Do not do it! He has already disrespected you by continuously pressuring you. Once he gets what he wants (sex) he will dump you like a bag of trash. I would suggest the book The Power of the Pussy. https://www.amazon.com/Power-Pussy-Respect-Commitment-Relationship-ebook/dp/B0085YBTEO/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1497648067&sr=8-9&keywords=why+men+love+bitchs
I would suggest this book
:)
>No. Men are hurt by men far often than women are. Look up physical assaults. We suffer about 80% of them. We are not talking about that, the MRAs do but not us. So even by physical assault we are an underclass, so you're wrong. The females are the privileged ones with physical assualt I'm about 5x more likely to be assaulted than you. And the fact that feminism doesn't tell you this is.... Telling.
I know this. But men are not being hurt and killed by women at anywhere near the rate that women are being hurt and killed by men. Men can largely avoid being killed or assaulted by other men - by not being in a gang, by not hanging around in rough areas etc. But women cannot avoid being hurt or killed in their own homes by their partners or husbands.
You are NOT more likely to be hurt if you avoid being in a gang or hanging out on the streets in problem areas.
>Oh yes. That well known close analog of western society... Tribal society in the most war torn region of the planet under fundamentalist Islam. Your right. That must prove that women are the underclass in our peaceful, developed, western state based on Christian morality.
Are you going to tell me that in the aftermath of a series of natural disasters and war, it’s not possible that women could be shoved back into having to remain at home and produce children and be subservient to men? Is it more likely than men or women would hold power after something like the above happening? The answer is men of course. Women need to be and do everything - armed forces, police, all types of work etc,. so that this never happens to them again.
>No. It happens in war and famine because men are "stronger and more violent" not because they are a privileged class. Where society devolves to "the most violent are in charge" then that is men.
Okay, so you do agree. Women have to ensure than men will never be ‘the most violent’ ever again. These days, with weaponry etc, there is no reason men could ever shove women down again. Instead, they’d have to learn to work alongside them to fix the damage that war and disaster wrought.
>Yes. But only in the same was RP trains everyone. They're treating others as they treat themselves. They are training themselves for a hundred hours, for every hour they're attempting to train a woman. And by "training a woman" they are talking about being honest concerning what they want, and being honest about their willingness to walk if they don't get it. So it's hard to see this as dishonest.
It’s damned stupid. Nothing more to say.
>Finally, I would point out that "knocking the rough edges off your man" is also commonly discussed among women. Women openly talk amongst themselves about training men. "Oh, I've got him well trained" they say or "Hed never do that. He knows better.". I'm not seeing this as a call for multi-lateral disarmament here. Where are the calls for wives to stop "improving" or "training their hubby's to do it right" ? We all know that goes on. And for every instance of an RP man training a woman there are 100 where a woman trains a man... Because we are 0.1% of pop.
And THAT is damned horrible. Yes I’ve heard that talk. It’s as anti-feminist as you can get. Look at this book that talks about training men like dogs: http://www.amazon.com/The-Power-Pussy-Commitment-Relationship-ebook/dp/B0085YBTEO
The book wants you to use your ‘pussy’ to hook men in and then train them to give you gifts and love. This is the stuff that make feminists cringe. And these are the women buying the most stupid of the romance novels.
>Ok. Do you agree alpha/beta qualities lists accurately reflect traits women overwhelmingly find attractive (A sexually, B in a relationship) ? Do you agree with RP, therefore, that to be attractive to women you should develop the traits on those lists ?
Some of it I agree with and some I don’t. Most women don’t like jerk behavior. What RP is missing is that women are a lot like men - they’ll put up with some bad behavior if the person is very physically attractive (or if they are desperate/emotionally damaged). In general, the changes RP suggest men undergo would make them more attractive to the opposite sex.
>By realising women can be sluts.
Not possible.
> And that RPs position is you should NOT lie to plates.
Whisper (the founder of TRP) says he lies to plates about his intentions.
