
> And most behavior is not driven primarily by conscious choices (too many references to list).
> 
> And DNA most certainly IS driven by evolutionary pressures.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Except biblical man certainly did not think women were above them.
> 
> Neither did the previous generations of men in the USA.


I disagree.

I believe that most men have historically felt that they are at the mercy of women and that women have all the power (in relationships).

So, they felt they had to try to control women's sexuality. Not that they necessarily succeeded or that their weren't other forces try to control women's sexuality as well.


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> Not sure how you count "most". Is there a paper somewhere?


Jonathon Haidt, for one. He has the analogy of a monkey (the conscious mind) riding an elephant (the unconscious mind). The monkey thinks he's deciding where the elephant goes. Actually, the monkey's real job is usually to come up with reasons why where the elephant is already going is the right thing to do.



uhtred said:


> I just don't see most people acting in ways to maximize their number of children.


The unconscious mind want a lot of kids. The unconscious mind realizes that is an unwise thing to do. In this case, the monkey usually wins.

But, the *desire* to have a lot of offspring is still there to be overcome.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I believe that most men have historically felt that they are at the mercy of women and that women have all the power (in relationships).
> 
> So, they felt they had to try to control women's sexuality. Not that they necessarily succeeded or that their weren't other forces try to control women's sexuality as well.


I don't agree that "men" historically have felt this. I have known so many men in my life. Some may have felt this. Very few of them by my count.

What also I have seen and heard from men throughout my life is how much women have been taken advantage of, controlled, and in some cases enslaved by men. I've known so many men who talk about things like equality and actually use the same words as women in my life do. They don't mock equality, or feminism, they are not afraid of feminists, they don't feel men have been delivered the bad hand in equality.

And no matter how many times I say that here, TAM men will come tell me that I'm making it up, or the men are hiding their true feelings, or that the men are KISA's and white knights.

And yet that never stops me from understanding and seeing the bigger picture, where there are millions of men who stand up for women, don't hate feminism, don't believe that women were "valued more" in the past, and who don't believe they are now, either.

And then there are here and there, men who in their own personal experience, did get the message the they are not valued as much as women. These are individual issues, the same way some women get the message that they are not valuable from their families and voices from the past. If you personally got stunted by your FOO, that sucks for you, but it doesn't actually mean the rest of the world was the same as however you were damaged.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> What they don’t seem to realize is that some men were not given the impression that women are more valued and some men have healthy attitudes about the equal value people have. These guys move along in life and don’t see the constant horrible things that RP guys claim are “the truth”.


I think that's where the value is; in teaching guys that women should not be more valued than men. That women respond to things that men might wish they didn't (just as men respond to things that women would probably wish they wouldn't).


----------



## Bananapeel

Faithful Wife said:


> Yep. Sad really. That they think there’s a “war” over getting laid.


Nope, that's blatantly incorrect. It's not a war about getting laid it's a power struggle between the genders that I was talking about. Those are NOT the same thing. I've discussed this with my feminist friends and they agree there is a shifting power dynamic, but they also say it's nothing new and has been going on forever. The power is being in control of one's own life and making one's own decisions regardless of the pressure to conform to other societal standards.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't agree that "men" historically have felt this. I have known so many men in my life. Some may have felt this. Very few of them by my count.
> 
> What also I have seen and heard from men throughout my life is how much women have been taken advantage of, controlled, and in some cases enslaved by men. I've known so many men who talk about things like equality and actually use the same words as women in my life do. They don't mock equality, or feminism, they are not afraid of feminists, they don't feel men have been delivered the bad hand in equality.
> 
> And no matter how many times I say that here, TAM men will come tell me that I'm making it up, or the men are hiding their true feelings, or that the men are KISA's and white knights.
> 
> And yet that never stops me from understanding and seeing the bigger picture, where there are millions of men who stand up for women, don't hate feminism, don't believe that women were "valued more" in the past, and who don't believe they are now, either.
> 
> And then there are here and there, men who in their own personal experience, did get the message the they are not valued as much as women. These are individual issues, the same way some women get the message that they are not valuable from their families and voices from the past. If you personally got stunted by your FOO, that sucks for you, but it doesn't actually mean the rest of the world was the same as however you were damaged.


The problem with the term "feminism" is that it can cover such a wide range of beliefs. 

I'm very much in favor of "Equality before the law" feminism. 

Very much less in favor of other beliefs that are often labeled as "feminist".

I think one thing that most people fail to understand is that, until every recently (by historical standards), life sucked for just about everyone. Men and women.


----------



## Lila

Bananapeel said:


> First let me clear up a definition since there is more than one red pill being discussed on this thread. The documentary "The Red Pill" is an incredibly well done documentary on men's rights and is not the mysogenistic red pill forum, so I'm going to give my reply only in relationship to the red pill forum not the men's rights from the documentary.
> 
> I am not a true red pill subscriber but I agree with parts of their philosophy. I've read the blogs, listened to Tom Leykis's radio show, and read a variety of books and taken the things that I find valuable from there, which is exactly how I like to live my life (with me in charge of my direction and making choices that are right for me). I don't hate women and don't see the need to manipulate women to get laid because it's just not necessary and isn't being true to myself. I also understand that there is a spectrum of men and women, so trying to pigeon hole people into a type is a waste of time.
> 
> So, specifically what I subscribe to from the movement-
> I do believe that women as a whole have far more power in society than men and men that retain their power by being in control of their lives are generally very attractive to women. I do believe that women who are highly attracted to men will treat them differently than those they are less attracted to, so I make sure to keep attraction levels high in my relationships. Part of that is done by having options with other women and not being too available or committing quickly. It's also easy to do by maintaining boundaries in relationships and not being afraid to walk away because I know my self worth. I believe that the term "hypergamy" really should be applied differently and mean that women want the best partner they can get, which is exactly the same as what men want. I believe that many women settle for men they aren't highly attracted to because the men are good providers and many women would change out their mate for a better partner if one becomes available, although that doesn't apply to all women. I believe that many women are overvalued by men which causes a relationship power imbalance. I also believe that there is power struggle happening now in society between men and women that is emasculating a large portion of the male population. As per the red pill philosophy I think women's power is linked to their youth and beauty whereas men's power is linked to money/fame/power, and the gender power struggle is an attempt to extend women's peak power into later years as their youthful beauty naturally declines. From the MMSLP I agree that men need to step up their game and be the best they can be if they want to keep their wife attracted to them, and if the wife ceases to be attracted and loyal then the men need to divorce and find someone new that appreciates them.
> 
> If you want a more accurate picture of my relationship style and how I've taken the better parts of red pill and incorporated it into my life in a positive manner, then read 3% man by Corey Wayne. That's very similar to my philosophy. I know you've read some of my posts and I'm not a bitter woman hater, but I also have a backbone and get what I want out of life. So I think there are some good things that can be taken from RP and some negative things as well, and it's up to the individual to sort through it rather than just assuming everyone that finds any value in the RP is misogynistic.


This is me being 100% honest. I was hoping you would prove me wrong but I had a feeling you were a subscriber to Red Pill philosophy from some of your replies on TAM. I'm disappointed that my original observations were correct. 😞


----------



## Buddy400

PigglyWiggly said:


> If women had been part of the writing of the bible, it most certainly would have been much improved. :wink2:


I know that there's a wink at the end of that but......

The whole "If women had done it, it would be better..." meme is such casually accepted sexism.

Either men and women are (mostly) the same. Or not.

I don't quite get the whole "Men and women are equal other than the cases where women are better" bit.

Sort of an Orwellian "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> This is me being 100% honest. I was hoping you would prove me wrong but I had a feeling you were a subscriber to Red Pill philosophy from some of your replies on TAM. I'm disappointed that my original observations were correct. 😞


What if someone thought and behaved the way that @Bananapeel does, but just thought and behaved that way naturally and not because he read about it?

I have a feeling that your opinion might be different, and I'm not sure why.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is me being 100% honest. I was hoping you would prove me wrong but I had a feeling you were a subscriber to Red Pill philosophy from some of your replies on TAM. I'm disappointed that my original observations were correct. 😞
> 
> 
> 
> What if someone thought and behaved the way that @Bananapeel does, but just thought and behaved that way naturally and not because he read about it?
> 
> I have a feeling that your opinion might be different, and I'm not sure why.
Click to expand...

If he “naturally” thinks that there is a war over sex, that’s not going to be a secret.

And if he did try to keep it a secret, that’s not being authentic. He should own his thoughts and behaviors and not hide them.

As I understand his gf is a feminist and they get along ok so it’s not always a problem. It would be if he wasn’t authentic though, I’m guessing.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Buddy400 said:


> I know that there's a wink at the end of that but......
> 
> The whole "If women had done it, it would be better..." meme is such casually accepted sexism.
> 
> Either men and women are (mostly) the same. Or not.
> 
> I don't quite get the whole "Men and women are equal other than the cases where women are better" bit.
> 
> Sort of an Orwellian "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"


You know there is a wink but....lol.......can't help yourself?


----------



## Bananapeel

Lila said:


> This is me being 100% honest. I was hoping you would prove me wrong but I had a feeling you were a subscriber to Red Pill philosophy from some of your replies on TAM. I'm disappointed that my original observations were correct. 😞


Why do you care? I'm a happy, well adjusted, honest, decent human being that treats others with respect. I hold leadership roles in my community, volunteer my time and money to those less fortunate than myself, and make a positive impact on the world. I have a great relationship with my GF, who happens to be a liberal feminist, as well as having friends from all different backgrounds and ideologies. What is inherently wrong with anything that I wrote? There's nothing that I wrote that was abusive or coercive nor is there any level of hatred towards women. There is a power imbalance between the genders and most people would recognize that, there just would be disagreement about who holds the advantage and exactly what those advantages are.


----------



## Bananapeel

Faithful Wife said:


> If he “naturally” thinks that there is a war over sex, that’s not going to be a secret.
> 
> And if he did try to keep it a secret, that’s not being authentic. He should own his thoughts and behaviors and not hide them.
> 
> As I understand his gf is a feminist and they get along ok so it’s not always a problem. It would be if he wasn’t authentic though, I’m guessing.


I never said there is a war over sex. In fact I disagreed with that. I said there was a gender power imbalance.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Buddy400 said:


> I just don't see how, even if true, this is different from men or affects real relationships.
> 
> None of the stories of cheating here on TAM (either men or women) seem to involve "trading up".
> 
> Sure, prior to marriage (or a committed LTR), both sexes are, no doubt, considering other options that appear to be better. Is there some sort of rule that requires one to continue dating forever any one you date?
> 
> With the "hypergamy" theory, you'd think women with children would be dumping their husbands on a regular basis for anyone deemed as "better". That just doesn't seem to happen (perhaps, in part, because "better" guys aren't interested in raising other men's kids). Also, those women who pursue divorce because they "just aren't happy" don't seem to be doing it for the primary purpose of finding different, better men. In fact, I'd guess that it's for the purpose of avoiding men.
> 
> So, *if* the 80/20 rule is true and there's actually any long term affect of the 80/20 rule for couples, it would seem to be limited to more women being dissatisfied, long term, in their relationships (which does seem to be reality). They "settled" and now regret it but the option of not "settling" and still being in a committed relationship was never an actual option for them.


Why would you dump your husband, if your Plan A (your paramour) isn't interested in having anything more than a sexual relationship with you? He may get her motor going (or evolutionary speaking provide better genes for offspring), but he may not be parental material. If the husband is willing to stick around after her affair, she has her Plan B, but if Plan A is will to upend his life for her, she probably would choose him.Its similar to the single mommies that get knocked up by some Alpha, but he isn't interested in anything more than sex from her. So she looks for a stable guy to provide for her child. She gets the Alpha seed and the Beta provisioning that she may find it hard to find in any one man.

Plus, I'm not sure I believe all the BS about infidelity about their spouses affairing down. Who says that? The Betrayed Spouse. Of course they think they affaired down, because otherwise that would mean that they are inferior and nobody really wants to admit that. I've even heard some say that the affair partner was better looking than me, but then people come along and tell them they affaired down. Or it may not even be so much about looks, but provisioning or social status, especially if you already had your kids.

For the ones who pursue divorce, because they "aren't happy", or the ILYBINILWY may not really be related to hypergamy, so much as you don't do it for her anymore and she will go pursue her options. She wants attraction, romance and none of the boring wifey stuff. It mainly just when they leave you for someone else.

I don't think its ironclad or anything, but its interesting, atleast put in the evolutionary and historic context.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that "men" historically have felt this. I have known so many men in my life. Some may have felt this. Very few of them by my count.
> 
> What also I have seen and heard from men throughout my life is how much women have been taken advantage of, controlled, and in some cases enslaved by men. I've known so many men who talk about things like equality and actually use the same words as women in my life do. They don't mock equality, or feminism, they are not afraid of feminists, they don't feel men have been delivered the bad hand in equality.
> 
> And no matter how many times I say that here, TAM men will come tell me that I'm making it up, or the men are hiding their true feelings, or that the men are KISA's and white knights.
> 
> And yet that never stops me from understanding and seeing the bigger picture, where there are millions of men who stand up for women, don't hate feminism, don't believe that women were "valued more" in the past, and who don't believe they are now, either.
> 
> And then there are here and there, men who in their own personal experience, did get the message the they are not valued as much as women. These are individual issues, the same way some women get the message that they are not valuable from their families and voices from the past. If you personally got stunted by your FOO, that sucks for you, but it doesn't actually mean the rest of the world was the same as however you were damaged.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the term "feminism" is that it can cover such a wide range of beliefs.
> 
> I'm very much in favor of "Equality before the law" feminism.
> 
> Very much less in favor of other beliefs that are often labeled as "feminist".
> 
> I think one thing that most people fail to understand is that, until every recently (by historical standards), life sucked for just about everyone. Men and women.
Click to expand...

So like happens every time, I spoke about men who don’t talk like you all with the RP language, and men who are feminists, and who don’t go on and on about how they have it harder than women. But it is just brushed over. Just like when men at TAM say it themselves to you guys. You guys don’t respond to them usually, you just keep telling women how men feel. Even in the presence of men who feel differently.

I completely acknowledge that there are some men who think they are down trodden by women, I just don’t think they represent most men. Could you or any of the other RP thinkers at least acknowledge that there are a significant number of men who don’t feel they are less valued than women? It’s a fact and when you guys avoid that fact and avoid those men and keep just talking about your own experiences, it just makes you look like you have blinders on.


----------



## Bananapeel

@Faithful Wife - Sure, why not.

I'm not less valued by women. Women love me and treat me exceptionally well, often better than they probably should if we lived in an equal society. While I think women have more power as a gender than men across parts of society, most of that doesn't apply to me or negatively impact me in any way. I know other guys in the same situation too.

Edit: I also know guys that are on the losing end of this too. It's not a one size fits all and each person has the power to impact their own life. However, impacting one's life is far easier if people understand the rules of the game.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Just like when men at TAM say it themselves to you guys. You guys don’t respond to them usually, you just keep telling women how men feel. Even in the presence of men who feel differently.
> 
> I completely acknowledge that there are some men who think they are down trodden by women, I just don’t think they represent most men. Could you or any of the other RP thinkers at least acknowledge that there are a significant number of men who don’t feel they are less valued than women? It’s a fact and when you guys avoid that fact and avoid those men and keep just talking about your own experiences, it just makes you look like you have blinders on.


Personally, I think I read a few pages of NMMNG, haven't read MMSL, haven't read The Rational Male (if that's a book, not a web site), I used to read the site "Hooking Up Smart" which was written by a woman. I have read some web articles that were probably RP related but I'm never regularly followed any RP blog. I did learn a few things about life 30 years ago that greatly improved my relationships with women (although I have no idea what they might have been). I have learned and applied a few things that might be considered RP since, but my already great relationship with my wife has only improved.

So, I don't really see that I'm an 'RP' guy, I just seem to have some independently arrived at thoughts that, when I express them, get me labeled as such. I'd prefer if it was assumed that I had good intentions and what I said only got judged on it's content, free of whatever motives I'm thought to have based on the "side" I'm thought to be on. But I don't live in that world and, as they say: "if you can't stand the heat, get off the internet".


----------



## Buddy400

Bananapeel said:


> @Faithful Wife - Sure, why not.
> 
> I'm not less valued by women. Women love me and treat me exceptionally well, often better than they probably should if we lived in an equal society. While I think women have more power as a gender than men across parts of society, most of that doesn't apply to me or negatively impact me in any way. I know other guys in the same situation too.
> 
> Edit: I also know guys that are on the losing end of this too. It's not a one size fits all and each person has the power to impact their own life. However, *impacting one's life is far easier if people understand the rules of the game*.


To me, that's the whole point.

Find out what the "rules" really are; not what one would prefer them to be in a more perfect world.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> To me, that's the whole point.
> 
> Find out what the "rules" really are; not what one would prefer them to be in a more perfect world.


To me, sex and relationships are not a game and don't have these "rules".

To me, people match up when they are mutually attracted to each other.

To me, people don't fall into the same groups that some of you describe.

To me, people pick well, they don't pick well, they learn, they grow, they adjust. If they are healthy, they do not see the other gender as some kind of opponent they need to learn the "rules" of.

Almost nothing in my world looks like what you guys describe. And now I will hear how "of course, because you blah blah blah" (are a woman, have never struggled to get laid, don't understand because hamsters, am trying to hold back guys from improving, I've heard it all). I don't think it would matter if 500 men that all of you personally respected came in and said their lives seem more like what I describe than what you describe. You would still ignore them and continue telling me that the world is this nasty place where men try to game women because that's what the internet says is the "rulz".

In my life, the only people who think there is a game and rulz are unhealthy. They are still brewing over something in their history. They are not well adjusted (yet). They may be again one day. When they are, they stop talking about how the other gender is wrong in this or that way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bananapeel said:


> @Faithful Wife - Sure, why not.
> 
> I'm not less valued by women. Women love me and treat me exceptionally well, often better than they probably should if we lived in an equal society. While I think women have more power as a gender than men across parts of society, most of that doesn't apply to me or negatively impact me in any way. I know other guys in the same situation too.
> 
> Edit: I also know guys that are on the losing end of this too. It's not a one size fits all and each person has the power to impact their own life. However, impacting one's life is far easier if people understand the rules of the game.


I don't know what point you had in this post. I'm already good with your authentic answer of:

_As per the red pill philosophy I think women's power is linked to their youth and beauty whereas men's power is linked to money/fame/power, and the gender power struggle is an attempt to extend women's peak power into later years as their youthful beauty naturally declines._

It's all I need to know about you. Thanks.


----------



## Lila

Bananapeel said:


> Why do you care? I'm a happy, well adjusted, honest, decent human being that treats others with respect. I hold leadership roles in my community, volunteer my time and money to those less fortunate than myself, and make a positive impact on the world. I have a great relationship with my GF, who happens to be a liberal feminist, as well as having friends from all different backgrounds and ideologies. What is inherently wrong with anything that I wrote? There's nothing that I wrote that was abusive or coercive nor is there any level of hatred towards women. There is a power imbalance between the genders and most people would recognize that, there just would be disagreement about who holds the advantage and exactly what those advantages are.


It was disappointing to learn because the fundamental core beliefs of the red pill crowd on which their advice/tenets/praxeology (whatever you want to call it) are incredibly misogynistic. When they use principles like AWALT, hamstering, and **** tests to describe women's behavior it's hard to view any positive results from their application as acceptable. It's negative at it's core.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> If he “naturally” thinks that there is a war over sex, that’s not going to be a secret.


I'm talking about his thoughts and behaviors regarding women. 

I'm not sure how his opinion about a "war over sex" relates. 



Faithful Wife said:


> And if he did try to keep it a secret, that’s *not being authentic*. He should own his thoughts and behaviors and *not hide them*.
> 
> As I understand his gf is a feminist and they get along ok so it’s not always a problem. *It would be if he wasn’t authentic though*, I’m guessing.


*Authentic*. I think that's the key part I was trying to get at.

I've always kind of wondered about why women get so wired about RP stuff. I mean, the MRA are no threat, the PUA types are despised and, apparently, easily spotted and avoided, the incels can continue to be ignored and the MGTOW aren't going to be a problem because their goal is to avoid women anyway.

So, why all the hostility? Some guys saying bad stuff about women? That doesn't seem like enough to drive the fury.

Then, one day I ran across a video by a (presumed) MRA woman who had her idea about it.

Her thought was that women want certain types of men.

They are currently able to identify the type of men they want.

If some men learn to act and behave like the men they want, it'll make it hard to separate the authentic from the inauthentic. 

Women are worried about getting fooled.

It seemed a bit far-fetched, but maybe........

I would think that if more men actually _became _men who women want, that would be good for women. 

And the mere fakers would be easy enough to spot.

Maybe not.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

uhtred said:


> People's behavior really isn't all that driven by evolutionary pressure. Few men try to have as many offspring as possible, and some of he most popular sexual activities are not intended to result in pregnancy.
> 
> The 80/40 number seems strange to me. I thought that in most cultures, most men and most women ended up married. Do you have a reference to the paper? How many generations back were they going? n


Monogamy is a more recent human development. Polygamy was common in biblical times even. The middle east is still practices polygamy. But the problem with Polygamy is the 40% of men get all the sexual access to women and the other 60% gets the INCEL lifestyle (not whiney modern day incels, but actually legitimate INCELs). Monogamy pairs people off, so that everyone gets a fair shot. Children have a more stable family to grow up in (assuming they stay married) and society is far less violent.

As far as people not be driven by evolutionary pressure, well, I just strongly disagree. Just because the man doesn't want to have a litter of offspring to pay out the nose for, doesn't mean he doesn't have the innate desire to sleep with many, many women recreationally. Hundreds of years ago, maybe when contraception didn't exist, these men would still sleep around with women, but they weren't going to stick around to father them. There wasn't a court and a DNA scientist sitting in an office saying "Sir, you are the father, time to pay child support or we are going to garnish your wages".

Or course, with the availability of contraception and a Legal Mechanism to enforce child support, why have a litter of children and a drained bank account if you can take a second to prevent those headaches? Its not like the hindbrain is such an obstacle that you can't also use rational thought as well. Else, we would be down to instincts, mating like rabbits. Even so, there is plenty of evolutionary explanation for what we find attractive as humans and thus who we select as mates.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is me being 100% honest. I was hoping you would prove me wrong but I had a feeling you were a subscriber to Red Pill philosophy from some of your replies on TAM. I'm disappointed that my original observations were correct. 😞
> 
> 
> 
> What if someone thought and behaved the way that @Bananapeel does, but just thought and behaved that way naturally and not because he read about it?
> 
> I have a feeling that your opinion might be different, and I'm not sure why.
Click to expand...

I think it's all about intent and core beliefs. There is a difference in behaving a certain way because it's naturally how they behave without negative external input and another to behave a certain way because they were taught negative things about the opposite sex. I mean many men behave in kind, mindful, attractive and respectful ways towards women without ever needing to be told they had to behave that way because women are illogical, infantile, irresponsible, and morally corrupt. Does that makes sense?


----------



## Bananapeel

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't know what point you had in this post. I'm already good with your authentic answer of:
> 
> _As per the red pill philosophy I think women's power is linked to their youth and beauty whereas men's power is linked to money/fame/power, and the gender power struggle is an attempt to extend women's peak power into later years as their youthful beauty naturally declines._
> 
> It's all I need to know about you. Thanks.


There's nothing inherently misogynistic in that statement because there was no judgement/interpretation on my part as to whether it was a good choice or a poor choice. It's simply a general observation on how society currently works. It doesn't apply to 100% of individuals, but that doesn't mean it's an inaccurate generalization. All of the interpretation regarding the significance is coming from your end.


----------



## BluesPower

Faithful Wife said:


> To me, sex and relationships are not a game and don't have these "rules".
> 
> To me, people match up when they are mutually attracted to each other.
> 
> To me, people don't fall into the same groups that some of you describe.
> 
> To me, people pick well, they don't pick well, they learn, they grow, they adjust. If they are healthy, they do not see the other gender as some kind of opponent they need to learn the "rules" of.
> 
> Almost nothing in my world looks like what you guys describe.


Don't worry, it is not you. Nothing in my world looks that way either. 

I think they are living in a different world. 

I don't really understand a lot of these concepts, but then I am not really that bright...


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> To me, sex and relationships are not a game and don't have these "rules".
> 
> To me, people match up when they are mutually attracted to each other.
> 
> To me, people don't fall into the same groups that some of you describe.
> 
> To me, people pick well, they don't pick well, they learn, they grow, they adjust. If they are healthy, they do not see the other gender as some kind of opponent they need to learn the "rules" of.
> 
> Almost nothing in my world looks like what you guys describe. And now I will hear how "of course, because you blah blah blah" (are a woman, have never struggled to get laid, don't understand because hamsters, am trying to hold back guys from improving, I've heard it all). I don't think it would matter if 500 men that all of you personally respected came in and said their lives seem more like what I describe than what you describe. You would still ignore them and continue telling me that the world is this nasty place where men try to game women because that's what the internet says is the "rulz".
> 
> In my life, the only people who think there is a game and rulz are unhealthy. They are still brewing over something in their history. They are not well adjusted (yet). They may be again one day. When they are, they stop talking about how the other gender is wrong in this or that way.


I don't think that I've used the term "game" favorably.

I DO think that there are guidelines regarding sex and relationships. In terms of things that generally produce better results than others.

There are "rulz" in other areas of life like "Don't drink and drive", "don't mouth of to a cop (no matter how much he may deserve it)", "don't tell your boss she's an idiot (even if she is)". I can't see why sex and relationships are any different.

I'm pretty sure I'm searching for the answers independent of any desire for a particular result but, of course, there's no way to convince you about that.


----------



## Bananapeel

@Lila - See that's the difference. I ignore the negatives. I read a lot, in all sorts of subjects, and then form my own opinions and make my own behavior choices. There are views about society from the RP group that is an accurate portrayal of society today. Whether it is good or bad is really irrelevant because those norms are what we are currently living with. As the norms change then my opinions will probably change too.


----------



## Buddy400

BluesPower said:


> Don't worry, it is not you. Nothing in my world looks that way either.
> 
> I think they are living in a different world.
> 
> I don't really understand a lot of these concepts, but then I am not really that bright...


Don't forget that RP theory predicts that guys like you *are* living in a different world.

So, in a perverse way, you are just confirming that their view of the world is correct.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I'm talking about his thoughts and behaviors regarding women.
> 
> I'm not sure how his opinion about a "war over sex" relates.
> 
> 
> 
> *Authentic*. I think that's the key part I was trying to get at.
> 
> I've always kind of wondered about why women get so wired about RP stuff. I mean, the MRA are no threat, the PUA types are despised and, apparently, easily spotted and avoided, the incels can continue to be ignored and the MGTOW aren't going to be a problem because their goal is to avoid women anyway.
> 
> So, why all the hostility? Some guys saying bad stuff about women? That doesn't seem like enough to drive the fury.
> 
> Then, one day I ran across a video by a (presumed) MRA woman who had her idea about it.
> 
> Her thought was that women want certain types of men.
> 
> They are currently able to identify the type of men they want.
> 
> If some men learn to act and behave like the men they want, it'll make it hard to separate the authentic from the inauthentic.
> 
> Women are worried about getting fooled.
> 
> It seemed a bit far-fetched, but maybe........
> 
> I would think that if more men actually _became _men who women want, that would be good for women.
> 
> And the mere fakers would be easy enough to spot.
> 
> Maybe not.


I'm still, again, genuinely surprised that you would go to all this mental math to try to deny the existence of actual good men, who are not RP men, who do have success with women, who don't pretend to women's faces that they are in agreement with them just to fake them out and get into their pants.

Do you not realize that I talk in depth to men about these issues, that's how I know what they think? Do you think I just make assumptions about what men's values are and then allow them to tell me whatever they want and I just believe it without further follow up, words and actions that match? 

I guess I will just continue to be surprised.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Bananapeel said:


> There's nothing inherently misogynistic in that statement because there was no judgement/interpretation on my part as to whether it was a good choice or a poor choice. It's simply a general observation on how society currently works. It doesn't apply to 100% of individuals, but that doesn't mean it's an inaccurate generalization. All of the interpretation regarding the significance is coming from your end.


Its really quite obvious, what you said. As much as feminism may rail against men have a longer shelf life in the SMP. Of course, women have it much, much easier in the early stages ~18-26 range than men do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bananapeel said:


> There's nothing inherently misogynistic in that statement because there was no judgement/interpretation on my part as to whether it was a good choice or a poor choice. It's simply a general observation on how society currently works. It doesn't apply to 100% of individuals, but that doesn't mean it's an inaccurate generalization. All of the interpretation regarding the significance is coming from your end.


Just as you get to decide for yourself what is nasty third wave feminazi drivel, I get to decide for myself what is nasty RP drivel.

As I said though, I'm glad at least you were authentic about it. I'd rather know who you are for real than some watered down version, trying to "play nice" or something?


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> I think it's all about intent and core beliefs. There is a difference in behaving a certain way because it's naturally how they behave without negative external input and another to behave a certain way because they were taught negative things about the opposite sex. I mean many men behave in kind, mindful, attractive and respectful ways towards women without ever needing to be told they had to behave that way because women are illogical, infantile, irresponsible, and morally corrupt. Does that makes sense?


Yes. But, what if someone *had* the appropriate intent and core beliefs but, due to their DNA, their FOO, their early life experiences, whatever, they didn't understand how to implement them?

To me it almost seems as if we're discounting people who had to overcome obstacles to be who they want to become in favor of people who had to do nothing at all (because they just _naturally_) were born that way.

Doesn't someone who processes negative (and positive) external input and learns from that input get any credit for having done that?

And what of core beliefs? Person A believes that human nature is good and person B believes that human nature is bad. If person B spends a summer in Haiti helping the poor, do they not get credit for that because their view of human nature is negative? 

Being good is good. And I'm inclined to give more credit to the person who had to figure out what's good that the person to whom it just came naturally.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> *Authentic*. I think that's the key part I was trying to get at.
> 
> I've always kind of wondered about why women get so wired about RP stuff. I mean, the MRA are no threat, the PUA types are despised and, apparently, easily spotted and avoided, the incels can continue to be ignored and the MGTOW aren't going to be a problem because their goal is to avoid women anyway.
> 
> So, why all the hostility? Some guys saying bad stuff about women? That doesn't seem like enough to drive the fury.
> 
> Then, one day I ran across a video by a (presumed) MRA woman who had her idea about it.
> 
> Her thought was that women want certain types of men.
> 
> They are currently able to identify the type of men they want.
> 
> If some men learn to act and behave like the men they want, it'll make it hard to separate the authentic from the inauthentic.
> 
> Women are worried about getting fooled.
> 
> It seemed a bit far-fetched, but maybe........
> 
> I would think that if more men actually _became _men who women want, that would be good for women.
> 
> And the mere fakers would be easy enough to spot.
> 
> Maybe not.


There might be some truth to this. 

I liken it to the argument regarding sex with a partner who genuinely desires sex or with one who does it out of a sense of duty because they were taught that it's a part of marriage/relationship. 

I think most people want to have sex with partners who genuinely desire them. I think many people would be hurt to learn that their partner was "performing" based on some learned idea that sex was a duty of marriage. 

It's the same thought process here. Intent. I kind of see it as those Christians who do good because they see it as their key heaven and those who do good because it's the right thing to do.


----------



## BluesPower

Buddy400 said:


> Don't forget that RP theory predicts that guys like you *are* living in a different world.
> 
> So, in a perverse way, you are just confirming that their view of the world is correct.


Ok, I will bite. Explain it to me. 

I am a guy that is successful with woman. I enjoy and prioritize sex. I do not date or marry women that do not enjoy sex and lots of it. 

I actually do love woman, all woman for the most part. I have never thought of myself as less than any woman or man for that matter. I find women fascinating in general. 

I have never had a sexless marriage, I have never in my life gone without sex. 

So explain where my world is and how it is different than yours? 

I really want to understand...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> To me it almost seems as if we're discounting people who had to overcome obstacles to be who they want to become in favor of people who had to do nothing at all (because they just _naturally_) were born that way.


What I am doing is saying that there are better ways to grow, become more attractive, have better relationships....for men and women (most problems have to do with self awareness that all people need more of) where you don't also have to learn the "rulz" that women have hamsters, they do not know what they want, that they are hypergamous *****s, and so on.

I don't know why we would need to prove that there is a good reason to seek out better help than ****ty help.

For those of you who think you have been helped by RP, your posts still seethe with resentment toward women and specifically, toward the fact that you have had to learn to "game" them to get sex with them. It comes through in every post. 

If it didn't, and if you didn't seem to hold a grudge against women in general for this sex gate holding thing and somehow also women's fault that you were misguided as a youth and believed the wrong things, then that would be obvious in your posts.

Every time you talk about the "rulz" I just hear "dang those women and their rulz!"


----------



## Faithful Wife

BluesPower said:


> Ok, I will bite. Explain it to me.
> 
> I am a guy that is successful with woman. I enjoy and prioritize sex. I do not date or marry women that do not enjoy sex and lots of it.
> 
> I actually do love woman, all woman for the most part. I have never thought of myself as less than any woman or man for that matter. I find women fascinating in general.
> 
> I have never had a sexless marriage, I have never in my life gone without sex.
> 
> So explain where my world is and how it is different than yours?
> 
> I really want to understand...


You will now be schooled in how you are a "natural" and therefore, you don't know how you're doing it. It just comes "naturally" to you.

And further more, you don't know how to give any advice that is valid to other men, because as a natural, you don't actually know what you are doing, it is subconscious. RP men are directed NOT to speak to you about anything, because anything you say will just mess up the "rulz" they are trying to learn from other non-natural RP men.

Plus other blah blah blah.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm still, again, genuinely surprised that you would go to all this mental math to try to deny the existence of actual good men, who are not RP men, who do have success with women, who don't pretend to women's faces that they are in agreement with them just to fake them out and get into their pants.


I don't know where you get the idea that I don't believe that there are good men who have success with women.

I would imagine that being a "good man" would be an important element of "being successful with women". 

I'm sure there are good men who have success with women. There are also good men who don't have success with women (and that's perfectly fine). 

Women are under no obligation to let men "be successful" with them whether they are good or not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I don't know where you get the idea that I don't believe that there are good men who have success with women.
> 
> I would imagine that being a "good man" would be an important element of "being successful with women".
> 
> I'm sure there are good men who have success with women. There are also good men who don't have success with women (and that's perfectly fine).
> 
> Women are under no obligation to let men "be successful" with them whether they are good or not.


Why can't we discuss those good men and what their qualities are then? Why must we always frame them as if they are Chads and Tyrones or KISA's and don't know the rulz?


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> Jonathon Haidt, for one. He has the analogy of a monkey (the conscious mind) riding an elephant (the unconscious mind). The monkey thinks he's deciding where the elephant goes. Actually, the monkey's real job is usually to come up with reasons why where the elephant is already going is the right thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unconscious mind want a lot of kids. The unconscious mind realizes that is an unwise thing to do. In this case, the monkey usually wins.
> 
> 
> 
> But, the *desire* to have a lot of offspring is still there to be overcome.



To create as many offspring as possible is not necessarily the best way to ensure that your genes survive. By having too many children, you may not be allocating your resources efficiently to ensure that the lot have a prosperous life to keep passing on your genes.
Monetary resource is only one resource. You also need to provide the offspring with knowledge and skills so they know how to survive.

But yeah, if I had unlimited time and unlimited resources, the elephant underneath me wonders why not spray the world with semen?  That’s what Ghengis Khan did and now all of us carry his dna.

I also thought the monkey in my brain was in charge and pretty rational. I was wrong. It seems I’m happy to procreate until the cows come home...But my wife is charge of reproduction so she kind of put a cork in me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BluesPower

Faithful Wife said:


> You will now be schooled in how you are a "natural" and therefore, you don't know how you're doing it. It just comes "naturally" to you.
> 
> And further more, you don't know how to give any advice that is valid to other men, because as a natural, you don't actually know what you are doing, it is subconscious. RP men are directed NOT to speak to you about anything, because anything you say will just mess up the "rulz" they are trying to learn from other non-natural RP men.
> 
> Plus other blah blah blah.


OOOOOKKKK. I will take your word for it. 

And you are telling me that people really think that way. Like in real life, there are people that think that way. 

OK, I will take your word for it.


----------



## Bananapeel

The funny thing about RP, is I never knew it existed before TAM. So I read about it and learned which must make me someone that hates women and can't get laid without their guidance. :rofl:

I also read a book about Cassanova, which probably means I have gonorrhea and rape minors.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I know that there's a wink at the end of that but......
> 
> 
> 
> The whole "If women had done it, it would be better..." meme is such casually accepted sexism.
> 
> 
> 
> Either men and women are (mostly) the same. Or not.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite get the whole "Men and women are equal other than the cases where women are better" bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of an Orwellian "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"




Men and women are equal because they both suck *equally * at * different * things.

Now go forth and use this information at your own risk . Oh and keep fornicating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

BluesPower said:


> Ok, I will bite. Explain it to me.
> 
> I am a guy that is successful with woman. I enjoy and prioritize sex. I do not date or marry women that do not enjoy sex and lots of it.
> 
> I actually do love woman, all woman for the most part. I have never thought of myself as less than any woman or man for that matter. I find women fascinating in general.
> 
> *I have never had a sexless marriage, I have never in my life gone without sex.*
> 
> So explain where my world is and how it is different than yours?
> 
> I really want to understand...


Since you ask specifically how *my* world is different that yours, I'm not sure it is since I've been married for 30 years, the marriage has never been sexless and I get all the sex I want (with my wife).

As for what I understand RP theory to be......

I believe that one of the basic tenets is that a small percentage of men have all the sex they want and that a much larger percentage of men don't get anywhere near the amount of sex they want.

So, they believe that there are plenty of you (guys who get all the sex they want).

They believe that most men don't get anywhere near the sex you do.

So, pointing out that you exist and that you get all the sex you want fits nicely into their worldview. 

In fact, it reinforces it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bananapeel said:


> The funny thing about RP, is I never knew it existed before TAM. So I read about it and learned which must make me someone that hates women and can't get laid without their guidance. :rofl:
> 
> I also read a book about Cassanova, which probably means I have gonorrhea and rape minors.


What you read, what you learned, and whatever you took away from it doesn't really mean anything to me.

Same way that however a third wave feminazi came to say the things she does and you don't care, you're not down with what she is saying so you box her in your judgement and leave it right there.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Buddy400 said:


> Since you ask specifically how *my* world is different that yours, I'm not sure it is since I've been married for 30 years, the marriage has never been sexless and I get all the sex I want (with my wife).
> 
> As for what I understand RP theory to be......
> 
> I believe that one of the basic tenets is that a small percentage of men have all the sex they want and that a much larger percentage of men don't get anywhere near the amount of sex they want.
> 
> So, they believe that there are plenty of you (guys who get all the sex they want).
> 
> They believe that most men don't get anywhere near the sex you do.
> 
> So, pointing out that you exist and that you get all the sex you want fits nicely into their worldview.
> 
> In fact, it reinforces it.


So, whats the point though, the reality is most people are not particularly interesting to strangers regardless of sex. The percentage of men who are fit, attractive and have interesting personalities isn't very high. So the fit, attractive and interesting men are going to have a much easier time getting sex. Thats not some special theory it's just common sense. Maybe if these guys took pride in who they are, gained life experience that made them more interesting they would get more sex. Again isn't that just common sense. Do these guys think it's some kind of female conspiracy that they can't get a girl? Do they not realize if they are having trouble in that department they should be looking inward and not outward? 

The whole idea that relationships and sex is some kind of game with winners and losers is a self fulfilling prophecy and someone with that thought process would seem to be starting from the rear of the pack.


----------



## Lila

Bananapeel said:


> @Lila - See that's the difference. I ignore the negatives. I read a lot, in all sorts of subjects, and then form my own opinions and make my own behavior choices. There are views about society from the RP group that is an accurate portrayal of society today. Whether it is good or bad is really irrelevant because those norms are what we are currently living with. As the norms change then my opinions will probably change too.


Giving you the benefit of the doubt.....You're an outlier and not the rule then @Bananapeel. Most men view the red pill ideology like religious doctrine that must be believed word for word. As as the RP crowd is quick to say for AWALT, an outlier does not disprove their theory. In this case my theory is that RP is toxic because the vast majority of people who apply can't distinguish the good from the bad. Most end up with a lot of core bad.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

inmyprime said:


> To create as many offspring as possible is not necessarily the best way to ensure that your genes survive. By having too many children, you may not be allocating your resources efficiently to ensure that the lot have a prosperous life to keep passing on your genes.
> Monetary resource is only one resource. You also need to provide the offspring with knowledge and skills so they know how to survive.
> 
> But yeah, if I had unlimited time and unlimited resources, the elephant underneath me wonders why not spray the world with semen?  That’s what Ghengis Khan did and now all of us carry his dna.
> 
> I also thought the monkey in my brain was in charge and pretty rational. I was wrong. It seems I’m happy to procreate until the cows come home...But my wife is charge of reproduction so she kind of put a cork in me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What does all that matter? If your main concern is spraying the world with semen to ensure the likely chance you will have lots of offspring, then you have fulfilled your job. Now some may die from disease, but they probably won't starve because they are too weak or scared to hunt, they are already at an advantage physically with their Father's superior DNA. I'm sure the village will figure out how to put him to work so he can hunt game and spray his semen around. Or maybe his father will, when he isn't busy banging the other ladies in neighboring villages. Its a tough life.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> There might be some truth to this.
> 
> I liken it to the argument regarding sex with a partner who genuinely desires sex or with one who does it out of a sense of duty because they were taught that it's a part of marriage/relationship.
> 
> I think most people want to have sex with partners who genuinely desire them. I think many people would be hurt to learn that their partner was "performing" based on some learned idea that sex was a duty of marriage.
> 
> It's the same thought process here. Intent. I kind of see it as those Christians who do good because they see it as their key heaven and those who do good because it's the right thing to do.


Maybe. I see your point.

But, doesn't it seem a bit perverse? 

That you are what you're born as and can't do anything about it? All your effort to be "good" is useless? (over dramatic, but hopefully, you get the point). 