> And that you can personally attack the venting guy for being a prick, but you can't attack RP "the thing" for the ranting of a guy. Only the guy. Which I joined you in doing.
Fair enough. But ‘the thing’ is, TRP and the red pill are so small. When the group is so small and so interconnected, anything that endorsed people say will be taken as indicative as ‘red pill’. Besides all that, I have deep issies with the material in the sidebar in the first place.
>I agree with different. I MUST agree with inflexible. Every guy on there was flexible enough to adopt RP, to utterly change their mindset. They've all done it at least once. What you've failed to do is convince them. Probably because your arguments aren't good... Which is probably because you don't understand what you are arguing against, making your arguments ineffective.
I don’t agree at all with this. I think hate and bitterness against women was already festering. TRP just gave them a home.
>They have assessed that it is women who have the privilege. They have arguments for that. Arguments you don't engage because you are too busy telling us "there must be patriarchy in the US, look at the Taliban". That’s not what I said at all. But I’ll leave it.
>Or not understanding that men get assaulted 5:1 compared to women. When did feminism tell you that ? Where are the public outcries and the big policing campaigns concerning that ?
Kidding me? The crime rate and murder rate for men have been dropping ever since the 80s. The police and governments have thrown countless amounts of money at fixing the problem. As far as I can see, they’ve been successful. There’s still a lot more work to do. No murder is ok.
>We just accept it. It's the way it is. We're disposable. Well be killed more often than you, and assaulted more often, and if we commit crimes we'll get longer sentences.
You don’t accept it. You’ve had decades of intensive police work and government money spent on you. YOU won’t be killed or assaulted more often - only certain groups of men will. I know stacks of women who’ve been assaulted by men. I know almost no men who’ve been assaulted by men. Then again, I don’t hang around in certain socioeconomic groups and areas. Huge amounts of taxpayer money is spent keeping males in prison.
>But you girls just don't see it. We are aware of your issues, but you are not aware of ours, and you tell us "you must be an over class because look at all these issues we have... And you have none". Whilst another series of males being killed scrolls past on the TV screen.
Not true. People care. And I see lots of actions being put into place to try and prevent violence of men against men.
>Bullshit. Almost every wife I know controls her man far more than the reverse. Women "just don't count that". That's wiped from the scoreboard. It's not an issue. Because it's not an issue for them. Women are extremely frequently in control in day-to-day life.
I don’t see any guys being controlled. They play sport on the weekends, go away with buddies on surfing/fishing trips - it’s all pretty easy going. Anyway, that’s anecdata - just like your anecdata.
But what I said was “none of those privileges have ever allowed them to be in control as a gender over men.”
As a gender, women have never had complete control over men. I don’t know how you can argue that?
>Where they are not in control is in large structures. The reason they aren't is not sexism or patriarchy. It is because men are better at "cutting all the other contenders throats, climbing to the top of the pile of corpses, and taking control of a large structure by force of personality and ruthlessness". Not to say woman don't do it, they do. Just that men are better at it. It's not a patriarchy unjustly over rewarding men. It's a survival of the fittest in an environment where men's natural talents exceed women's.
Men have just had the benefit of affirmative action for men in the workplace for always. People who are ruthless don’t make the best CEOs etc. We need to change.
>So then men are the underclass. Men as a class have no power either.
Men as a whole gender have NEVER been an underclass or prevented from owning land, working, having an education etc. Some men, yes, but not all. As a gender, there have been many times in history when ALL women were prevented from doing certain things. Men have NEVER, as a gender, had to deal with that.
>Any woman prepared to be motivated and ruthless enough can seize power, just like any man. You just don't want to.
This is true, in general. Women would like to share power, not have it over men.
Thank god not all of the people in power are as you describe, otherwise we’d be living in a dictatorship.
Has been fun ~~arguing~~ discussing stuff with ya, TGP.
We may disagree on many points but at least you’re willing to actually discuss them and examine points. I can’t do this anymore with the red pill.