I give a lot of credit to good done through conscious choices.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> Giving you the benefit of the doubt.....


The internet could use more of that


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I don't think that I've used the term "game" favorably.
> 
> 
> 
> I DO think that there are guidelines regarding sex and relationships. In terms of things that generally produce better results than others.
> 
> 
> 
> There are "rulz" in other areas of life like "Don't drink and drive", "don't mouth of to a cop (no matter how much he may deserve it)", "don't tell your boss she's an idiot (even if she is)". I can't see why sex and relationships are any different.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'm searching for the answers independent of any desire for a particular result but, of course, there's no way to convince you about that.



You guys (and girls) are talking about the same thing but using (slightly) different language. Denying this kind of comes across as hypocritical.

Let’s see...a woman making herself look more beautiful before going on a first date. Is she trying to ‘game’ the man into a relationship by trying to look her best and (in)authentic self?
Or is she trying to just meet up to have a good time like what all the ‘normal people’ in the ‘real world’ do? Potatoes, potahtoes.

Woman’s choice whether to let Chad (or whoever) bang her on the first date or not: is she the one with dominant power as far as this relationship is concerned or is she just being sensible? (As any rational woman in the real world would be).

I suggest we talk about something else (preferably penis-or vajayjay-related), as everyone learnt (hopefully) how the ‘game of (real) life’ works by now.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> Being good is good. And I'm inclined to give more credit to the person who had to figure out what's good that the person to whom it just came naturally.


Again, it's all about intent. Are you being good for selfish reasons or being good because good is the right thing? It's fake good vs genuine good. 

Person B in your example could be helping people in Haiti because he genuinely wants to help the needy people or he's doing it because he's doesn't want to have Haitians illegally entering his home country and mucking up his society. There's a difference just as with my example about genuine sexual desire vs performing dutiful sex because it's a requirement of marriage. Both end up in sex but which one do you think most people would find acceptable and which would be rejected outright?


----------



## Bananapeel

Faithful Wife said:


> What you read, what you learned, and whatever you took away from it doesn't really mean anything to me.
> 
> Same way that however a third wave feminazi came to say the things she does and you don't care, you're not down with what she is saying so you box her in your judgement and leave it right there.


Except, I'm not judgy. I have fun discussions with my 3rd wave feminist friends.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> Again, it's all about intent. Are you being good for selfish reasons or being good because good is the right thing? It's fake good vs genuine good.
> 
> Person B in your example could be helping people in Haiti because he genuinely wants to help the needy people or he's doing it because he's doesn't want to have Haitians illegally entering his home country and mucking up his society. There's a difference just as with my example about genuine sexual desire vs performing dutiful sex because it's a requirement of marriage. Both end up in sex but which one do you think most people would find acceptable and which would be rejected outright?


I don't think I've ever heard any RP guy say he is trying to improve because he loves women so much and wants to understand them. It is always about getting sex, or about them feeling that women have more power than they do and their resentment over it.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> There might be some truth to this.
> 
> I liken it to the argument regarding sex with a partner who genuinely desires sex or with one who does it out of a sense of duty because they were taught that it's a part of marriage/relationship.
> 
> I think most people want to have sex with partners who genuinely desire them. I think many people would be hurt to learn that their partner was "performing" based on some learned idea that sex was a duty of marriage.
> 
> It's the same thought process here. Intent. I kind of see it as those Christians who do good because they see it as their key heaven and those who do good because it's the right thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. I see your point.
> 
> But, doesn't it seem a bit perverse?
> 
> That you are what you're born as and can't do anything about it? All your effort to be "good" is useless? (over dramatic, but hopefully, you get the point).
> 
> I give a lot of credit to good done through conscious choices.
Click to expand...

In terms of RP, are these men improving themselves because they respect women and find them intelligent, logical adults or because they believe women have hamsters in their brain, are illogical, infantile *****s?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Lila said:


> Giving you the benefit of the doubt.....You're an outlier and not the rule then @Bananapeel. Most men view the red pill ideology like religious doctrine that must be believed word for word. As as the RP crowd is quick to say for AWALT, an outlier does not disprove their theory. In this case my theory is that RP is toxic because the vast majority of people who apply can't distinguish the good from the bad. Most end up with a lot of core bad.


Well, now you are saying Redpill teaches men to do bad things. Like they are rapists or something. The fact that they are going to the gym and learning game tells me they want to attract women, not assault them. The RP guys just improve themselves and by doing so, get women. They learn that beta orbiting isn't attractive and that if they want sex they need to do certain things to build attraction. It may not always work, but it works enough.

What probably has you into a tizzy, is you went on Redpill Reddit and you heard all the misogynistic language. What you fail to understand, that is typical locker room language that has been around for ages. Half of them are just chest pumping or trying to get a rise, just like in a locker room. I some time go on there just to get a laugh. Most of these types that frequent the RP reddit forums are probably in the 18-24 year range and there whole life is consumed by sex. Later these guys grow up, get a job, consume themselves with other things and probably get married, have kids. Right now though, they are spinning plates, playing the field and figuring out what the want. They don't want a GF, they don't want a wife, because they aren't ready. But they are ready to get laid.

Whats wrong with that? Same thing women do.


----------



## 269370

Also: don’t forget, men will say just about anything just to get laid so talking to them ‘in depth’ or ‘authentically’ is not going to reveal anything new or different:

https://youtu.be/u7tXpBrpecA

I would have thought most women would know this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bananapeel said:


> Except, I'm not judgy. I have fun discussions with my 3rd wave feminist friends.


You had PM'd me awhile back (in order not to hi-jack a thread) and said: "There's a difference between not understanding 3rd wave feminism and not thinking that the solutions it promotes are ideal to addressing societies problems. I have a very close friend that is a 3rd wave feminist and I recommended that she watch the movie "the red pill documentary" which is about a 3rd wave feminist investigating her belief system. If you get a chance I'd recommend you watch it too and see how it relates to your belief system."

I don't know why you thought it was your place to try to assist me in my understanding of third wave or any other feminism. I get it, you are just suggesting a movie. But you are also suggesting that somehow, my thoughts maybe should change or shift or be more like yours or like your friend's or.....?

So my point is, yes you are in fact judgy, you just want to pretend to do it in a "here try this" type of way. If you weren't judgy, you wouldn't think that what I think needs any tweaking, nor would you think it was your place to do so.

You don't know what I think but made assumptions about what I think based on things I have written.

All I am doing is the same. You've written things that I've made judgments about you for. Same.

You're entitled to your judgyness, as am I. I'm just not going to also PM you and tell you that you should read some books and think more like someone else.


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> Ok, I will bite. Explain it to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I am a guy that is successful with woman. I enjoy and prioritize sex. I do not date or marry women that do not enjoy sex and lots of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I actually do love woman, all woman for the most part. I have never thought of myself as less than any woman or man for that matter. I find women fascinating in general.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never had a sexless marriage, I have never in my life gone without sex.
> 
> 
> 
> So explain where my world is and how it is different than yours?
> 
> 
> 
> I really want to understand...




Well, as you say, you find ‘woman’ fascinating, as long as she is willing to have sex with you frequently.
It’s all the same world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Why can't we discuss those good men and what their qualities are then? Why must we always frame them as if they are Chads and Tyrones or KISA's and don't know the rulz?


Well, *I* don't talk about Chads and Tyrones or KISA's. 

I guess it's because I don't see being a "good man" and being "successful with women" as necessarily related.

That's more of an incel meme: "I'm a good guy, so women should want to have sex with me, women are bad because they only want to have sex with men they're attracted too and not good guys like me".

I think that women prefer to have sex with men they are attracted to and the most sex with good men who they are attracted to.


----------



## Lila

Faithful Wife said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's all about intent. Are you being good for selfish reasons or being good because good is the right thing? It's fake good vs genuine good.
> 
> Person B in your example could be helping people in Haiti because he genuinely wants to help the needy people or he's doing it because he's doesn't want to have Haitians illegally entering his home country and mucking up his society. There's a difference just as with my example about genuine sexual desire vs performing dutiful sex because it's a requirement of marriage. Both end up in sex but which one do you think most people would find acceptable and which would be rejected outright?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever heard any RP guy say he is trying to improve because he loves women so much and wants to understand them. It is always about getting sex, or about them feeling that women have more power than they do and their resentment over it.
Click to expand...

Again @Faithful Wife, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Well, *I* don't talk about Chads and Tyrones or KISA's.
> 
> I guess it's because I don't see being a "good man" and being "successful with women" as necessarily related.
> 
> That's more of an incel meme: "I'm a good guy, so women should want to have sex with me, women are bad because they only want to have sex with men they're attracted too and not good guys like me".
> 
> I think that women prefer to have sex with men they are attracted to and the most sex with good men who they are attracted to.


This is why it is a dead end conversation. No matter what we say about what we actually want, no matter how many examples, no matter what statistics, no matter how we frame it....you and others will deny it all and just default to "successful men with women are not necessarily good men". End of conversation because you've just put up a wall that can't be overcome. Believe me, I've been trying for years.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> Again @Faithful Wife, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.


Yes, I meant RP men in general (not men you are conversing with here). But maybe you also meant RP men in general?


----------



## Lila

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving you the benefit of the doubt.....You're an outlier and not the rule then @Bananapeel. Most men view the red pill ideology like religious doctrine that must be believed word for word. As as the RP crowd is quick to say for AWALT, an outlier does not disprove their theory. In this case my theory is that RP is toxic because the vast majority of people who apply can't distinguish the good from the bad. Most end up with a lot of core bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now you are saying Redpill teaches men to do bad things. Like they are rapists or something. The fact that they are going to the gym and learning game tells me they want to attract women, not assault them. The RP guys just improve themselves and by doing so, get women. They learn that beta orbiting isn't attractive and that if they want sex they need to do certain things to build attraction. It may not always work, but it works enough.
> 
> What probably has you into a tizzy, is you went on Redpill Reddit and you heard all the misogynistic language. What you fail to understand, that is typical locker room language that has been around for ages. Half of them are just chest pumping or trying to get a rise, just like in a locker room. I some time go on there just to get a laugh. Most of these types that frequent the RP reddit forums are probably in the 18-24 year range and there whole life is consumed by sex. Later these guys grow up, get a job, consume themselves with other things and probably get married, have kids. Right now though, they are spinning plates, playing the field and figuring out what the want. They don't want a GF, they don't want a wife, because they aren't ready. But they are ready to get laid.
> 
> Whats wrong with that? Same thing women do.
Click to expand...


It's not about a bunch of horny teenage boys trying to get laid. It's that these impressionable young men are learning very negative views of women that they will take with them forever.... especially if they find themselves in relationships with damaged women which is what most tend to attract with their beliefs that all women are hamster brained, illogical, brats looking to trade up.


----------



## 269370

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> What does all that matter? If your main concern is spraying the world with semen to ensure the likely chance you will have lots of offspring, then you have fulfilled your job.



I’m not sure you understood what I said: creating ‘as many offspring as possible’ is not the evolutionary goal. Ensuring that those offspring survive to pass on the dna further down the line is more of a goal. And that means that having too many offspring can endanger this goal. As well as living a promiscuous life (in today’s society).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Y
> 
> You're entitled to your judgyness, as am I. I'm just not going to also PM you and tell you that you should read some books and think more like someone else.


That's weird.

I would *expect* people to suggest books to me that they believed might change or enhance my view on a topic in the direction that the book supported.

It's a waste of time to just read that which confirms one's existing views (although it's hard to avoid). 

My wife used to complain that I always thought I was right.

I told her that, of course I thought I was right. If I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind. **

** That's only regarding topics on which I consider myself well enough informed about to have a serious opinion about.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> I’m not sure you understood what I said: creating ‘as many offspring as possible’ is not the evolutionary goal. Ensuring that those offspring survive to pass on the dna further down the line is more of a goal. And that means that having too many offspring can endanger this goal. As well as living a promiscuous life (in today’s society).


In today's society, not so much.

But, in previous societies sure, impregnating 100 women and ghosting on them would probably have resulted in more genetic off-spring that raising a family of four.


----------



## 269370

It’s very simple: if men who were ‘successful’ with women were all ‘good men’, there wouldn’t be so many good women falling for jerks.

There is an inherent (and incorrect) assumption that just because they pick a man, he must be ‘good’. Actually a lot of women pick really ****ty men.

Men themselves have said repeatedly here (and other places) that they can’t believe what those men* can get away with.

I don’t even understand anymore what the argument here is exactly.

*who get laid repeatedly

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> That's weird.
> 
> I would *expect* people to suggest books to me that they believed might change or enhance my view on a topic in the direction that the book supported.
> 
> It's a waste of time to just read that which confirms one's existing views (although it's hard to avoid).
> 
> My wife used to complain that I always thought I was right.
> 
> I told her that, of course I thought I was right. If I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind. **
> 
> ** That's only regarding topics on which I consider myself well enough informed about to have a serious opinion about.


I would never PM you out of the blue and suggest that you read a book or watch a movie. Especially not one that would attempt to break down your current world view. Why would I? I don't want anyone to change their world view just because I would like them to, there's no need to. We are strangers. 

If you and I were friends in person and we both traded book suggestions about interesting topics we like to banter about even if from opposite sides, that would be different and I do that already with friends. Because I know where my real friends are coming from and know what and how we can help each other that way. 

You and bananapeel are internet strangers to me, and I don't treat internet strangers the same way I treat friends.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> This is why it is a dead end conversation. No matter what we say about what we actually want, no matter how many examples, no matter what statistics, no matter how we frame it....you and others will deny it all and just default to "successful men with women are not necessarily good men". End of conversation because you've just put up a wall that can't be overcome. Believe me, I've been trying for years.


I said something that I think disagrees with standard RP doctrine. 

If you're interested in talking to *me* (and there's no reason why you should be)....

Are you saying that "all good men have success with women"? Or that "men who are not good do not have success with women"?

That would be odd because there are plenty of good women who don't have success with men and plenty of "bad" women who do.

Why would women be different?


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> I don’t even understand anymore what the argument here is exactly.


I'm having the same problem


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Are you saying that "all good men have success with women"? Or that "men who are not good do not have success with women"?


I'm saying neither. I'm saying that there are good men who have success with women, LOTS of good men, who are not using game or "rulz", who are not "naturals", who are not incredibly tall fit or rich, who are your every day average guy. Other men don't seem to know this. They see us with a man and immediately become suspicious about whether or not that man "deserves" us, and if we are attractive, then there is an assumption that the man has some special game or that he is a natural or that he is rich. But not just that he may be a good man and that's why she likes him.

In order for me to know what you actually do think, can you tell me what you perceive the "rulz" are? Otherwise I will have to assume based on your other posts and I may or may not have them all straight in my head.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I'm having the same problem


Why are you still engaging me with specific banter and back and forth posts? Gee and here I thought we were actually communicating. Guess I was wrong.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Lila said:


> It's not about a bunch of horny teenage boys trying to get laid. It's that these impressionable young men are learning very negative views of women that they will take with them forever.... especially if they find themselves in relationships with damaged women which is what most tend to attract with their beliefs that all women are hamster brained, illogical, brats looking to trade up.


But thats backwards. They find redpill cause they are angry at women to begin with...mainly cuz they dont know how to attract women or they got burned. They are reevaluating their sexual strategy. These guys arent looking at these women as potential mates. Maybe one proves to be an LTR, but the point is to weigh your options.

I worry more about the nice guys attracting the wrong kind of girl. They are going in blind and will settle for almost any BS because they have no frame of reference. They may find themselves at Redpill eventually, too.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> In order for me to know what you actually do think, can you tell me what you perceive the "rulz" are? Otherwise I will have to assume based on your other posts and I may or may not have them all straight in my head.


Hmmmm.... 

Things that I don't think you'd have a problem with....

* Women want to have sex with men they are attracted to, not with guys that "deserve" it. This is exactly the same as for men. However, many men seem to think that women are special creatures who operate on different principles than men. There is no reason why this should be.

* Women appreciate men who are decisive and make their desires and needs known (this does not mean controlling *******s).

* Women should, in all instances be treated equally under the law. Discrimination due to gender should be illegal unless very convincing evidence exists that gender is crucial to job performance (i.e. a stripper at a gentlemen's club). 

Things I'm not so sure you'd have a problem with .....

* Women's desire is more driven by a man's desire for them than the reverse. So, men making that desire known (in appropriate situations) is good.

* Women lose respect (and desire) for men who jump to satisfy their every whim. I believe this is different for men. I believe men would have few problems with women who jump to satisfy their every whim).

* Women's libido is more inconsistent than men's. It's more mental; it's affected by varying hormones and it's affected by varying life conditions (marriage, kids, stress, etc). Women's libido is generally more affected by NRE and is more likely to wear off once the NRE cools. Men's libido is driven mostly by testosterone and is fairly constant although it declines over time.

* Women are far more likely to have responsive desire. They also have problems with this because they're being told that they should always have spontaneous desire or there's something wrong with them. The common thinking that "people should only have sex when they want to" makes dealing with responsive desire a bigger problem to deal with.

* Women tend to not understand how important sex is to men when it comes to emotional bonding.

* Men are easier to please in relationships (and this is not necessarily a good thing). 

* Men say they want men to be more emotionally vulnerable but often end up losing attraction for men who are emotionally vulnerable.

* The fact that the genders aren't equally represented in a field is not evidence of gender discrimination. 

Things you won't like ....

* Men want sex more than women (generally)

* Women often actually don't know what they want because their conscious and subconscious desires are often at odds. Men's conscious and subconscious are more aligned (not that there's necessarily anything better about that).

* When women say what they want in men, they're actually talking about how they want from men to _whom they are already attracted _. Men can do all the things women say they want men to do and it won't have any effect if the woman's not already attracted to them.

* Women rate 80% of men as below average. This can lead to them chasing men who will not be interested in anything beyond sex (which is fine if sex is truly all the woman is interested in) and feeling like they've settled if they end up in a relationship with one of the 80%.

* Woman (in general) find casual sex less satisfying than men. Women feel pressured by society to have more casual sex than they would prefer. 

These are all generalities and individuals can and will vary. Just because a rule generally applies doesn't mean it always true. When available, one should always give priority to what they KNOW to be true about a particular person than what any generalization says about them.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Why are you still engaging me with specific banter and back and forth posts? Gee and here I thought we were actually communicating. Guess I was wrong.


Sort of a cross post with myself at different levels of optimism.

I can that this could make you feel I was asking you to truly engage while seeming like I saw no point in your doing so.

Sorry about that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still engaging me with specific banter and back and forth posts? Gee and here I thought we were actually communicating. Guess I was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of a cross post with myself at different levels of optimism.
> 
> I can that this could make you feel I was asking you to truly engage while seeming like I saw no point in your doing so.
> 
> Sorry about that.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I will read your longer post soon and thanks for taking the time to write it.


----------



## uhtred

What bothers me most about some of the RP men is not that they want to act in ways that will get them more sex, but that here seems an frequent undercurrent of a sense of unfairness / blame attached to it. 

I've had a life of very limited sex, but I don't attach any blame to it - its the result of my decisions, not some sort of pervasive issue. I could make or have made different decisions and had more sex, and accepted different trade-offs in life. It all seems basically fair to me. 

I may wish the situation were different, and I had different decision options, but I don't see the situation as "unfair". 


If there are men who want to maximize how much sex they have, IMHO they are welcome do to so as long as they don't engage in deceptive or abusive behavior to get more sex. That is a valid life choice, as are making other decisions to optimize other parts of life.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

uhtred said:


> What bothers me most about some of the RP men is not that they want to act in ways that will get them more sex, but that here seems an frequent undercurrent of a sense of unfairness / blame attached to it.
> 
> I've had a life of very limited sex, but I don't attach any blame to it - its the result of my decisions, not some sort of pervasive issue. I could make or have made different decisions and had more sex, and accepted different trade-offs in life. It all seems basically fair to me.
> 
> I may wish the situation were different, and I had different decision options, but I don't see the situation as "unfair".
> 
> 
> If there are men who want to maximize how much sex they have, IMHO they are welcome do to so as long as they don't engage in deceptive or abusive behavior to get more sex. That is a valid life choice, as are making other decisions to optimize other parts of life.


Thats true of INCELs. They are whiney. But if I were short, fat, and genuinely unattractive, well I'd probably be a whiney little b!tch too. Not too much you can do about height. Though, Personal says he lays supermodels at 5'3" so WTF do I know.

I don't think this really applies to MGTOW, they certainly have negative impressions of women, but they removed themselves voluntarily from the SMP and really dont want anything to do with women (bad experiences probs) so they are almost irrelevant.

The more typical red pill guy simply see the unfairness and develops rules to work to their advantage. Instead of fighting the rules, learn them and adapt. 

Honestly, I think most are more angry at themselves for wasting time listening to various women say that they really just want a nice guy, then trying to be that guy and ending up friendzoned while she ends up with the pr!ck sporting neck tattoos. They finally figured out listening to the dudes actually getting laid might be more constructive.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Hmmmm....
> 
> Things that I don't think you'd have a problem with....
> 
> * Women want to have sex with men they are attracted to, not with guys that "deserve" it. This is exactly the same as for men. However, many men seem to think that women are special creatures who operate on different principles than men. There is no reason why this should be.
> 
> * Women appreciate men who are decisive and make their desires and needs known (this does not mean controlling *******s).
> 
> * Women should, in all instances be treated equally under the law. Discrimination due to gender should be illegal unless very convincing evidence exists that gender is crucial to job performance (i.e. a stripper at a gentlemen's club).
> 
> Things I'm not so sure you'd have a problem with .....
> 
> * Women's desire is more driven by a man's desire for them than the reverse. So, men making that desire known (in appropriate situations) is good.
> 
> * Women lose respect (and desire) for men who jump to satisfy their every whim. I believe this is different for men. I believe men would have few problems with women who jump to satisfy their every whim).
> 
> * Women's libido is more inconsistent than men's. It's more mental; it's affected by varying hormones and it's affected by varying life conditions (marriage, kids, stress, etc). Women's libido is generally more affected by NRE and is more likely to wear off once the NRE cools. Men's libido is driven mostly by testosterone and is fairly constant although it declines over time.
> 
> * Women are far more likely to have responsive desire. They also have problems with this because they're being told that they should always have spontaneous desire or there's something wrong with them. The common thinking that "people should only have sex when they want to" makes dealing with responsive desire a bigger problem to deal with.
> 
> * Women tend to not understand how important sex is to men when it comes to emotional bonding.
> 
> * Men are easier to please in relationships (and this is not necessarily a good thing).
> 
> * Men say they want men to be more emotionally vulnerable but often end up losing attraction for men who are emotionally vulnerable.
> 
> * The fact that the genders aren't equally represented in a field is not evidence of gender discrimination.
> 
> Things you won't like ....
> 
> * Men want sex more than women (generally)
> 
> * Women often actually don't know what they want because their conscious and subconscious desires are often at odds. Men's conscious and subconscious are more aligned (not that there's necessarily anything better about that).
> 
> * When women say what they want in men, they're actually talking about how they want from men to _whom they are already attracted _. Men can do all the things women say they want men to do and it won't have any effect if the woman's not already attracted to them.
> 
> * Women rate 80% of men as below average. This can lead to them chasing men who will not be interested in anything beyond sex (which is fine if sex is truly all the woman is interested in) and feeling like they've settled if they end up in a relationship with one of the 80%.
> 
> * Woman (in general) find casual sex less satisfying than men. Women feel pressured by society to have more casual sex than they would prefer.
> 
> These are all generalities and individuals can and will vary. Just because a rule generally applies doesn't mean it always true. When available, one should always give priority to what they KNOW to be true about a particular person than what any generalization says about them.


Thank you for reply. So if I felt any of these were misguided rules or just plain wrong, would you actually be open to changing your mind about them? Not that it matters, and I don’t want to change your mind. I’m just curious.

Also if I listed what I’ve seen in the world as “rules” (also factoring in what I’ve read and see friends go through), would it make any difference? Would you be curious to know what my world view has yielded? I mean curious in the sense that you may actually accept that a different view is true. 

See, individual world views are different and apply to those individuals. And I strongly believe that your world view is valid, no matter what it is. It came from your individual view of the world and therefore is totally individual. It’s a unique perspective that is your to hold or change as you see fit for your own reasons.

The only reason I would want to change your world view would be that if I actually could change it, you would see a different world that I believe is a far less continuous one and has a far greater possibility for men to not only understand women and have better sex, but also to be better men.

The same way I would want to help a female friend who had a view of men that is adversary and filled with negativity. If she could suspend her thinking for a bit and separate her own experiences from “men” at large, she may benefit from it. But it’s ok too if she just is in a place where she can’t receive that message right now and she still wants to focus on the many ways she thinks “men” are keeping her from what she wants.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Buddy400 said:


> * Women lose respect (and desire) for men who jump to satisfy their every whim. I believe this is different for men. I believe men would have few problems with women who jump to satisfy their every whim).
> .


I disagree with the latter. Having had an intense LTR with a woman who stood ready to serve my every wish. I didn't like that at all an it is what ultimately led me to end the relationship. The men I hang out with all prefer strong women with minds of their own.

Now that doesn't mean there weren't times during a couple decades of sexual mismatch in my marriage when those "what if" thoughts crept into my head.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Women lose respect (and desire) for men who jump to satisfy their every whim. I believe this is different for men. I believe men would have few problems with women who jump to satisfy their every whim).
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the latter. Having had an intense LTR with a woman who stood ready to serve my every wish. I didn't like that at all an it is what ultimately led me to end the relationship. The men I hang out with all prefer strong women with minds of their own.
> 
> Now that doesn't mean there weren't times during a couple decades of sexual mismatch in my marriage when those "what if" thoughts crept into my head.
Click to expand...

Wait, she wanted to serve you like a King and you didnt like that?? So young and naive....


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Wait, she wanted to serve you like a King and you didnt like that?? So young and naive....


It's naieve to think that such a thing is sustainable for a strong man who wants to view his mate as an equal. I wanted a solid, well grounded, well rounded mate. Of course, the desire to please would have been swell if it would have been balanced with a stronger sense of self, but that wasn't the case. But then we were also young, so I suppose she may have grown after we broke up.


----------



## uhtred

I had a friend (haven't seen him in years), who was a bit short, a bit heavy - and seemed to be an amazing magnet for women. He just had some undefinable personality / charm / something that cause women to enjoy being around him. It was simply amazing to watch. 

I asked my wife about him and she couldn't understand it either - but agree that there was just something attractive about him. He's married now with kids.

I think its possible to learn that sort of attraction, and certainly some people have it naturally. Being less impressive physically is a disadvantage, but one that its possible to overcome. 







UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Thats true of INCELs. They are whiney. But if I were short, fat, and genuinely unattractive, well I'd probably be a whiney little b!tch too. Not too much you can do about height. Though, Personal says he lays supermodels at 5'3" so WTF do I know.
> 
> I don't think this really applies to MGTOW, they certainly have negative impressions of women, but they removed themselves voluntarily from the SMP and really dont want anything to do with women (bad experiences probs) so they are almost irrelevant.
> 
> The more typical red pill guy simply see the unfairness and develops rules to work to their advantage. Instead of fighting the rules, learn them and adapt.
> 
> Honestly, I think most are more angry at themselves for wasting time listening to various women say that they really just want a nice guy, then trying to be that guy and ending up friendzoned while she ends up with the pr!ck sporting neck tattoos. They finally figured out listening to the dudes actually getting laid might be more constructive.


----------



## john117

"I often referred to the pool of men in my age group as "The Parade of the Damned.""

I've expressed my opinion on MMSLP years ago. In summary, it works well for a very narrow set of cases and doesn't do squat for the rest. Very few self help books do. 

I've also spoken at length about the numbers game as one gets older. The above quote is also my experience with the single 50+ women I know socially. 

At nearly 60, I don't really give a crap. Maybe not dating will allow me to finish my own self help book:


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, she wanted to serve you like a King and you didnt like that?? So young and naive....
> 
> 
> 
> It's naieve to think that such a thing is sustainable for a strong man who wants to view his mate as an equal. I wanted a solid, well grounded, well rounded mate. Of course, the desire to please would have been swell if it would have been balanced with a stronger sense of self, but that wasn't the case. But then we were also young, so I suppose she may have grown after we broke up.
Click to expand...

Equality is BS in marriage. What you should be striving for is complimentary. A Yin/Yang type relationship. There is somethings she is good at, there are somethings you are good at. You aren't equal but complimentary. 

Whats the difference? A man can't lead in any equal marriage, a man can lead in a complimentary marriage.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Honest question for @Buddy400 

What is your impression of the things Upside Down has said on this thread?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> Honest question for @Buddy400
> 
> What is your impression of the things Upside Down has said on this thread?


He Pm'd and said I'm awesome!!! I'm sending him all my material.


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I disagree with the latter. Having had an intense LTR with a woman who stood ready to serve my every wish. I didn't like that at all an it is what ultimately led me to end the relationship.



You probably weren’t very attracted to her and she knew it and tried to ‘nice’ you into changing your feelings towards her. It’s difficult to imagine being annoyed or disliking someone you crave for, being nice to you. (Speculating. Also because I had that happen to me. I didn’t want to be with them because of not sufficient levels of attraction.)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> He Pm'd and said I'm awesome!!! I'm sending him all my material.



Haha. This all seems so childish: demanding validation and acceptance of one’s point of view yet not giving any in return when someone thinks differently. Hypocrisy is probably the single most annoying thing about the latest strain of feminism. That and the need to be right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I disagree with the latter. Having had an intense LTR with a woman who stood ready to serve my every wish. I didn't like that at all an it is what ultimately led me to end the relationship. The men I hang out with all prefer strong women with minds of their own.
> 
> Now that doesn't mean there weren't times during a couple decades of sexual mismatch in my marriage when those "what if" thoughts crept into my head.


I had a healthy relationship with a man who told me of previous women who were similar. He explained it like “I don’t want a woman who doesn’t have a mind of her own and just agrees with everything I say. I don’t trust her intentions if she just agrees with me for no reason that she can explain. If she cannot express her own reasons for why she believes something, I know she isn’t mature or healthy enough for me.”

He said that sure, these women were willing to do anything sexual he wanted. But they only wanted it because he did, just like everything else. They didn’t have any soul or agency, they were just parasites basically. Even sexually.

He knew that I was self aware and knew my own reasons for liking him. We had differences; we were able to discuss them and come to a compromise. He knew I did not need “a man” and specifically I didn’t need “him”. He knew I wanted him because I liked who he was.

Everywhere we hear that men will accept any minimal amount of adoration and sex. They don’t care who the woman behind it is. If she’s hot enough to turn him on, he will accept it.

That’s not what I’ve encountered. I’ve encountered men who are self aware enough to know that a woman who is not her own whole person is not a good romantic or sexual partner, and will reject one quickly. I’ve encountered men who easily turn down “free sex” if it isn’t offered by someone they respect and care about. I’ve encountered men who insist on being truly desired because of who he is and literally will be celibate before accepting anything less.

True that the same men may ponder what a detached sex encounter with such an unhealthy woman would be like. But who cares? They also fantasize about the extremely healthy woman who has never talked to them but who they have seen briefly at the grocery store. As do healthy women fantasize about pools boys half their age. They don’t go chase one down. And neither do healthy men chase after every female form that makes them warm.

Warm is warm.

Actions tell how a man respects himself and women.


----------



## Laurentium

Faithful Wife said:


> He explained it like “I don’t want a woman who doesn’t have a mind of her own and just agrees with everything I say. I don’t trust her intentions if she just agrees with me for no reason that she can explain. If she cannot express her own reasons for why she believes something, I know she isn’t mature or healthy enough for me.”
> 
> He said that sure, these women were willing to do anything sexual he wanted. But they only wanted it because he did, just like everything else. They didn’t have any soul or agency, they were just parasites basically. Even sexually.


Yeah, that's the female version of the dreaded "Nice Guy". 



> I’ve encountered men who insist on being truly desired because of who he is and literally will be celibate before accepting anything less.


That's about where I am. And it doesn't seem so much to ask. 

I saw the thread title, and it refers to Athol Kay's MMSL stuff. That's not so bad. It advises men to get to the gym and take care of themselves and so on. It's not Red Pill (and Athol and the RP people all agreed that it wasn't RP). But then the first post brings in "Rational Male" which is a whole entirely different kettle of fish.


----------



## ReformedHubby

uhtred said:


> I had a friend (haven't seen him in years), who was a bit short, a bit heavy - and seemed to be an amazing magnet for women. He just had some undefinable personality / charm / something that cause women to enjoy being around him. It was simply amazing to watch.
> 
> I asked my wife about him and she couldn't understand it either - but agree that there was just something attractive about him. He's married now with kids.
> 
> *I think its possible to learn that sort of attraction, and certainly some people have it naturally. Being less impressive physically is a disadvantage, but one that its possible to overcome.*


I have seen this before. In women too. I can say that I have met women that I think are sexy... yet....they aren't exactly the type I would normally go for, but they have "something". I don't think its something that can be taught. The one thing I noticed about people like this is that their appeal is gender neutral. In other words I'd bet your friend is the kind of guy that everyone is drawn too, not just women. The kind of guy you want to buy a beer just because. I am not sure it can be learned. You got it or you don't. Its something that people have tried to learn and capture forever, outside of sexual attraction there are tons of books like "How to Win Friends and Influence Others", how to be an effective leader etc. I think you can channel certain attributes by reading those books, but true charisma comes from who you are. Truth be told I have never met a man that calls himself a good leader, that is actually a good leader. Its usually the opposite. When you see someone with it you know it. Many of the "Chads" aren't male model types. They are guys just like your friend. This is all of course just my opinion.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Equality is BS in marriage. What you should be striving for is complimentary. A Yin/Yang type relationship. There is somethings she is good at, there are somethings you are good at. You aren't equal but complimentary.
> 
> Whats the difference? A man can't lead in any equal marriage, a man can lead in a complimentary marriage.


Complimentary IS equality. Each has strengthsc and weaknesses, each brings different attributes, but overall there is something that at least resembles equality, or maybe parity. 

I have generally been the "leader" in our marriage, but that doesn't mean inequality. Good followership is as important as strong leadership and nothing gets done without both working together. What's more, while I'm generally out front, there are fields of endeavor where my wife has taken the lead... again, each has unique, and complimentary strengths.


What I didn't like was a woman who had no self whatsoever and was 100% subservient to me. I prefer someone who's got some backbone of her own.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

inmyprime said:


> You probably weren’t very attracted to her and she knew it and tried to ‘nice’ you into changing your feelings towards her. It’s difficult to imagine being annoyed or disliking someone you crave for, being nice to you. (Speculating. Also because I had that happen to me. I didn’t want to be with them because of not sufficient levels of attraction.)
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, actually I was intensely attracted to her. And I mean super intensely, like never before or since. Physically, she consumed my every thought. The attraction was overwhelming and all consuming.

But after about six months, I realized that physical attraction alone was not enough. I also wanted a partner, not a pet.

In all honesty, I was also concerned about assuming total responsibility for her. It was a responsibility I was reluctant to accept at that point.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

What an interesting divide we have here. I pretty much agree with everything Faithful Wife has said here though I keep reading because I am open to other perspectives.

Maybe the divide is due to the type of women we pursue.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Laurentium said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> He explained it like “I don’t want a woman who doesn’t have a mind of her own and just agrees with everything I say. I don’t trust her intentions if she just agrees with me for no reason that she can explain. If she cannot express her own reasons for why she believes something, I know she isn’t mature or healthy enough for me.”
> 
> He said that sure, these women were willing to do anything sexual he wanted. But they only wanted it because he did, just like everything else. They didn’t have any soul or agency, they were just parasites basically. Even sexually.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the female version of the dreaded "Nice Guy".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve encountered men who insist on being truly desired because of who he is and literally will be celibate before accepting anything less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's about where I am. And it doesn't seem so much to ask.
> 
> I saw the thread title, and it refers to Athol Kay's MMSL stuff. That's not so bad. It advises men to get to the gym and take care of themselves and so on. It's not Red Pill (and Athol and the RP people all agreed that it wasn't RP). But then the first post brings in "Rational Male" which is a whole entirely different kettle of fish.
Click to expand...

Um....is this the only post you’ve read? You don’t seem to realize that we have been debating MMSL for quite a few pages now. I have read MMSL, I know what it’s about. Please don’t tell me what to think about it or anything else.


----------



## Bananapeel

To change gears just a little bit, does anyone want to discuss what the RP type philosophy can do that is positive towards relationships rather than debate the negatives of it? @Buddy400 already started with his detailed explanation of the rules.


----------



## ConanHub

PigglyWiggly said:


> What an interesting divide we have here. I pretty much agree with everything Faithful Wife has said here though I keep reading because I am open to other perspectives.
> 
> Maybe the divide is due to the type of women we pursue.


I still haven't read MMSLP so, while I see the world and have experienced it much the same way she has, I don't want to comment in ignorance.

I have been a badass since late childhood and there is definitely something attractive about that aspect to women.

Looks and charm aren't to be denied but something primal goes on with the guys on the rough side of life.

I'm researching...


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> I still haven't read MMSLP so, while I see the world and have experienced it much the same way she has, I don't want to comment in ignorance.
> 
> I have been a badass since late childhood and there is definitely something attractive about that aspect to women.
> 
> Looks and charm aren't to be denied but something primal goes on with the guys on the rough side of life.
> 
> I'm researching...


I do hope you’ll read it. Then you’ll learn why RP guys have been told not to listen to you. Because you don’t know how you’re so good with women. You’re just a natural. You don’t know what it’s like not to be one. So you’ll give them bad advice along the lines of “just be yourself”. Which doesn’t work for these guys because being themselves doesn’t get them laid. Also they’ve concluded that men like you (and women like me) actively attempt to prevent men like that from improving themselves anyway. 

So because men like you and women like me can’t be trusted to be decent human beings and they all despise us (while they would trade everything they own to be you or to **** a Stacy), they have concluded that good advice can only come from other RP dudes. Because only RP dudes understand what RP dudes need.

At the point where any author is claiming that you must not seek advice from authors who differ from theirs, I don’t know why these readers don’t suddenly feel they are entering a cult. In what other part of life is it ok to be told by some expert that you shouldn’t listen to other men, to other experts, to other authors, and certainly never to women. 

But yeah it’s just all healthy self improvement stuff, by the way. That’s why they have to keep it so secret. :scratchhead:


----------



## 269370

ReformedHubby said:


> I think you can channel certain attributes by reading those books, but true charisma comes from who you are.



I agree you should play to your strengths rather than try to be someone you are not. You have got to know what your strengths are though.

It’s better to try and become a better version of yourself than a mediocre imitation of someone else.

I’m pretty content with myself. I achieved everything I wanted to achieve in life and I have a life I always wanted to have. I don’t like being content. It makes people complacent. And bad sh1t often happens when you are complacent because life is not static, it’s always dynamic and evolving.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> No, actually I was intensely attracted to her. And I mean super intensely, like never before or since. Physically, she consumed my every thought. The attraction was overwhelming and all consuming.
> 
> 
> 
> But after about six months, I realized that physical attraction alone was not enough. I also wanted a partner, not a pet.
> 
> 
> 
> In all honesty, I was also concerned about assuming total responsibility for her. It was a responsibility I was reluctant to accept at that point.



Interesting. Some women do need to be subservient in order to feel safe and protected. I really don’t think there’s anything wrong or unhealthy about that at all. They just need to find the right partner who is comfortable assuming the role of a very dominant. They may also be tame and subservient in one area while very dominant in other areas. They may also change and grow over the course of life, especially when facing challenges. I think it’s too complex to make generalisations about character traits like that though.

Having said that, I do feel the same: I need someone with strong personality and I always liked a challenge. Though you can have ‘too much of a good thing’ so that it becomes a struggle or a ‘competition’ rather than partnership and THAT can become extremely unhealthy and ugly very quickly. I luckily learnt this lesson early on. I have met women who appear like they have strong and challenging personalities but once you have spent enough time with them, you realise that they won’t let go and stop until they have made YOU THEIR subservient. And then they toss you out. (The tossing out part hasn’t happened to me since I just relocated and the ‘problem’ solved itself).

They basically play just the same games that they complain about others do. I don’t think many men realise what they get themselves into until it’s too late.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Thank you for reply. So if I felt any of these were misguided rules or just plain wrong, would you actually be open to changing your mind about them? Not that it matters, and I don’t want to change your mind. I’m just curious.
> 
> Also if I listed what I’ve seen in the world as “rules” (also factoring in what I’ve read and see friends go through), would it make any difference? Would you be curious to know what my world view has yielded? I mean curious in the sense that you may actually accept that a different view is true.
> 
> See, individual world views are different and apply to those individuals. And I strongly believe that your world view is valid, no matter what it is. It came from your individual view of the world and therefore is totally individual. It’s a unique perspective that is your to hold or change as you see fit for your own reasons.
> 
> The only reason I would want to change your world view would be that if I actually could change it, you would see a different world that I believe is a far less continuous one and has a far greater possibility for men to not only understand women and have better sex, but also to be better men.
> 
> The same way I would want to help a female friend who had a view of men that is adversary and filled with negativity. If she could suspend her thinking for a bit and separate her own experiences from “men” at large, she may benefit from it. But it’s ok too if she just is in a place where she can’t receive that message right now and she still wants to focus on the many ways she thinks “men” are keeping her from what she wants.


I'd certainly like to think I'd change my mind. I have in the past.

My initial bias is that I believe that people may be letting "how they'd prefer things to be" to interfere with their ability to see how things "really" work. Of course, I might be wrong. For example, it seems that young women are being told that they can have engage in casual sex just like men with no ill effects (for the women). I have nothing against women having casual sex, but there does seem to be evidence for women being less satisfied with casual sex than men (percentage of female orgasms in first time hook-ups for one) and getting emotionally involved more easily. If it turns out that engaging in casual sex is different for women than it is for men, I'd like that to be known so that young women will be in a position to make informed choices and, hopefully, live happier lives (remember, I have a daughter as well as two sons). 

I am interested in finding out how the world "really" works and there are many, many books trying to figure out "what women want", so thinking that what women really want might not be what is "common knowledge" doesn't make me a misogynist. 

I have no doubt that your experiences are true for you. I'm not questioning your veracity in any way.

Swapping anecdotes is interesting but, as they say, the plural of anecdotes is not data.

Even as "data" goes, there are plenty of studies on either side of any issue; by people who have dedicated their lives to the study of these issues. So playing the "study vs study" games doesn't really work either. There are points that make some studies more valid than others (double blind random ones being preferred). Everyone picks apart any study that goes against their initial bias and accepts without question those that agree with them. Neither you or I have the time to review every study in detail and we also probably don't even know what to look for. The world really needs a trustworthy group of unbiased people who study studies! I prefer to try and look at things from a common sense, first principles point of view while paying enough attention to the science to make sure I'm not too far off track. Sort or a BS-o-meter approach.

As I've stated many times, while far from a Chad myself, I've pretty much always had a girlfriend and never had any personal issues that would make me angry with women in general.

I have found that most of the information I initially received regarding women and sexuality was wrong. I learned enough soon enough to avoid some classic mistakes and have a great marriage (sexually as well as in every other way) for the last 30 years (after a couple of early misfires). As an example of early misinformation (corrected fairly quickly): My view in early high school was that the more attractive girls would be less likely to want to have sex (since they didn't need to). It turned out that the more attractive girls generally had more sex (because they had more options to do so with the boys they wanted to have sex with). I'm not sure where, exactly, the misinformation came from (but I don't blame women).


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Bananapeel said:


> To change gears just a little bit, does anyone want to discuss what the RP type philosophy can do that is positive towards relationships rather than debate the negatives of it? @Buddy400 already started with his detailed explanation of the rules.


I mean you are dating throughout your entire marriage or should be, just with the same woman. The same rules still apply. You dont just get married, get fat, sit on a sofa, watch tv and ignore the other person for the next 50 years until you're crated away. I mean some people do, and its perpetuated in pop culture that way, but inevitably their spouse either divorces them or won't touch them.

You have to keep the flames stoked and keep building the attraction. That often means for men, flushing out a lot of the beta that marriage inherently promotes, keeping frame and exhibiting 'Positive Masculinity' traits as Rollo Tomassi outlines in his books. No woman wants a guy that placates a womans every whim. Weakness is not an attractive trait in men.

Buddy outlined it fairly well I think.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Honest question for @Buddy400
> 
> What is your impression of the things Upside Down has said on this thread?


Half right, half wrong and all presented in a way seemingly designed to maximize opposition from women.

The last two don't prevent me from acknowledging the first (I can't list off the top of my head what he's said that's "right", but I know I've "liked" several of his posts).

You've heard me at length on the "hypergamy" issue.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I'd certainly like to think I'd change my mind. I have in the past.
> 
> My initial bias is that I believe that people may be letting "how they'd prefer things to be" to interfere with their ability to see how things "really" work. Of course, I might be wrong. For example, it seems that young women are being told that they can have engage in casual sex just like men with no ill effects (for the women). I have nothing against women having casual sex, but there does seem to be evidence for women being less satisfied with casual sex than men (percentage of female orgasms in first time hook-ups for one) and getting emotionally involved more easily. If it turns out that engaging in casual sex is different for women than it is for men, I'd like that to be known so that young women will be in a position to make informed choices and, hopefully, live happier lives (remember, I have a daughter as well as two sons).
> 
> I am interested in finding out how the world "really" works and there are many, many books trying to figure out "what women want", so thinking that what women really want might not be what is "common knowledge" doesn't make me a misogynist.
> 
> I have no doubt that your experiences are true for you. I'm not questioning your veracity in any way.
> 
> Swapping anecdotes is interesting but, as they say, the plural of anecdotes is not data.
> 
> Even as "data" goes, there are plenty of studies on either side of any issue; by people who have dedicated their lives to the study of these issues. So playing the "study vs study" games doesn't really work either. There are points that make some studies more valid than others (double blind random ones being preferred). Everyone picks apart any study that goes against their initial bias and accepts without question those that agree with them. Neither you or I have the time to review every study in detail and we also probably don't even know what to look for. The world really needs a trustworthy group of unbiased people who study studies! I prefer to try and look at things from a common sense, first principles point of view while paying enough attention to the science to make sure I'm not too far off track. Sort or a BS-o-meter approach.
> 
> As I've stated many times, while far from a Chad myself, I've pretty much always had a girlfriend and never had any personal issues that would make me angry with women in general.
> 
> I have found that most of the information I initially received regarding women and sexuality was wrong. I learned enough soon enough to avoid some classic mistakes and have a great marriage (sexually as well as in every other way) for the last 30 years (after a couple of early misfires). As an example of early misinformation (corrected fairly quickly): My view in early high school was that the more attractive girls would be less likely to want to have sex (since they didn't need to). It turned out that the more attractive girls generally had more sex (because they had more options to do so with the boys they wanted to have sex with). I'm not sure where, exactly, the misinformation came from (but I don't blame women).


Yes we are both going to most likely to hold on to the beliefs we already have, based on our own experiences and what we have studied.

I had been given a lot of misinformation as well, and there’s no one to blame. I just realized the truth myself and that dispelled the misinformation.

Thank you for writing your rules reply. I did hope we could go from there, but again you are right, it’s not going to change either of our minds, so it is what it is.

The rules and things I’ve learned in a list like yours isn’t going to generate any positive net gain on this thread so I’ll maybe post a new thread later if I want to take that topic back up.


----------



## Buddy400

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> He Pm'd and said I'm awesome!!! I'm sending him all my material.


I'd prefer to just assume people will get that this was a joke....

But I'd better make sure.


----------



## uhtred

I think the idea that all women or all men want the same thing runs contrary to what I've observed. 

When I was in college (one of the ultimate nerd-schools), there were women from outside who *wanted* to date nerds. Its not that the they couldn't date the Chads of the world, they didn't want to. 

There are men who do not want to date super-models. There are women who do not wan tough "alpha" (whatever that means) types. (ever noticed that the skinny scruffy guy playing the guitar can get girls....)

There are women who want to be subservient in relationships - and ones who want to be controlling. There are women and men who only want sex with a long-term romantic partner, and those who are happy to screw anything of vaguely the right shape.

There are of course statistical biases - but I don't see those as good guidelines unless you are trying to find as statistical date, rather than date a specific person you are interested in. 


I do think its possible for pretty much anyone to find a good partner - as long as they are willing to put effort into their own lives and into a relationship.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes we are both going to most likely to hold on to the beliefs we already have, based on our own experiences and what we have studied.
> 
> I had been given a lot of misinformation as well, and there’s no one to blame. I just realized the truth myself and that dispelled the misinformation.
> 
> Thank you for writing your rules reply. I did hope we could go from there, but again you are right, it’s not going to change either of our minds, so it is what it is.
> 
> The rules and things I’ve learned in a list like yours isn’t going to generate any positive net gain on this thread so I’ll maybe post a new thread later if I want to take that topic back up.


I don't think the benefit of our discussion would be that either of us would change our minds (although I won't rule out the possibility).

It would be for the lurkers with questions who may be reading along.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Half right, half wrong and all presented in a way seemingly designed to maximize opposition from women.
> 
> The last two don't prevent me from acknowledging the first (I can't list off the top of my head what he's said that's "right", but I know I've "liked" several of his posts).
> 
> You've heard me at length on the "hypergamy" issue.


And can you advise any way for a woman to be able to have a meaningful conversation in that context? 

I know RP guys aren’t supposed to listen to women anyway, so I understand his shut-her-down tactics for what they are. But is it really a stretch to see why RP men give the impression that they hate women due to his words and many others like him (not on TAM currently but all over the net).

So here I am trying to have a civil and honest and forthright conversation with you and others, even if we disagree. But there will always be the one or two hard core dudes who will just swing by and try to shut me down over and over.

This being adults we are talking about, I don’t see why you other guys don’t call him out on it. I would certainly call out a woman if she was going off the rails about things the same way the hard core RP guys do. I would tell her to grow up and converse like an adult and drop the insults.

When rational seeming men just stand by while a less rational man creates havoc in the conversation, if you do actually want to have adult conversation, why not say something? 

When you don’t it makes you look like you (and others) are secretly just enjoying watching him try to shut me down.

Which is fine if that’s true. I don’t have to have a civil discussion here. But it gets confusing because some of you do engage and converse, so I have no idea what you’re really thinking or if you think this is a worthwhile discussion at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I don't think the benefit of our discussion would be that either of us would change our minds (although I won't rule out the possibility).
> 
> It would be for the lurkers with questions who may be reading along.


I’m not that altruistic. I think we have given lurkers quite a lot already.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> And can you advise any way for a woman to be able to have a meaningful conversation in that context?
> 
> I know RP guys aren’t supposed to listen to women anyway, so I understand his shut-her-down tactics for what they are. But is it really a stretch to see why RP men give the impression that they hate women due to his words and many others like him (not on TAM currently but all over the net).
> 
> So here I am trying to have a civil and honest and forthright conversation with you and others, even if we disagree. But there will always be the one or two hard core dudes who will just swing by and try to shut me down over and over.
> 
> This being adults we are talking about, I don’t see why you other guys don’t call him out on it. I would certainly call out a woman if she was going off the rails about things the same way the hard core RP guys do. I would tell her to grow up and converse like an adult and drop the insults.
> 
> When rational seeming men just stand by while a less rational man creates havoc in the conversation, if you do actually want to have adult conversation, why not say something?
> 
> When you don’t it makes you look like you (and others) are secretly just enjoying watching him try to shut me down.
> 
> Which is fine if that’s true. I don’t have to have a civil discussion here. But it gets confusing because some of you do engage and converse, so I have no idea what you’re really thinking or if you think this is a worthwhile discussion at all.


Honestly, Faithful Wife, I don't have anything against you or any other women. I understand there are lots of women out there that don't like what the Red Pill represents. Its not geared toward women, obviously. But if it gets a man to improve himself, refocus and reevaluate his life and mating strategies instead of eating a bullet or putting a needle in his vein after his "Soulmate" crushed his heart, then where's the harm? RP doesn't say you should lie, deceive or harm women. All the RP is the back-current to Feminism, as it became less about equality and more about teaching men how to act according to their rules.


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> I think the idea that all women or all men want the same thing runs contrary to what I've observed.


Of course the idea that all women or all men want the same thing is absurd.

I'm not sure who here said that.

This does not mean that there are not things that women generally want and things that men generally want.

A mechanic looking at a problem looks first at what has generally been known to cause that problem.

But, a good mechanic doesn't assume that the problem is *always* caused by only that issue.

You start with general knowledge and work towards the specific as additional information about the individual becomes available, and the specific individual information (when present) is always more important.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> I have found that most of the information I initially received regarding women and sexuality was wrong. I learned enough soon enough to avoid some classic mistakes and have a great marriage (sexually as well as in every other way) for the last 30 years (after a couple of early misfires). As an example of early misinformation (corrected fairly quickly): *My view in early high school was that the more attractive girls would be less likely to want to have sex (since they didn't need to). It turned out that the more attractive girls generally had more sex (because they had more options to do so with the boys they wanted to have sex with). I'm not sure where, exactly, the misinformation came from (but I don't blame women).*


Did you think attractive girls didn't like sex? I'm trying to understand what your thought process was here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> And can you advise any way for a woman to be able to have a meaningful conversation in that context?
> 
> I know RP guys aren’t supposed to listen to women anyway, so I understand his shut-her-down tactics for what they are. But is it really a stretch to see why RP men give the impression that they hate women due to his words and many others like him (not on TAM currently but all over the net).
> 
> So here I am trying to have a civil and honest and forthright conversation with you and others, even if we disagree. But there will always be the one or two hard core dudes who will just swing by and try to shut me down over and over.
> 
> This being adults we are talking about, I don’t see why you other guys don’t call him out on it. I would certainly call out a woman if she was going off the rails about things the same way the hard core RP guys do. I would tell her to grow up and converse like an adult and drop the insults.
> 
> When rational seeming men just stand by while a less rational man creates havoc in the conversation, if you do actually want to have adult conversation, why not say something?
> 
> When you don’t it makes you look like you (and others) are secretly just enjoying watching him try to shut me down.
> 
> Which is fine if that’s true. I don’t have to have a civil discussion here. But it gets confusing because some of you do engage and converse, so I have no idea what you’re really thinking or if you think this is a worthwhile discussion at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, Faithful Wife, I don't have anything against you or any other women. I understand there are lots of women out there that don't like what the Red Pill represents. Its not geared toward women, obviously. But if it gets a man to improve himself, refocus and reevaluate his life and mating strategies instead of eating a bullet or putting a needle in his vein after his "Soulmate" crushed his heart, then where's the harm? RP doesn't say you should lie, deceive or harm women. All the RP is the back-current to Feminism, as it became less about equality and more about teaching men how to act according to their rules.
Click to expand...

After you told me that an RP guy would easily be able to dupe me and that I’m an easy lay and target because I’m a feminist, I realized how you really feel and that’s all I need to know about you.


----------



## Lila

Bananapeel said:


> To change gears just a little bit, does anyone want to discuss what the RP type philosophy can do that is positive towards relationships rather than debate the negatives of it? @Buddy400 already started with his detailed explanation of the rules.


What makes RP philosophy "RP" is not the self improvement stuff. It's the basic tenets for "why" the self improvement is needed. 

You can find self improvement information all over the internet and on book shelves in libraries. Most of them are not basing their advice on the idea that all women are alike - they are illogical creatures controlled by their fluctuating hormones who, on their best days, behave and think at a level on par with teenagers (oldest teenager in the house is a fun little line that thrown around a lot in RP community). As a side note...why anyone would want to self improve for the gift of being in the company of someone like that is beyond me. Not shooting for the stars there are they?

A discussion on self improvement would probably result in gender neutral advice because most, if not all of it, is just as relevant to women as it is to men. But we don't need to be telling people that the opposite sex is somehow defective.


----------



## uhtred

I think it depends on how its used. 

For example, there seems to be a lot emphasis on physical fitness- "hit the gym". While its likely that most women prefer someone in good rather than poor physical shape, everything else being equal, its not at all clear that for most men who are having difficult finding partners, this is the primary problem. 

There is a strong focus on the "alpha male" type - when as far as I can tell, that isn't even a generally accepted model of human behavior, and its not clear that is what attracts the majority of women. (are there any journal papers that talk about "alpha" humans?) 

The combination of emphasis on physical fitness, "alpha-ness", and trying to model women's behavior as being biologically driven, encourages some people to just become *******s who seem to deeply dislike women, yet for some reason want to attract them. Part of this may be frustration that they have worked so hard to attract women and failed - maybe because they were working on the wrong things.

That said, the basic idea of "improving yourself" seems completely reasonable - as long as people interpret it for their own situation. What that means for an individual though, is highly variable. 


Sometimes I think RP and the "ladder theory" combine to form a very toxic ideology. It can make some men believe that they are competing in some sort of contest for the "best" partners. If you put it that way, almost everyone is a failure because they are not at the the top of the ladder.

If instead people look for the best partner *for them*, the picture is completely different. The women I am interested in are probably very different from the ones you are interested in. We are not in competition. I think if people recognized that they have different goals, there would be a lot less frustration and anger about this.















Buddy400 said:


> Of course the idea that all women or all men want the same thing is absurd.
> 
> I'm not sure who here said that.
> 
> This does not mean that there are not things that women generally want and things that men generally want.
> 
> A mechanic looking at a problem looks first at what has generally been known to cause that problem.
> 
> But, a good mechanic doesn't assume that the problem is *always* caused by only that issue.
> 
> You start with general knowledge and work towards the specific as additional information about the individual becomes available, and the specific individual information (when present) is always more important.


----------



## Buddy400

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> The more typical red pill guy simply see the *unfairness* and develops rules to work to their advantage. Instead of fighting the rules, learn them and adapt.


I don't like the use of the term *unfair* here. It seems a little whiny.

An overweight woman might think that it's unfair that most men prefer slim women.

That's not really a matter of fair, it's just the way things* are*.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> Did you think attractive girls didn't like sex? I'm trying to understand what your thought process was here.


I thought girls didn't like sex. Attractive girls would be able to avoid it since they could attract boys without it.

I would say that in 1970 (roughly) the idea that most women didn't like sex wasn't THAT outside the norm.

I was about *14 years old* at the time though, so give me a break!


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> A discussion on self improvement would probably result in gender neutral advice because most, if not all of it, is just as relevant to women as it is to men.


A link to a liberal therapist as to why she doesn't believe all advice should be gender neutral.

http://www.drpsychmom.com/2014/12/0...ce-doesnt-necessarily-perpetuate-stereotypes/

Just to show that the idea that men and women sexual natures are different isn't just a misogynistic tenet.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Buddy400 said:


> I thought girls didn't like sex. Attractive girls would be able to avoid it since they could attract boys without it.
> 
> I would say that in 1970 (roughly) the idea that most women didn't like sex wasn't THAT outside the norm.
> 
> I was about *14 years old* at the time though, so give me a break!


We're now a full half century past the so-called sexual revolution. Even today, that repressive attitude holds sway over many. Human/societal development can be maddeningly slow sometimes.


----------



## Bananapeel

Lila said:


> What makes RP philosophy "RP" is not the self improvement stuff. It's the basic tenets for "why" the self improvement is needed.
> 
> You can find self improvement information all over the internet and on book shelves in libraries. Most of them are not basing their advice on the idea that all women are alike - they are illogical creatures controlled by their fluctuating hormones who, on their best days, behave and think at a level on par with teenagers (oldest teenager in the house is a fun little line that thrown around a lot in RP community). As a side note...why anyone would want to self improve for the gift of being in the company of someone like that is beyond me. Not shooting for the stars there are they?
> 
> A discussion on self improvement would probably result in gender neutral advice because most, if not all of it, is just as relevant to women as it is to men. But we don't need to be telling people that the opposite sex is somehow defective.


For the people that are outcome driven rather than process driven, the inciting cause of "why" self improvement is necessary holds far less weight than whether there are measureable results that improve their lives. 

Some advice would be gender neutral and some wouldn't. We're a sexually dimorphic species and that accounts for psychological development differences rather than just physical ones. It's not a "defect" in the gender but rather accepting that there are differences and identifying what the differences are so that behaviors can be properly tailored for the desired outcome.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> And can you advise any way for a woman to be able to have a meaningful conversation in that context?
> 
> I know RP guys aren’t supposed to listen to women anyway, so I understand his shut-her-down tactics for what they are. But is it really a stretch to see why RP men give the impression that they hate women due to his words and many others like him (not on TAM currently but all over the net).
> 
> So here I am trying to have a civil and honest and forthright conversation with you and others, even if we disagree. But there will always be the one or two hard core dudes who will just swing by and try to shut me down over and over.
> 
> This being adults we are talking about, I don’t see why you other guys don’t call him out on it. I would certainly call out a woman if she was going off the rails about things the same way the hard core RP guys do. I would tell her to grow up and converse like an adult and drop the insults.
> 
> When rational seeming men just stand by while a less rational man creates havoc in the conversation, if you do actually want to have adult conversation, why not say something?
> 
> When you don’t it makes you look like you (and others) are secretly just enjoying watching him try to shut me down.
> 
> Which is fine if that’s true. I don’t have to have a civil discussion here. But it gets confusing because some of you do engage and converse, so I have no idea what you’re really thinking or if you think this is a worthwhile discussion at all.


Well, I did push back on the hypergamy issue.

It's always a problem. 

What I hate most is when someone who is generally on my side of an issue makes bad arguments on our side's behalf. Then everyone goes off to counter that argument and the ignore my (hopefully harder to dismiss) argument. 

I'll be making a cogent argument and think I might be making some progress and then someone jumps in and says "X is a fat pig", and the conversation immediately diverts off to how rude it is to call someone a fat pig (or something like that).

It's hard to have to disassociate yourself from everyone who uses a bad argument to make a good point.

Out of fairness, I rarely see you go to a lot of effort to disassociate yourself from someone (say a feminist) whose opinions you don't agree with. In fact, I've seen you just seem to irrationally support anything anyone claiming to be a feminist said.

I think that the best way to avoid the people just trying to throw grenades into the room is to try to ignore them.

The best practice is to try to address your opponent's best arguments, not their weakest.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> A link to a liberal therapist as to why she doesn't believe all advice should be gender neutral.
> 
> http://www.drpsychmom.com/2014/12/0...ce-doesnt-necessarily-perpetuate-stereotypes/
> 
> Just to show that the idea that men and women sexual natures are different isn't just a misogynistic tenet.


I think everyone understands that advice about attractiveness is going to be tweaked this way or that way for men and women differently. 

The issue is that when we do that, we don’t need to also disparage one entire gender.

If there were women talking about how men are so stupid that they don’t even know what they want, even if it was true (and certainly is in many cases), and if we were telling each other not to listen to men because they will try to avoid giving us what we want because hamsters, and then if we came to TAM and told everyone here that it was good advice but DONT look behind the curtain because behind your backs we talk constantly about how dumb you are, how gross you are, and how we don’t actually respect you, we just want what we want out of you.

This is exactly what red pill is doing here. And just honestly, can you see how insulting it would be to men if we did the same?

There is a lot of info about how to game men, and yes it does absolutely work. There are a lot of angry women who hate men. Some write books and blogs. Yet we don’t recommend them here because no matter if they actually work or not, they are hateful, heinous ideas and authors. 

MMSL is the same. And the men here don’t seem to think it should matter that it disparages women constantly. They make excuses for it. They say it’s written for men so we shouldn’t read it and get all offended.

RP was literally invented because men were so offended by what some feminists say and do. Yet they think becoming even more vile and hateful is the answer?

What is really sad is that I can’t differentiate between a man who actually is not hateful and one who is, if they are both RP guys. So you all get lumped in together in the “these guys are kinda hateful towards women”.

Same could be said about me, however, I have literally never posted on and on about some strategy to game men and dupe them and rob them, etc. 

If I did I would fully expect to be seen as a man hater.

And since I’m not one, I don’t even read or follow anything that resembles man hating women.

But somehow, being associated with a group of men who constantly express their hate towards women (and other men if they are successful with women) seems a good choice to you? 

I really am trying to understand the world. I’m not trying to understand why some people hate each other anymore though, I accept it. What I still don’t understand is why a good person would align with a hateful agenda.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Lila said:


> Bananapeel said:
> 
> 
> 
> To change gears just a little bit, does anyone want to discuss what the RP type philosophy can do that is positive towards relationships rather than debate the negatives of it? @Buddy400 already started with his detailed explanation of the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> What makes RP philosophy "RP" is not the self improvement stuff. It's the basic tenets for "why" the self improvement is needed.
> 
> You can find self improvement information all over the internet and on book shelves in libraries. Most of them are not basing their advice on the idea that all women are alike - they are illogical creatures controlled by their fluctuating hormones who, on their best days, behave and think at a level on par with teenagers (oldest teenager in the house is a fun little line that thrown around a lot in RP community). As a side note...why anyone would want to self improve for the gift of being in the company of someone like that is beyond me. Not shooting for the stars there are they?
> 
> A discussion on self improvement would probably result in gender neutral advice because most, if not all of it, is just as relevant to women as it is to men. But we don't need to be telling people that the opposite sex is somehow defective.
Click to expand...

I dont think men and women can attract the opposite sex in the same way. Men are simply wired differently. What a man values in women is vastly different than what women value in men. Its individualistic in a sense, but the same typical traits that women are looking for in a man don't align with whe traits men are looking for.

Why a man would enjoy the company of one woman over another, depends on his intent. He doesnt have to like a woman to want to have sex with her. Of course, he wouldnt consider her for a LTR. I've never heard that oldest teenager bit, not sure what you mean. 

But even if you can generalize behavior over a large group, it doesn't mean that you would think all women are the same. Its just a map, mainly for what to look out for. There are always good ones and bad ones, finding the good ones is still the end goal, unless you intend to play the field until you need viagra to get it up.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Out of fairness, I rarely see you go to a lot of effort to disassociate yourself from someone (say a feminist) whose opinions you don't agree with. In fact, I've seen you just seem to irrationally support anything anyone claiming to be a feminist said.


I haven’t seen any feminists say that all men have hamsters, or that they deserve to be duped by women into giving us things they wouldn’t have given us if we didn’t dupe them. If I did see this, I would call it out.

However feel free to PM me if you see that I glided over something hateful being said that should be called out. If I’m not part of the discussion I may just skim the posts and miss things and I’m more than happy to circle back and call someone out.

Also, PS....calling me an easy target and easy lay and easily duped is not just a grenade in the room. A direct attack on me, meant to insult me, I assume. And this kind of thing happens in every red pill discussion. I’m not inclined to think “oh he’s just detracting, ignore it”. I’m more inclined to think he is a dangerous misogynistic male who is trying to shame me about sex for some twisted reason that have nothing to do with me. It’s so unfortunate that some of you good guys don’t see how nasty it makes you look be standing near that crap.


----------



## Lila

Bananapeel said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes RP philosophy "RP" is not the self improvement stuff. It's the basic tenets for "why" the self improvement is needed.
> 
> You can find self improvement information all over the internet and on book shelves in libraries. Most of them are not basing their advice on the idea that all women are alike - they are illogical creatures controlled by their fluctuating hormones who, on their best days, behave and think at a level on par with teenagers (oldest teenager in the house is a fun little line that thrown around a lot in RP community). As a side note...why anyone would want to self improve for the gift of being in the company of someone like that is beyond me. Not shooting for the stars there are they?
> 
> A discussion on self improvement would probably result in gender neutral advice because most, if not all of it, is just as relevant to women as it is to men. But we don't need to be telling people that the opposite sex is somehow defective.
> 
> 
> 
> For the people that are outcome driven rather than process driven, the inciting cause of "why" self improvement is necessary holds far less weight than whether there are measureable results that improve their lives.
> 
> Some advice would be gender neutral and some wouldn't. *We're a sexually dimorphic species and that accounts for psychological development differences rather than just physical ones. It's not a "defect" in the gender but rather accepting that there are differences and identifying what the differences are so that behaviors can be properly tailored for the desired outcome.*
Click to expand...

So you agree that "all women are alike - they are illogical creatures controlled by their fluctuating hormones who, on their best days, behave and think at a level on par with teenagers (oldest teenager in the house is a fun little line that thrown around a lot in RP community)."? Because that's what RP says are women's "psychological differences".


----------



## Bananapeel

Lila said:


> So you agree that "all women are alike - they are illogical creatures controlled by their fluctuating hormones who, on their best days, behave and think at a level on par with teenagers (oldest teenager in the house is a fun little line that thrown around a lot in RP community)."? Because that's what RP says are women's "psychological differences".


That's not what I said nor what I implied. What I said was there are differences between men and women that are inherent to our species and these differences go beyond just physical features. The association/interpretation with the negative outcome you posted did not come from me and is not an interpretation I support. 

I do believe that as a group (individual variation applies) women are emotionally driven at a higher level then men, partly through hormonal fluctuation, partly through other biological constructs, and partly through social conditioning. I know that emotions affect the way people view their relationships. Therefore, how I relate to women I date and engage them emotionally is different than how I relate to my guy friends.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Just a random comment about the possibilities of discussion....

We have an Eagle Scout level RP man here, @tech-novelist

Tech and I are at mostly opposite ends of the RP/feminist stuff. But we also agree on a lot of things. The areas where we disagree are pretty wide, so we don't end up talking to each other much anymore (we aren't in the same threads).

When he was newer and we forged our forum relationship here based on our opposed view points, there were a few snarky posts back and forth at first. Maybe we were **** testing each other. But anyway, very soon we were making each other laugh (even when others may not have seen what was so funny) and we quickly found mutual respect.

Tech and I say things that make each other cringe still, but we also say things that are awesome, and having that mutual respect makes it easy to find communicating with him fun. The way it should be on a forum, even when we don't agree. (Not saying I'm not at fault when I'm in a row with someone, I certainly am...I'm trying to improve and not get into any rows. I found I'd rather have an undercurrent of amusing each other, like I have with Tech).


----------



## Lila

Bananapeel said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that "all women are alike - they are illogical creatures controlled by their fluctuating hormones who, on their best days, behave and think at a level on par with teenagers (oldest teenager in the house is a fun little line that thrown around a lot in RP community)."? Because that's what RP says are women's "psychological differences".
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said nor what I implied. What I said was there are differences between men and women that are inherent to our species and these differences go beyond just physical features. The association/interpretation with the negative outcome you posted did not come from me and is not an interpretation I support.
> 
> I do believe that as a group (individual variation applies) women are emotionally driven at a higher level then men, partly through hormonal fluctuation, partly through other biological constructs, and partly through social conditioning. I know that emotions affect the way people view their relationships. Therefore, how I relate to women I date and engage them emotionally is different than how I relate to my guy friends.
Click to expand...

You wanted to discuss Red Pill and I described how they describe women. I can only infer that when you say you agree with their beliefs about the differentiation between women and men, then you agree with their description of women's psychology.

ETA:. Again, RP does not own the theory that the sexes process information differently. There are scientific studies both for and against this theory but none of the ones for it claim that women are illogical and or infantile. That's strictly an RP principle.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> Also, PS....calling me an easy target and easy lay and easily duped is not just a grenade in the room. A direct attack on me, meant to insult me, I assume. And this kind of thing happens in every red pill discussion. I’m not inclined to think “oh he’s just detracting, ignore it”. I’m more inclined to think he is a dangerous misogynistic male who is trying to shame me about sex for some twisted reason that have nothing to do with me. It’s so unfortunate that some of you good guys don’t see how nasty it makes you look be standing near that crap.


I didn't grab that out of thin air, that is what I have heard from men that have had their fair share of women. I've been told feminists are the easiest to get into bed, even when they openly disagree with them, I'm sure in a flirtatious kind of way. That is what I've heard...maybe its inaccurate. I dont really care either way.


----------



## Lila

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bananapeel said:
> 
> 
> 
> To change gears just a little bit, does anyone want to discuss what the RP type philosophy can do that is positive towards relationships rather than debate the negatives of it? @Buddy400 already started with his detailed explanation of the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> What makes RP philosophy "RP" is not the self improvement stuff. It's the basic tenets for "why" the self improvement is needed.
> 
> You can find self improvement information all over the internet and on book shelves in libraries. Most of them are not basing their advice on the idea that all women are alike - they are illogical creatures controlled by their fluctuating hormones who, on their best days, behave and think at a level on par with teenagers (oldest teenager in the house is a fun little line that thrown around a lot in RP community). As a side note...why anyone would want to self improve for the gift of being in the company of someone like that is beyond me. Not shooting for the stars there are they?
> 
> A discussion on self improvement would probably result in gender neutral advice because most, if not all of it, is just as relevant to women as it is to men. But we don't need to be telling people that the opposite sex is somehow defective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont think men and women can attract the opposite sex in the same way. Men are simply wired differently. What a man values in women is vastly different than what women value in men. Its individualistic in a sense, but the same typical traits that women are looking for in a man don't align with whe traits men are looking for.
> 
> Why a man would enjoy the company of one woman over another, depends on his intent. He doesnt have to like a woman to want to have sex with her. Of course, he wouldnt consider her for a LTR. *I've never heard that oldest teenager bit, not sure what you mean. *
> 
> *But even if you can generalize behavior over a large group, it doesn't mean that you would think all women are the same.* Its just a map, mainly for what to look out for. There are always good ones and bad ones, finding the good ones is still the end goal, unless you intend to play the field until you need viagra to get it up.
Click to expand...

The author of the Rational Male uses AWALT and "oldest teenager in the house" regularly on his blog posts.


----------



## Bananapeel

@Lila - I specifically stated otherwise. I said I read a lot of different things and pay attention to the parts that are useful to me.


----------



## 269370

Lila said:


> So you agree that "all women are alike - they are illogical creatures controlled by their fluctuating hormones who, on their best days, behave and think at a level on par with teenagers"



I don’t understand: who says these things? The only time I have heard anyone say such things on these boards are women themselves, about what they think men are saying. There’s this constant twisting and putting words in mouth. The best way to avoid it is to simply quote, rather than rewrite what someone has written. It’s bad forum etiquette to do otherwise, instead of directly quoting a paragraph and responding to it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bananapeel

inmyprime said:


> I don’t understand: who says these things? The only time I have heard anyone say such things on these boards are women themselves, about what they think men are saying. There’s this constant twisting and putting words in mouth. The best way to avoid it is to simply quote, rather than rewrite what someone has written. It’s bad forum etiquette to do otherwise, instead of directly quoting a paragraph and responding to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


BINGO!

I said I've read MMSLP and the Rationale Male, among other books, and that I have taken the useful information and applied it to my life. Apparently that translates into I agree with 100% of Lila's interpretation of what the RP philosophy is even though I've blatantly said otherwise. There's a major disconnect here.


----------



## Lila

Bananapeel said:


> @Lila - I specifically stated otherwise. I said I read a lot of different things and pay attention to the parts that are useful to me.


Then stop referring to RP as a self improvement guide for men if you do not subscribe to the RP basis that women are childish, illogical, hypergamous ****s only looking for their next Alpha.

As I said earlier, there are millions of self improvement guides out there. RP did not invent it nor did they invent studies about the relationship between men and women. What they have done is taken random non scientific information and twisted it to prove their negative views of women. All of this to make their self improvement advice fit their war of the sexes view.


----------



## Lila

inmyprime said:


> I don’t understand: who says these things? *The only time I have heard anyone say such things on these boards are women themselves, about what they think men are saying.* There’s this constant twisting and putting words in mouth. The best way to avoid it is to simply quote, rather than rewrite what someone has written. It’s bad forum etiquette to do otherwise, instead of directly quoting a paragraph and responding to it.


Before making such claims, why not try researchingthe materials referenced. Just because you are not directly affected doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is the equivalent of a white person claiming racism doesn't exist because they have never experienced it or seen it first hand. The world is much bigger than your little part of it.


----------



## Lila

Bananapeel said:


> inmyprime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t understand: who says these things? The only time I have heard anyone say such things on these boards are women themselves, about what they think men are saying. There’s this constant twisting and putting words in mouth. The best way to avoid it is to simply quote, rather than rewrite what someone has written. It’s bad forum etiquette to do otherwise, instead of directly quoting a paragraph and responding to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!
> 
> I said I've read MMSLP and the Rationale Male, among other books, and that I have taken the useful information and applied it to my life. Apparently that translates into I agree with 100% of Lila's interpretation of what the RP philosophy is even though I've blatantly said otherwise. There's a major disconnect here.
Click to expand...

 @Bananapeel there is no disconnect.. You were the one that wanted to discuss the good parts of RP. There are no good parts of RP. RP praxeology on women's psychology and behavior is negative plain and simple. You can argue that you agree with the differentiation between sexes but that's not something created by RP. What they did create was a twisted basis for that belief, that the differences exist because women are illogical and infantile and therefore must be treated accordingly. That's a twisted version of the differentiation of the sexes. See what I mean?

There are good self improvement sources that are readily available which do not denigrate women.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Lila said:


> Then stop referring to RP as a self improvement guide for men if you do not subscribe to the RP basis that women are childish, illogical, hypergamous ****s only looking for their next Alpha.
> 
> As I said earlier, there are millions of self improvement guides out there. RP did not invent it nor did they invent studies about the relationship between men and women. What they have done is taken random non scientific information and twisted it to prove their negative views of women. All of this to make their self improvement advice fit their war of the sexes view.


Would you describe yourself as a feminist?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Would you describe yourself as a feminist?


BTW, I'm not asking out of ridicule. I just wonder what feminists today feel are important issues that need addressed?

And also what they think of movement like MRA (Men's Rights Activists).


----------



## Lila

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then stop referring to RP as a self improvement guide for men if you do not subscribe to the RP basis that women are childish, illogical, hypergamous ****s only looking for their next Alpha.
> 
> As I said earlier, there are millions of self improvement guides out there. RP did not invent it nor did they invent studies about the relationship between men and women. What they have done is taken random non scientific information and twisted it to prove their negative views of women. All of this to make their self improvement advice fit their war of the sexes view.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you describe yourself as a feminist?
Click to expand...

I believe women should be given the same opportunities as men. I also believe women should be compensated the same as a man doing the same job getting the same results. So yes, I am a feminist.


----------



## Lila

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you describe yourself as a feminist?
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I'm not asking out of ridicule. I just wonder what feminists today feel are important issues that need addressed?
> 
> And also what they think of movement like MRA (Men's Rights Activists).
Click to expand...

I feel there are some issues such as shared child custody that have merit and I support.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Lila said:


> I believe women should be given the same opportunities as men. I also believe women should be compensated the same as a man doing the same job getting the same results. So yes, I am a feminist.


Ok, but have you controlled for all the variables...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html


----------



## Lila

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe women should be given the same opportunities as men. I also believe women should be compensated the same as a man doing the same job getting the same results. So yes, I am a feminist.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but have you controlled for all the variables...
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html
Click to expand...

I don't care about variables. I know how much $$$ I'm making the company I work for and I expect to be compensated the same as my male counterparts bringing in the same amount of money. End of story.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Lila said:


> I don't care about variables. I know how much $$$ I'm making the company I work for and I expect to be compensated the same as my male counterparts bringing in the same amount of money. End of story.


You should care about variables since they are important to understand the topic. Don't worry these studies weren't done by Red Pill Groups, they were done by the US GOV and Feminist Groups themselves.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> I don’t understand: who says these things? The only time I have heard anyone say such things on these boards are women themselves, about what they think men are saying. There’s this constant twisting and putting words in mouth. The best way to avoid it is to simply quote, rather than rewrite what someone has written. It’s bad forum etiquette to do otherwise, instead of directly quoting a paragraph and responding to it.


Some guys on some sites do say stuff like this. 

I rarely see men here say these things.

But, if one agrees with one thing the RP sites say, one must agree with them about everything.


----------



## uhtred

In general I agree with you, but the devil is in the details. On jobs where there is a very clear metric ( maybe yours if your work directly results in money for your company) its simple, but for many jobs the connection between what a worker does and company profits is much less clear, and far more open to interpretation.

I manage a group of scientists and engineers, all working on different projects, all long term (no direct profit connection) and there is no simple measure of performance. Lots of judgement, and that opens the door for bias (conscious or unconscious).

I can only claim to *try* to be unbiased. 




Lila said:


> I don't care about variables. I know how much $$$ I'm making the company I work for and I expect to be compensated the same as my male counterparts bringing in the same amount of money. End of story.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> @Bananapeel there is no disconnect.. You were the one that wanted to discuss the good parts of RP. There are no good parts of RP. RP praxeology on women's psychology and behavior is negative plain and simple. You can argue that you agree with the differentiation between sexes but that's not something created by RP. What they did create was a twisted basis for that belief, that the differences exist because women are illogical and infantile and therefore must be treated accordingly. That's a twisted version of the differentiation of the sexes. See what I mean?
> 
> There are good self improvement sources that are readily available which do not denigrate women.


The thing that gets me is that I don't think the RP is having any significant impact on anything.

The idea that 'toxic masculinity" exists and needs to stopped seems to be having a lot more impact on society than anything Red Pill related.

As my son noted when the RedPill sub-reddit was closed after being classified as hate speech (he hadn't gone there, he just heard about it):

"Women talking about their problems with men is front page news, men talking about their problems with women is hate speech"


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> I believe women should be given the same opportunities as men. I also believe women should be compensated the same as a man doing the same job getting the same results. So yes, I am a feminist.


By that definition, I'm a feminist too.

I think almost everyone is.


----------



## Lila

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care about variables. I know how much $$$ I'm making the company I work for and I expect to be compensated the same as my male counterparts bringing in the same amount of money. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> You should care about variables since they are important to understand the topic. Don't worry these studies weren't done by Red Pill Groups, they were done by the US GOV and Feminist Groups themselves.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't care about the variables because in my industry, the results are very cut and dry. I bring in work, complete it, and bill the client. If I don't feel I'm being compensated fairly, I can go work somewhere else. 

I have absolutely zero loyalty to my employer and they have no qualms with letting people go. I do my job. They pay me accordingly. That's it. It's a dog eat dog industry but so far, one way or another I feel I've been fairly compensated.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Buddy400 said:


> By that definition, I'm a feminist too.
> 
> I think almost everyone is.


If I were running a company and I could pay women 70 cents on the dollar compared to men, then I'd fire all the men and hire all women. But then the laws of supply and demand would catch up.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Lila said:


> Again, I don't care about the variables because in my industry, the results are very cut and dry. I bring in work, complete it, and bill the client. If I don't feel I'm being compensated fairly, I can go work somewhere else.
> 
> I have absolutely zero loyalty to my employer and they have no qualms with letting people go. I do my job. They pay me accordingly. That's it. It's a dog eat dog industry but so far, one way or another I feel I've been fairly compensated.


I'm just asking why you are a feminist, you said because you want fair pay. If there is no evidence you are being underpaid or female workers in general (when compared apples to apples) then why are you a feminist?


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> The thing that gets me is that I don't think the RP is having any significant impact on anything.
> 
> The idea that 'toxic masculinity" exists and needs to stopped seems to be having a lot more impact on society than anything Red Pill related.


Do you believe that because you haven't been exposed to negative impact from something personally then it doesn't exist? I assure there are plenty of negatives from.the constant negative impression of women being pushed by RP. If you don't believe me, pm me and I'll send you links to some of the popular RP websites. It's scary. 



Buddy400 said:


> As my son noted when the RedPill sub-reddit was closed after being classified as hate speech (he hadn't gone there, he just heard about it):
> 
> "Women talking about their problems with men is front page news, men talking about their problems with women is hate speech"


If he never visited the site how could he claim that it was just "men talking about their problems with women"?. 

I have visited and read some of the posts that were made on Reddit and they were the definition of hate speech. A lot of it encouraged sexual violence towards women. Some of the stuff was very difficult to read but the actions were encouraged as "****s want it like that". And when the actions inevitably back fire, they blame the poster. They obviously didn't apply the pressure correctly. Anyone who rejects any of the tenets gets called *****, ******, or God forbid....BETA.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Lila said:


> I have visited and read some of the posts that were made on Reddit and they were the definition of hate speech. A lot of it encouraged sexual violence towards women. Some of the stuff was very difficult to read but the actions were encouraged as "****s want it like that". And when the actions inevitably back fire, they blame the poster. They obviously didn't apply the pressure correctly. Anyone who rejects any of the tenets gets called *****, ******, or God forbid....BETA.


Link please?


----------



## Lila

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I'm just asking why you are a feminist, you said because you want fair pay. If there is no evidence you are being underpaid or female workers in general (when compared apples to apples) then why are you a feminist?


I'm not sure why you would ask this circular question but I'm a feminist because I believe women should be given the same opportunities provided to men and they should've paid equally for equal results. Just because I'm not experiencing unequal pay does not mean it's not happening. 

Should I only be a feminist if something is happening directly to me?


----------



## Lila

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have visited and read some of the posts that were made on Reddit and they were the definition of hate speech. A lot of it encouraged sexual violence towards women. Some of the stuff was very difficult to read but the actions were encouraged as "****s want it like that". And when the actions inevitably back fire, they blame the poster. They obviously didn't apply the pressure correctly. Anyone who rejects any of the tenets gets called *****, ******, or God forbid....BETA.
> 
> 
> 
> Link please?
Click to expand...

Do your own legwork on Reddit? Then click on any random thread. I'm about 75% sure you'll find what I'm talking about.

P.s. Your posting style is very similar to someone else who posts on TAM.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Lila said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just asking why you are a feminist, you said because you want fair pay. If there is no evidence you are being underpaid or female workers in general (when compared apples to apples) then why are you a feminist?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you would ask this circular question but I'm a feminist because I believe women should be given the same opportunities provided to men and they should've paid equally for equal results. Just because I'm not experiencing unequal pay does not mean it's not happening.
> 
> Should I only be a feminist if something is happening directly to me?
Click to expand...

But I just sent you unbiased proof (you like evidence right, even though I doubt you even opened the link I sent) that none of that is happening. I mean typically when people support activism, its because they want something thats not happening to happen. Maybe you have more issues than that one for why you are a feminist...

Why is your accepted doctrine the end all. Why isn't MRA the logical equivalent of feminism?


----------



## BluesPower

Wow, did this thing go off the rails. 

I think most of you guys should kiss and make up. I mean we are just on the internet sharing ideas and opinions.

Now the MMSLP, I have just looked over, and a few other books. And regardless of what the feminists or the RP crowd are saying, both of those camps at the fringes both get out of line. 

However, @utred and the others that think that women, IN GENERAL, do not want strong, confident, men that know how to ****, you are deluding yourselves. I could give all kinds of antidotal evidence that this is true from my life, but it is true. 

And the skinny guy that plays guitar, well guess what, he is alpha in his realm because he has a gig. 

That is the main area that I come from, music. And it is a thing. The only difference is that with music, that is something that is EARNED for the most part. You had to take the time and effort to learn that. 

But success in any area should make a man, or woman, confident. It is just that the arts and athletics get a lot of the attention. Molecular biology doesn't. 

But just like a lot of things, alpha/ beta are misused and misunderstood. 

But in my life, I picked up and ****ed my GF before she actually knew how great a musician I was. So the music aspect had nothing to do with her attraction to me. It only enhanced her attraction when she found out what the real deal was. 

It was like the next weekend I think that she actually got to see me play in a club, in my element, and she freaked out. 

She kept saying, "Why didn't you tell me that you were this good." To which I answered, "Honey, I told you I was a super good guitar player." So then, for a while before she calmed down about it, I had to play at all the JAM's at her favorite club where we met. She had to show me off, which was a little embarrassing to be frank. But I will say that she is so supportive of me playing and that makes me feel good. She hardly misses a chance to see me perform. 

So some reason, she could not put 2 and 2 together when I was at her place going to see some friends of mine play, and I knew the band and the other musicians in the audience, some how that did not make a connection for her until she saw me perform.

But I digress... Alpha really has nothing to do with physical size, penis size, looks, being a jerk to woman, or anything like that. It has to do, in most cases, with strength in yourself, confidence, Yes a certain amount of sexual prowess gained from experience, but it is not about the things that I perceive that the red pill crowd believe in. 

It is most def not about a hatred for women. If anything it comes from a love of women in most cases. I love everything about women including sex, not just the sexual aspect. I think women are wonderful creatures, in most every way. 

Conversely, there are some bad women out there, that use their looks and sex to manipulate men, but frankly they are usually stupid men, but yes this does happen. 

I but them, women like that, in the category of bad people, just like there are bad men, that mistreat women and others in their life. 

But the concept of all woman being bad people or all men being bad people, by either side is just silly. 

Now if you are a man, and you walk around like a little mouse, with no self confidence, or nothing to offer a relationship, you may not be justified in thinking that women are the reason that you are not getting laid. 

It might just be YOU...


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> Do you believe that because you haven't been exposed to negative impact from something personally then it doesn't exist? I assure there are plenty of negatives from.the constant negative impression of women being pushed by RP. If you don't believe me, pm me and I'll send you links to some of the popular RP websites. It's scary.
> 
> 
> 
> If he never visited the site how could he claim that it was just "men talking about their problems with women"?.
> 
> I have visited and read some of the posts that were made on Reddit and they were the definition of hate speech. A lot of it encouraged sexual violence towards women. Some of the stuff was very difficult to read but the actions were encouraged as "****s want it like that". And when the actions inevitably back fire, they blame the poster. They obviously didn't apply the pressure correctly. Anyone who rejects any of the tenets gets called *****, ******, or God forbid....BETA.


Over about 5 years, I've followed links to maybe 30 to 40 Red Pill posts. They're crude and I can see why women wouldn't like the way they're portrayed. But, I've never seen the evil that many claim. 

I have followed two or three controversies that claimed some RP site was in favor of rape (or something equally awful) and found the complaints to be overblown (like a post somewhere whose purpose was to mimic an actual Jezebel column where a women wrote about why she's hit a guy and he deserved it) and was taken to be a straight forward endorsement of men hitting women. In fact, most of my exposure to RP sites was probably due to my tracking down claims that they'd said something unthinkable.

I really think the concern is overblown.

On the other hand, I do think that there's a mainstream attack on masculinity and many people are saying horrible things about men generally (although, switching positions, you'll probably claim to see no such thing).


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> Over about 5 years, I've followed links to maybe 30 to 40 Red Pill posts. They're crude and I can see why women wouldn't like the way they're portrayed. But, I've never seen the evil that many claim.
> 
> I have followed two or three controversies that claimed some RP site was in favor of rape (or something equally awful) and found the complaints to be overblown (like a post somewhere whose purpose was to mimic an actual Jezebel column where a women wrote about why she's hit a guy and he deserved it) and was taken to be a straight forward endorsement of men hitting women. In fact, most of my exposure to RP sites was probably due to my tracking down claims that they'd said something unthinkable.
> 
> I really think the concern is overblown.
> 
> On the other hand, I do think that there's a mainstream attack on masculinity and many people are saying horrible things about men generally (*although, switching positions, you'll probably claim to see no such thing*).


Exactly. I think some of what you would consider mainstream attacks on masculinity are overblown. I guess it's all about perspective and denying one another the benefit of the doubt which as you stated earlier is in short supply on the internet. 
-----------------------
I know that I'm not going to convince any of the pro RP people to my side of the argument. And, based on my experiences and what I've read, nothing is going to make me change my mind about the goodness (or lack thereof) of RP. So with that I bid you goodnight, happy holidays, and a happy new year. Ciao.


----------



## Faithful Wife

http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/

This is a blog by a guy who finds the most heinous RP/PUA (and other philosophies in that vein) posts, articles, Reddit threads and comments. 

I don’t expect anyone to check it out but if you wanted to find a lot of nasty RP posts and articles in one place, there you go.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This was a really good one, but there are literally so many good ones.

http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2...ew-anglin-shows-us-just-how-ugly-it-could-be/

Also this....

http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2...o-make-fat-women-ashamed-of-themselves-again/


----------



## john117

Lila said:


> So you agree that "all women are alike - they are illogical creatures controlled by their fluctuating hormones who, on their best days, behave and think at a level on par with teenagers (oldest teenager in the house is a fun little line that thrown around a lot in RP community)."? Because that's what RP says are women's "psychological differences".


There are measurable side effects of the "fluctuating hormones" but in the grand scheme of things they're not the catastrophic side effects alleged by the red pill brigade.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4220662/

They're just parts of the often non deterministic thing we call life.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Just a random comment about the possibilities of discussion....
> 
> We have an Eagle Scout level RP man here, @tech-novelist
> 
> Tech and I are at mostly opposite ends of the RP/feminist stuff. But we also agree on a lot of things. The areas where we disagree are pretty wide, so we don't end up talking to each other much anymore (we aren't in the same threads).
> 
> When he was newer and we forged our forum relationship here based on our opposed view points, there were a few snarky posts back and forth at first. Maybe we were **** testing each other. But anyway, very soon we were making each other laugh (even when others may not have seen what was so funny) and we quickly found mutual respect.
> 
> Tech and I say things that make each other cringe still, but we also say things that are awesome, and having that mutual respect makes it easy to find communicating with him fun. The way it should be on a forum, even when we don't agree. (Not saying I'm not at fault when I'm in a row with someone, I certainly am...I'm trying to improve and not get into any rows. I found I'd rather have an undercurrent of amusing each other, like I have with Tech).


I like you too, especially after your thread on whether women lack empathy for men (https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html). You showed real compassion for the suffering that men on the thread described.

Now back to the original topic: I'm an engineer with an engineering mentality. If something works, I don't really care if it is SCIENCE!!!

And I have found the general description in MMSLP (and some other RP sources) of how intersexual relationships work to be compatible with my experience. In particular, it explains past events that I found puzzling at the time, including why I was more successful with women when I didn't care about impressing them, and why I didn't wind up as a 30 year old virgin, given the relationship between IQ and age at first intercourse. :grin2:

Do I *like *the way it describes these relationships? Not really. I wish the real world were nicer in many respects, this being among them. But I think it is a fairly accurate guide as to what to watch out for and how to keep things going in a positive direction in my marriage.


----------



## 269370

Lila said:


> Before making such claims, why not try researchingthe materials referenced. Just because you are not directly affected doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is the equivalent of a white person claiming racism doesn't exist because they have never experienced it or seen it first hand. The world is much bigger than your little part of it.



But the guys here refer to bits from the material that they found useful. And what they reference to does not seem offensive to me (granted, I have not read the books nor do I know what ‘red pill’ is. I always thought it’s the ‘pill of truth’, as per the Matrix reference but I guess it’s some kind of a male fringe somewhere.)

In any case, what I see happening is this:

Guy A: I like the bit from the book that tell the guys to look after themselves and be fit to make themselves more attractive (or whatever similar).

Girl A: So you agree with the idea that all girls are fat and ugly? Because that’s what the book is saying.

Girl B: Yes, this tells me all I need to know about guys on TAM. At least people I know IRL are real men and that’s why I have lots and lots of sex with them.

Girl C: How can you guys stand for this and not apologise on behalf of this misogynistic non sense?

Guy B: I just like to go to the gym...

Girl D: I’m done with you. Go back to your mum’s basement.

Granted, it’s a sped up version of the thread but that’s pretty much the formula I have seen over and over. It’s like there is this innate need to be offended about everything (and be doubly offended if the offence is not fully accepted while no counter argument is being allowed either) to justify the need for Uber-feminism because that’s the only thing that makes sense.

Again: I would refer to the relevant paragraph written by a specific poster, not an interpretation of an interpretation that is not relevant to the discussion in the first place. But I guess I will see pigs fly before this happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Lila said:


> Do you believe that because you haven't been exposed to negative impact from something personally then it doesn't exist? I assure there are plenty of negatives from.the constant negative impression of women being pushed by RP. If you don't believe me, pm me and I'll send you links to some of the popular RP websites. It's scary.



Why do you bother reading those sites? There is also crazy sh1t written by Uber-feminists, what’s the point of getting huffy and puffy about what some idiots write? Majority don’t think that way. It depends what you feel you need to focus on. There’s a bit of ‘everything’ in this world, and I generally assume people are good and have good intentions until they prove themselves otherwise to me. Then I treat them accordingly.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Lila said:


> I'm not sure why you would ask this circular question but I'm a feminist because I believe women should be given the same opportunities provided to men and they should've paid equally for equal results. Just because I'm not experiencing unequal pay does not mean it's not happening.
> 
> Should I only be a feminist if something is happening directly to me?



Then why wouldn’t you also be part of the Men’s Rights Movement? Or the US Association of Reptile Keepers? And do t forget The American Dehydrated Onion and Garlic Association? https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009076132 

I’m sure some unfair crap is happening there too, even if it’s not happening to you, why would you not align yourself with those movements? (I’m obviously tongue in cheek; but what I don’t understand is: women in the developed world never had it so good, yet there has never been so much complaining. It doesn’t mean it can’t get better but there is no evidence that women suffer disproportionately ON AVERAGE in the developed world. There will always be cases here and there to prove both sides right, but why not just chill out and enjoy the good life? That applies to both sexes).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> Wow, did this thing go off the rails.
> 
> I think most of you guys should kiss and make up. I mean we are just on the internet sharing ideas and opinions.
> 
> Now the MMSLP, I have just looked over, and a few other books. And regardless of what the feminists or the RP crowd are saying, both of those camps at the fringes both get out of line.
> 
> However, @utred and the others that think that women, IN GENERAL, do not want strong, confident, men that know how to ****, you are deluding yourselves. I could give all kinds of antidotal evidence that this is true from my life, but it is true.



I’m highly offended by this, if you think that women only need strong, dominant men who slap their ****s around because they are loving it.  

Have you actually heard any men argue otherwise? (That confidence is an off putting quality to women?)

I don’t understand: most of the arguments are completely redundant because nobody (male) is arguing otherwise here. You are agreeing with a straw man put forth by the other side and no man has an issue with this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

I clicked on all the links. Those are (hilariously) satirical articles (referencing other satirical articles). 
I take it that the author is actually a feminist?
(Making some kind of a point by using hyperbole and gross exaggerations as well as distorting statistics).

One thing I noticed about the ‘extreme feminism’ is that there is not a lot of room to distinguish between humour, sarcasm and wtf is ACTUALLY going on IRL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> I like you too, especially after your thread on whether women lack empathy for men (https://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/407554-do-women-lack-empathy-men.html). You showed real compassion for the suffering that men on the thread described.
> 
> Now back to the original topic: I'm an engineer with an engineering mentality. If something works, I don't really care if it is SCIENCE!!!
> 
> And I have found the general description in MMSLP (and some other RP sources) of how intersexual relationships work to be compatible with my experience. In particular, it explains past events that I found puzzling at the time, including why I was more successful with women when I didn't care about impressing them, and why I didn't wind up as a 30 year old virgin, given the relationship between IQ and age at first intercourse. :grin2:
> 
> Do I *like *the way it describes these relationships? Not really. I wish the real world were nicer in many respects, this being among them. But I think it is a fairly accurate guide as to what to watch out for and how to keep things going in a positive direction in my marriage.


Do you like the way it describes relationships....”not really”. Ok. I’m getting somewhere maybe. I don’t like it either. I will try to reframe it all in a different way. The wording is what gets a lot of us twisted up. But we are mars/Venus after all, and therefore speak different languages. We need a translator (which is what John Gray originally tried to do). It needs to be updated with new language and concepts. I think there is (benign) lack of understanding on both sides. What fems may hear as controlling type words, RP doesn’t mean them that way. What RP may hear as screeching banshee, fems may actually have a point if they can be heard. Admittedly this topic makes some of us hot under the collar. We don’t really need to be, as I know from the mutual respect with you. 

I’m going to try a new tactic, try to bridge the gap.


----------



## BluesPower

inmyprime said:


> I’m highly offended by this, if you think that women only need strong, dominant men who slap their ****s around because they are loving it.
> 
> Have you actually heard any men argue otherwise? (That confidence is an off putting quality to women?)
> 
> I don’t understand: most of the arguments are completely redundant because nobody (male) is arguing otherwise here. You are agreeing with a straw man put forth by the other side and no man has an issue with this.


Actually, Uhtred argues otherwise and a couple others. I know the thread is long. 

And I know you are doing your usual "funny Stuff" but then this thread needs some levity...


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> Actually, Uhtred argues otherwise and a couple others. I know the thread is long.
> 
> 
> 
> And I know you are doing your usual "funny Stuff" but then this thread needs some levity...




Is he? I thought he said that being confident, doesn’t always get you laid. There’s a difference between that and saying that women find confidence off putting or unattractive.
You men (ha!) keep forgetting that it’s not always down to you whether you are getting laid or not. Women (thankfully) have choices whether and whom they want to sleep with.

Confidence can be expressed in many different ways. It’s one of those words. A polite, introvert person who knows what he wants and a macho ‘red piller’ (am I using the word correctly?) are both confident. It’s up to the woman to decide who she finds more fackable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> For those of you who think you have been helped by RP, your posts still seethe with resentment toward women and specifically, toward the fact that you have had to learn to "game" them to get sex with them. It comes through in every post.
> 
> If it didn't, and if you didn't seem to hold a grudge against women in general for this sex gate holding thing and somehow also women's fault that you were misguided as a youth and believed the wrong things, then that would be obvious in your posts.


I am one of those [who think I have been] helped by RP, and I don't resent women.

Does this change your opinion of RP, or of me, or of both?


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> I am one of those [who think I have been] helped by RP, and I don't resent women.
> 
> Does this change your opinion of RP, or of me, or of both?


Your posts don’t seethe like some guys here, so no. 

But I did learn something else here...which I’ll start another thread about.


----------



## tech-novelist

inmyprime said:


> It’s very simple: if men who were ‘successful’ with women were all ‘good men’, there wouldn’t be so many good women falling for jerks.
> 
> There is an inherent (and incorrect) assumption that just because they pick a man, he must be ‘good’. Actually a lot of women pick really ****ty men.
> 
> Men themselves have said repeatedly here (and other places) that they can’t believe what those men* can get away with.
> 
> I don’t even understand anymore what the argument here is exactly.
> 
> *who get laid repeatedly
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Note that there are no groups of jerks complaining about the nice guys getting all the girls.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> inmyprime said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s very simple: if men who were ‘successful’ with women were all ‘good men’, there wouldn’t be so many good women falling for jerks.
> 
> There is an inherent (and incorrect) assumption that just because they pick a man, he must be ‘good’. Actually a lot of women pick really ****ty men.
> 
> Men themselves have said repeatedly here (and other places) that they can’t believe what those men* can get away with.
> 
> I don’t even understand anymore what the argument here is exactly.
> 
> *who get laid repeatedly
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Note that there are no groups of jerks complaining about the nice guys getting all the girls.
Click to expand...

There kind of is. Incels qualify as that, to me. They complain about white knights and so forth as much as chads and Tyrones.


----------



## tech-novelist

technovelist said:


> Note that there are no groups of jerks complaining about the nice guys getting all the girls.





Faithful Wife said:


> There kind of is. Incels qualify as that, to me. They complain about white knights and so forth as much as chads and Tyrones.


Perhaps I wasn't precise enough; what I meant was that jerks didn't complain about nice guys getting laid, not really about them "getting girls" in general.

Or do incels complain about white knights getting laid? I didn't realize that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> technovelist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note that there are no groups of jerks complaining about the nice guys getting all the girls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> There kind of is. Incels qualify as that, to me. They complain about white knights and so forth as much as chads and Tyrones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps I wasn't precise enough; what I meant was that jerks didn't complain about nice guys getting laid, not really about them "getting girls" in general.
> 
> Or do incels complain about white knights getting laid? I didn't realize that.
Click to expand...

Yes they complain about anyone getting laid. Also many incels are jerks.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes they complain about anyone getting laid. Also many incels are jerks.


I suspect that most white knights don't get laid.
But I agree that many incels are jerks. In fact, I suspect that almost all the incels we know about from their online presence are jerks.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

tech-novelist said:


> I suspect that most white knights don't get laid.
> But I agree that many incels are jerks. In fact, I suspect that almost all the incels we know about from their online presence are jerks.


Okay, sheltered ignorant person with a question here...

What's an "incel?"


----------



## tech-novelist

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Okay, sheltered ignorant person with a question here...
> 
> What's an "incel?"


"INvoluntary CELibate", i.e., someone who can't get laid.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

tech-novelist said:


> "INvoluntary CELibate", i.e., someone who can't get laid.


Got it. Thanks.

I was wondering who might be complaining about white knights getting laid since they don't seem to get laid a lot, but I guess if you're not getting laid _at all_....


----------



## 269370

tech-novelist said:


> "INvoluntary CELibate", i.e., someone who can't get laid.




Oh I see. I thought it was someone who gathers incelligence....Like a spy. But with way less sex! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

@Lila:

Should one assume that since a prominent feminist once said all men were rapists, and it has since been perpetuated by a small yet alarming number of other feminists, you believe it?

Your last few posts are effectively doing such.

Psychological reciprocity matters.


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> @Lila:
> 
> Should one assume that since a prominent feminist once said all men were rapists, and it has since been perpetuated by a small yet alarming number of other feminists, you believe it?
> 
> Your last few posts are effectively doing such.
> 
> Psychological reciprocity matters.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I do get that and want to address it.

But as for this discussion, is there any book or blog that is regularly discussed or promoted here that is along the lines of what you said about the all men are rapists? Do we ever see or hear any marriage book or blog based on something that offensive to you as a man? 

If there were, do you think Lila or I or other feminists here would support it? Because we wouldn’t. We would tell them to take a hike with their hateful nonsense.

Reciprocity?


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they complain about anyone getting laid. Also many incels are jerks.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that most white knights don't get laid.
> But I agree that many incels are jerks. In fact, I suspect that almost all the incels we know about from their online presence are jerks.
Click to expand...

But do you actually think there are no nice guys getting laid? Not even just by chance? It never happens?

That there are no women who have a thing for being rescued. Or women who are a bit dominant. Or women who are a bit shy and nice themselves?

Lots of nice guys do actually get laid. They aren’t complaining so we don’t hear from them.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> I do get that and want to address it.
> 
> But as for this discussion, is there any book or blog that is regularly discussed or promoted here that is along the lines of what you said about the all men are rapists? Do we ever see or hear any marriage book or blog based on something that offensive to you as a man?
> 
> If there were, do you think Lila or I or other feminists here would support it? Because we wouldn’t. We would tell them to take a hike with their hateful nonsense.
> 
> Reciprocity?


Touche.

"All men are rapists, and that's all they are."

Marilyn French wrote that line in her book from 1978. Yes...that was a hell of a long time ago.

That said, I believe the modern day MRA/RP (whatever sect of it) movement is today where feminism was when that book was written.

And just as I believe that the third wave of feminism is for anything but true equality, I also believe that what you are seeing is the blossoming of the male equivalent, 40 years later.

I would like your thoughts you alluded to in the quoted post. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

FW, in answer to your direct question, no, there is not a book, etc. that is posted about or discussed here.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do get that and want to address it.
> 
> But as for this discussion, is there any book or blog that is regularly discussed or promoted here that is along the lines of what you said about the all men are rapists? Do we ever see or hear any marriage book or blog based on something that offensive to you as a man?
> 
> If there were, do you think Lila or I or other feminists here would support it? Because we wouldn’t. We would tell them to take a hike with their hateful nonsense.
> 
> Reciprocity?
> 
> 
> 
> Touche.
> 
> "All men are rapists, and that's all they are."
> 
> Marilyn French wrote that line in her book from 1978. Yes...that was a hell of a long time ago.
> 
> That said, I believe the modern day MRA/RP (whatever sect of it) movement is today where feminism was when that book was written.
> 
> And just as I believe that the third wave of feminism is for anything but true equality, I also believe that what you are seeing is the blossoming of the male equivalent, 40 years later.
> 
> I would like your thoughts you alluded to in the quoted post.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Even if all you say is true, we don’t seem to have “that” kind of feminist here at TAM, do we? 

Yet we do seem to have “that kind” of RP guys at TAM. But this goes unchallenged.

If there were lots of feminists who were aligned with the nastiest things you can be aligned with in feminism here at TAM promoting that agenda, the feminists you know and love here at TAM would run them out of town. We don’t really understand why you don’t stand up against the hatefulness when it is presented here specifically, because we would stand up against it. The fact that we never have to because women don’t promote that crap here doesn’t seem to help you guys see that although that crap exists, no one here is saying to you or anyone else that it is good advice.

Yet here we have men saying some of the more heinous parts of RP and they go unchallenged. For instance when I was told that I am an easy target and an easy lay and could be easily duped by an RP man. Why? Why is stuff like that ok to say to me? I do think I deserve the respect of the men here and that I have proved many times I’m not of the “hateful” groups of feminists every keeps pointing out exists. I’m here talking about how much I love men, how much I love sex, how much I want people to find healthy partners all the time. I am kind and empathetic, I don’t **** over dudes and then come brag about it. Yet even if I’ve only had sex with 2 guys in 3 years since I’ve been single (both of them with exclusivity only) I still get mocked and shamed for riding the **** carousel.

Where are there rabid feminist women on TAM saying similar to men? Why is it ok? I really am trying to be a rational adult.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> FW, in answer to your direct question, no, there is not a book, etc. that is posted about or discussed here.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


And in answer to what I’ve alluded to, I will start a new thread about it. I’m trying to collect my thoughts around it and try a new angle.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> Even if all you say is true, we don’t seem to have “that” kind of feminist here at TAM, do we?
> 
> Yet we do seem to have “that kind” of RP guys at TAM. But this goes unchallenged.
> 
> If there were lots of feminists who were aligned with the nastiest things you can be aligned with in feminism here at TAM promoting that agenda, the feminists you know and love here at TAM would run them out of town. We don’t really understand why you don’t stand up against the hatefulness when it is presented here specifically, because we would stand up against it. The fact that we never have to because women don’t promote that crap here doesn’t seem to help you guys see that although that crap exists, no one here is saying to you or anyone else that it is good advice.
> 
> Yet here we have men saying some of the more heinous parts of RP and they go unchallenged. For instance when I was told that I am an easy target and an easy lay and could be easily duped by an RP man. Why? Why is stuff like that ok to say to me? I do think I deserve the respect of the men here and that I have proved many times I’m not of the “hateful” groups of feminists every keeps pointing out exists. I’m here talking about how much I love men, how much I love sex, how much I want people to find healthy partners all the time. I am kind and empathetic, I don’t **** over dudes and then come brag about it. Yet even if I’ve only had sex with 2 guys in 3 years since I’ve been single (both of them with exclusivity only) I still get mocked and shamed for riding the **** carousel.
> 
> Where are there rabid feminist women on TAM saying similar to men? Why is it ok? I really am trying to be a rational adult.


I dunno... I'm pretty sure I've seen a few guys callI out other guys for making blanket prejudicial statements against all of womanhood. I know I have myself more than once.

I also recall at least one of our ladies going all hard core third wave. You backed her 100%. (I generally see you as very well thought out and dont agree when a RP chorus accuses you of being a blind third waver, but that was the only exception) She ultimately ended up being on the end of a series of bans of increasing length.

I somehow missed the post labeling you as an easy lay the subject who is easily duped. Had I seen it, I would have laughed, not because it's not a horrible hateful thing to say, but because it's so absurd. If anyone around here of either gender is in control of their own sexuality, I'm sure it's you. If I didn't respond, it'd be because I know you're more than capable of defending yourself and dont need my help.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I dunno... I'm pretty sure I've seen a few guys callI out other guys for making blanket prejudicial statements against all of womanhood. I know I have myself more than once.
> 
> I also recall at least one of our ladies going all hard core third wave. You backed her 100%. (I generally see you as very well thought out and dont agree when a RP chorus accuses you of being a blind third waver, but that was the only exception) She ultimately ended up being on the end of a series of bans of increasing length.
> 
> I somehow missed the post labeling you as an easy lay the subject who is easily duped. Had I seen it, I would have laughed, not because it's not a horrible hateful thing to say, but because it's so absurd. If anyone around here of either gender is in control of their own sexuality, I'm sure it's you. If I didn't respond, it'd be because I know you're more than capable of defending yourself and dont need my help.


There are going to be subjects I agree with that some of you think are hard core third wave things. I don’t even know which topic you are speaking of, but I’m sure that my assessment of the topic was not what you probably thought it was. I would be happy to reopen the topic if you would like.

And while I also don’t think you need my or anyone else’s help, I would still go on the offense towards another poster if she of he was directly attacking you with untrue, nonsensical things about you and your life that I thought were preposterous and unkind for no reason other than to attack you. Actually I have batted down men in the sexless threads who were trying to insinuate you were weak or something just because you haven’t left your wife. I hate that **** and see it for what it is: just plain mean spirited.


----------



## ConanHub

FW. The aforementioned poster did not answer my ??????? and apparently got himself banned.

I have been super busy so I haven't followed everything here.

I did catch the a-hole remark towards you and it seemed so bizarre as to be trollish.

I don't know if he was just stirring up a pot of stupid or if he really believed that crap but he didn't answer me regardless.

I hope and believe that there are many TAM men who would have the same reaction I did but just missed the post.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> There are going to be subjects I agree with that some of you think are hard core third wave things. I don’t even know which topic you are speaking of, but I’m sure that my assessment of the topic was not what you probably thought it was. I would be happy to reopen the topic if you would like.
> 
> And while I also don’t think you need my or anyone else’s help, I would still go on the offense towards another poster if she of he was directly attacking you with untrue, nonsensical things about you and your life that I thought were preposterous and unkind for no reason other than to attack you. Actually I have batted down men in the sexless threads who were trying to insinuate you were weak or something just because you haven’t left your wife. I hate that **** and see it for what it is: just plain mean spirited.


No need to revisit it. We haseh it out pretty good at the time and couldn't reach common ground. No biggie. That one item of disagreement doesn't finish my general respect for your contributions here. 

And just ftr, have appreciated your support in the past. It meant a lot.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> But do you actually think there are no nice guys getting laid? Not even just by chance? It never happens?
> 
> That there are no women who have a thing for being rescued. Or women who are a bit dominant. Or women who are a bit shy and nice themselves?
> 
> Lots of nice guys do actually get laid. They aren’t complaining so we don’t hear from them.


Of course there are nice guys who get laid.

But I don't think that, in general, they get laid *because *they are nice. Just being nice with no other qualifications doesn't seem to be a help in getting laid; if anything, it's easy to be *too *nice and end up with the infamous "va-clang".

Yes, there is the well-known pity-lay, which I might have been the beneficiary of on one or two occasions many years ago. But that is the exception, not the rule, and certainly not anything one would want to rely on.

To take your specific examples:

1. Rescuing a woman can in some cases result in tender feelings on the part of the rescuer. But even there, it is more likely to be the expertise or strength displayed during the rescue that might kindle such feelings. Just paying someone's rent or the like isn't likely to result in anything more than possibly a very short term of gratitude.

2. Sure, there are dominant women who want submissive men, but that's out of my wheelhouse as a purported red pill "expert". What I'm familiar with is the more common situation where women want their men to be decisive and are unhappy otherwise.

3. I would suspect that even very nice women would again like a decisive, forthright man, not one who is too nice. Women and men don't respond to the same cues, so the fact that a typical man doesn't mind a fairly submissive woman doesn't mean that typical women are okay with submissive or passive men.

Again, I'm not saying this is SCIENCE!!!. But my observation of the world corresponds pretty closely with the RP as I understand it.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> ...
> 
> Yet here we have men saying some of the more heinous parts of RP and they go unchallenged. *For instance when I was told that I am an easy target and an easy lay and could be easily duped by an RP man.* Why? Why is stuff like that ok to say to me? I do think I deserve the respect of the men here and that I have proved many times I’m not of the “hateful” groups of feminists every keeps pointing out exists. I’m here talking about how much I love men, how much I love sex, how much I want people to find healthy partners all the time. I am kind and empathetic, I don’t **** over dudes and then come brag about it. Yet even if I’ve only had sex with 2 guys in 3 years since I’ve been single (both of them with exclusivity only) I still get mocked and shamed for riding the **** carousel.
> 
> Where are there rabid feminist women on TAM saying similar to men? Why is it ok? I really am trying to be a rational adult.


I think *that *was intended to be a joke. I didn't think it was funny but I also didn't realize it would upset you or I would have come to your defense.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> Of course there are nice guys who get laid.
> 
> But I don't think that, in general, they get laid *because *they are nice. Just being nice with no other qualifications doesn't seem to be a help in getting laid; if anything, it's easy to be *too *nice and end up with the infamous "va-clang".
> 
> Yes, there is the well-known pity-lay, which I might have been the beneficiary of on one or two occasions many years ago. But that is the exception, not the rule, and certainly not anything one would want to rely on.
> 
> To take your specific examples:
> 
> 1. Rescuing a woman can in some cases result in tender feelings on the part of the rescuer. But even there, it is more likely to be the expertise or strength displayed during the rescue that might kindle such feelings. Just paying someone's rent or the like isn't likely to result in anything more than possibly a very short term of gratitude.
> 
> 2. Sure, there are dominant women who want submissive men, but that's out of my wheelhouse as a purported red pill "expert". What I'm familiar with is the more common situation where women want their men to be decisive and are unhappy otherwise.
> 
> 3. I would suspect that even very nice women would again like a decisive, forthright man, not one who is too nice. Women and men don't respond to the same cues, so the fact that a typical man doesn't mind a fairly submissive woman doesn't mean that typical women are okay with submissive or passive men.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying this is SCIENCE!!!. But my observation of the world corresponds pretty closely with the RP as I understand it.


But my point was that yes there are jerks complaining about nice guys getting laid. Incels.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thanks you guys. I do feel you guys would back me up if needed....I just didn’t understand why that one went by (among several others from him to me) all in the name of RP.
@tech-novelist I definitely don’t think he was joking. It is not the first time I’ve heard that and worse from him (about me specifically).
@ConanHub I didn’t see he was banned. I don’t know if it was because of this thread. I didn’t report any of it myself or reach out to any mods or anything.

(Back to scheduled discussion)....:x


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Thanks you guys. I do feel you guys would back me up if needed....I just didn’t understand why that one went by (among several others from him to me) all in the name of RP.
> 
> @tech-novelist I definitely don’t think he was joking. It is not the first time I’ve heard that and worse from him (about me specifically).
> 
> @ConanHub I didn’t see he was banned. I don’t know if it was because of this thread. I didn’t report any of it myself or reach out to any mods or anything.
> 
> (Back to scheduled discussion)....:x


I don't recall his harassing you before or I would have said something.

I haven't been here much for the past several months, being busy with a major project; that may be why.


----------



## 269370

farsidejunky said:


> FW, in answer to your direct question, no, there is not a book, etc. that is posted about or discussed here.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


You don’t need 'a book’ because it is already very clear and established what extreme (third-wave) feminism stands for. 

I don’t know if this was a joke or not (at the time I tried giving them the benefit of the doubt) but some posters here have already confirmed in the past that they fully align themselves with the third-wave feminist movement. So of course they will not see any equivalence with what is being thrown around on these boards against the opposite sex or that there is something wrong with some of the more outrageous radical feminist claims because they won’t see anything outrageous about them since, by definition, they take them for granted as 'facts'. (We have pm-ed about it). 

There was a thread not long ago about how it is assumed here that about 15% of men (or 600,000,000) are some sort of rapists. And 60% of other men (or 2.5 billion) are rape apologists. And no one blinked an eye. Should this be just put down to 'muddled thinking'? 

https://talkaboutmarriage.com/gener...assive-bias-relationships-4.html#post19719865


----------



## Lila

farsidejunky said:


> @Lila:
> 
> Should one assume that since a prominent feminist once said all men were rapists, and it has since been perpetuated by a small yet alarming number of other feminists, you believe it?
> 
> Your last few posts are effectively doing such.
> 
> Psychological reciprocity matters.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


 @farsidejunky, I'm about to leave the country on my vacation but have to respond to your post. 

Which posts did I make which are attributing extreme (and untrue) RP beliefs by a small group, yet alarming number RP leaders? 

The RP tenets I describe are universal to the RP theory _if_ most RP books and blogs are any indication. They are readily found all over RP-land including the two books referenced in the OP. And while I have read the claims that all men are rapists made by a few extreme feminists, it certainly is not something universal to, or a tenet of the feminist movement. 

If the references available defining the RP philosophy are not to be believed because they represent a small but extreme group, then why do so many here still push those references?


----------



## Lila

Faithful Wife said:


> tech-novelist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they complain about anyone getting laid. Also many incels are jerks.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that most white knights don't get laid.
> But I agree that many incels are jerks. In fact, I suspect that almost all the incels we know about from their online presence are jerks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But do you actually think there are no nice guys getting laid? Not even just by chance? It never happens?
> 
> That there are no women who have a thing for being rescued. Or women who are a bit dominant. Or women who are a bit shy and nice themselves?
> 
> Lots of nice guys do actually get laid. They aren’t complaining so we don’t hear from them.
Click to expand...

You said it better than I could. 😁


----------



## ConanHub

tech-novelist said:


> Of course there are nice guys who get laid.
> 
> But I don't think that, in general, they get laid *because *they are nice. Just being nice with no other qualifications doesn't seem to be a help in getting laid; if anything, it's easy to be *too *nice and end up with the infamous "va-clang".
> 
> Yes, there is the well-known pity-lay, which I might have been the beneficiary of on one or two occasions many years ago. But that is the exception, not the rule, and certainly not anything one would want to rely on.
> 
> To take your specific examples:
> 
> 1. Rescuing a woman can in some cases result in tender feelings on the part of the rescuer. But even there, it is more likely to be the expertise or strength displayed during the rescue that might kindle such feelings. Just paying someone's rent or the like isn't likely to result in anything more than possibly a very short term of gratitude.


There might be something to this.

Displays of strength, courage and decisive (effective) actions while rescuing/ helping a woman have resulted in very high romantic/ sexual interest from said women.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

ConanHub said:


> There might be something to this.
> 
> Displays of strength, courage and decisive (effective) actions while rescuing/ helping a woman have resulted in very high romantic/ sexual interest from said women.


Bingo!

Alpha and White Knight can go together perfectly.


----------



## ConanHub

I think the message can get confused.

I have met dynamite women, who were physically attractive, had confident personalities and were very accomplished in their professional lives that were also a-holes.

Do women like that get loads of attention?

You bet your ass they do and so do their male counterparts because there is a lot that is attractive about them.

Being an a-hole isn't attractive at all unless you have a fetish but people will still target attractive, confident a-holes because of their attributes.

Having the attractive attributes and being a gentleman or lady as well? You will have far more attention than the a-holes guaranteed.

You can be a gentleman and still have your license on your own life with your independence without devolving into the dreaded "nice guy" who isn't that nice or attractive anyway.

I had women offering themselves on platters in my late teens through late 30's and, I always have had that kick ass thing /bad boy image but I have also been a gentleman with the ladies.

They have never felt anything but safe in my company and add charming, good physical condition and a guy who will plant your enemies under a flower 🌷 bed for you and it seems to be a good formula for attracting lots of women that want you in bed and in life as well.

I can't honestly say that I don't have the same attractions for strong women.


----------



## tech-novelist

ConanHub said:


> I think the message can get confused.
> 
> I have met dynamite women, who were physically attractive, had confident personalities and were very accomplished in their professional lives that were also a-holes.
> 
> Do women like that get loads of attention?
> 
> You bet your ass they do and so do their male counterparts because there is a lot that is attractive about them.
> 
> Being an a-hole isn't attractive at all unless you have a fetish but people will still target attractive, confident a-holes because of their attributes.
> 
> Having the attractive attributes and being a gentleman or lady as well? You will have far more attention than the a-holes guaranteed.


In the case of men, I don't agree that being an ahole is a deterrent to being attractive to women. It is a commonplace observation that when a guy who has been previously a nonentity goes berserk (e.g., becomes a mass murderer), he often then gets a lot of fan mail from women who wouldn't have given him the time of day previously. This is a psychological disorder called "hybristophilia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia).

In the case of women, being an ahole is a deterrent to men, because men aren't very susceptible to hybristophilia.



ConanHub said:


> You can be a gentleman and still have your license on your own life with your independence without devolving into the dreaded "nice guy" who isn't that nice or attractive anyway.
> 
> I had women offering themselves on platters in my late teens through late 30's and, I always have had that kick ass thing /bad boy image but I have also been a gentleman with the ladies.
> 
> They have never felt anything but safe in my company and add charming, good physical condition and a guy who will plant your enemies under a flower �� bed for you and it seems to be a good formula for attracting lots of women that want you in bed and in life as well.
> 
> I can't honestly say that I don't have the same attractions for strong women.


Good physical condition + bad boy attitude is a pretty good recipe for soaked undies in women, as RP theory indicates.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> In the case of men, I don't agree that being an ahole is a deterrent to being attractive to women. It is a commonplace observation that when a guy who has been previously a nonentity goes berserk (e.g., becomes a mass murderer), he often then gets a lot of fan mail from women who wouldn't have given him the time of day previously. This is a psychological disorder called "hybristophilia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia).
> 
> In the case of women, being an ahole is a deterrent to men, because men aren't very susceptible to hybristophilia.
> .


Tech, can you introduce the hybristophilia topic to my other thread? Can we try to discuss it without insulting each other’s sensibilities?


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> Being an a-hole isn't attractive at all unless you have a fetish but people will still target attractive, confident a-holes because of their attributes.



I would change this to ‘certain type of women’ will target confident a-holes. There are MANY types of women that go for MANY different types of men. I used to attract certain types of women but not so much married women or women that were looking for a one-night stand or casual sex when I was younger. Now in my late 30s, those are starting to pop up as well. But still....I can tell that I am a ‘type’ and I can tell even more so that I also like a certain type in women.

The one thing I ALWAYS knew though, is that measure of success in this area is NOT how much womanhood one attracts in numbers , but what QUALITY of woman one attracts. 
Unless you live in the Middle East (or Utah), you ONLY need one good woman in the end...
So I really don’t get this talk about chads or what’s so amazing about them etc.
100   will not make up for one really good’un!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Bingo!

My relative lack of sexual activity (especially prior to marriage) was not due to a lack of opportunity or options.

I was just more like the stereotypical woman, being rather particular and having some rather inflexible prerequisites to intimacy.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Tech, can you introduce the hybristophilia topic to my other thread? Can we try to discuss it without insulting each other’s sensibilities?


Sure, will do.


----------

