What are
/r/PurplePillDebate's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/PurplePillDebate:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/PurplePillDebate:
SemanticScholar
Match.com
ResearchGate
imgbox
Cambridge Dictionary
Merriam-Webster
WebMD
The New York Times
Wikiwand
Dictionary.com
Google Play Books
craigslist
Oxford Dictionaries
Thesaurus.com
Archive.is
The most popular VPNs mentioned in /r/PurplePillDebate:
The most popular reviews in /r/PurplePillDebate:
>Over half of the female respondents also found their significant others to be more attractive than their affair partners, but 50 percent said their lovers were in better shape. Similar to the male respondents, women reported that their affair partners listen better and are more passionate than their man at home. And a whopping 89.6 percent of the women indicated that the man they're cheating with makes them feel more appreciated than their significant other.
>
>https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cheating-study_n_4032035
​
While this data does not give a definite answer to your question, it does seem women cheat on their attractive partners with less attractive men because they offer something that their own partner can not provide
u/3rdYearPPD You should check out these two:
https://www.amazon.es/Marriage-Markets-Inequality-Remaking-American/dp/0199916586
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130599/
In social scenarios where there are more women than men:
1- the men have more sex, because there is less competition, lots of girls for few guys.
2- the women think more poorly of men, because, given that there is less competition, men can be assholes and still get laid. They behave like jerks because women will still have sex with them given that there are no other guys to bang, so women think poorly of men.
The situation is the opposite when there are more men than women: men have little sex and women think better of guys.
It's selfish, not altruistic.
Men want women more than women want men.
When women *are* with men, they are more generous than men are:
"Over two-thirds of participants reported that their last sexual encounter included giving and/or receiving oral sex. More women (59%) than men (52%) reported giving oral sex to their partner. More men (63%) than women (44%) reported receiving oral sex." https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Was-it-good-for-you-too%3A-An-analysis-of-gender-in-Wood-McKay/271238673bb1701020ae9754deb9a4ee9e389e98?p2df
Can we play the game "spot who hasn't read much RP yet" instead ?
That's going to be MUCH more fun.
Why did you think RP wasn't aware of this ? It's pretty much the core teaching in our sexual technique handbook.
You might want this link. It's From the graduate level section on the MRP sidebar and is a frequent recommendation on TRP. It lays out what you covered in OP in much more comprehensive fashion.
Enjoy.
EDIT: Attempted another link to free PDF. Seems last one has been taken down.
Ever read "The Underground" by Ilana Katz?
From the intro: "The story is set in the backdrop of the futuristic dystopian America run by an iron-fisted Queen. Under the guise of ending sexual assaults against women, she requires unmarried twenty-six-year old men to be castrated. To further diminish men’s rights, women are the only ones who can legally propose marriage."
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0080Z36LM/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
This is America's future if feminism gets its way.
To help OP's point, many countries have this kind of "ad watcher" public institution that can remove ads from air if they consider them questionable for any means.
Commercials that may seem to be sexist (against women) are removed, quite swiftly. Commercials that could be deemed sexist against men are not removed. When it comes to double standards like in the OP and destruction of property, that's what you could expect by these institutions. Woman to man? Fine. The other way around? Insta-removed.
I know it's not a commercial, but it's kinda related. It's a case from Spain from some years ago. There was a children's book called "About girls (just for boys). Small jokes". It was a book for children about stereotypical jokes. It was considered to be sexist, demeaning and those neutral "watcher" institutions considered it to be something that could potentially normalize domestic violence. So it was removed from sale. Even the author came out and apologized, saying that it had been a grave mistake.
The funny thing? The same author and editor have a book called "About boys (for girls). Small jokes". No one said anything about that one!
You can take a look at yourself. About girls. About boys.
The point with this is, it's a lot more socially acceptable for women to destroy a man's property. The other way around is considered intimidation, domestic violence, etc. (depending the country). Advertisement is just one way where it shows.
I know, I know, this doesn't happen in your country/family/planet, it's all a conspiracy. I do remember a girl bragging of having broken the driving mirrors of her boyfriend's car because he forgot to pick her up at a certain time some night. Everybody laughed. Me included, unfortunately.
You don't earn anything (or almost nothing) when suing for false rape accusation so real victims aren't afraid to be sanctioned when they seek justice.
He has more chance to win by suing the university.
Btw some texts have been leaked https://archive.is/zahw8
There was a great reply to a post on r/relationships that directly answers your question. The question was: Women of reddit, what baffles you the most? and the specific thing that 17x gold reply to is (in essence): Why are men so bad at receiving compliments?
To expand and answer your question directly:
> Why do we, as humanity as a whole, have so little sympathy for males who just don't cut it in the dating and sex market?
Because men must earn love, like they must earn everything else. There is no sympathy for a man who cannot earn the basic thing responsible for progressing the human race (sex). Social and biological imperatives prevent us from sympathizing with him.
What makes you think people are less happy? Actually, people report about the same level of happiness as they did in the 50s. Consider then that in the 50s many, many women didn't even know how to make themselves orgasm. There are a lot of things that have improved since then. A more legitimate question would be, how come people aren't even happier considering how much their lives have improved legally, financially and socially.
People get divorced because they can. I don't think children are happier with parents in bad marriages than they are with separated parents. What we need to solve is that women often become the primary caregiver after divorced and that's a result of traditional gender norms. Custody should be shared equally. My parents did that and I'm actually glad they separated because they're much happier now than they were before. Divorces aren't fun but bad marriages aren't fun either.
Most men I know don't feel left out in the cold. Most men I know are happily married. To the extent they are "less motivated to work" than men were in the 50s it's because they prioritize spending time with their wives and kids. I honestly think your grim world view of gender relations is based on confirmation bias.
There are problems to be solved in western society, no doubt. But trying to turn the clock back or reinstate traditional gender roles isn't going to solve any of them. Besides, if TRP cared so much about the welfare of society and the virtue of men and women they wouldn't be contributing to making women "sluts" by sleeping around with as many of them as they can. That's blatant hypocrisy. TRP doesn't care about society.
Not quite what you are asking for but I cannot recommend enough Norah Vincent's Self Made Man for those interested in finding out female experience of what it is like to be a man.
Men are much more likely to put their lives at risk for others. However, there are two components of heroic behavior, altruism and risk taking. When you reduce the risk, women engage in altruistic behaviors just as much or even more so than men. For instance women are more likely than men to be living kidney donors. source 1 source 2 The discrepancy between male and female heroism may just be do to the fact that men are much more likely to be tolerant of dangerous situations in general.
hark! my slightly racist crackpot observation;
Precocious puberty is more prevalent in high obesity populations, since puberty seems to kick start after a certain level of body fat is achieved.
The African American community (specifically low income) has a higher percentage of obese people, and with that I've observed young fat girls hitting puberty around 8-9, whereas their thinner peers don't hit puberty until their teens.
These young fat girls start to flesh out like women, and more importantly, ovulate. 😬
Suddenly you have a 12 year old black girl with the body of a 16 or 17 year old, and if she doesn't have a strong foundation her teen years are going to be full of babies, their negligent daddies, and a whole lot of problems.
source: my thot cousin and her lineage of thicc daughters who are criminally under-aged for their physiques, and they're dumb as bricks; the 10 year old is already getting into trouble with high school boys. 😬😬
Restricting abortion does not reduce the amount of abortions, it just criminalizes it and makes them less safe. It's very similar to prostitution and reminiscent of alcohol prohibition.
>but I don't get why TRPillers criticizes TBP for nitpicking comments when they often do the same thing .
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Tu_quoque
Tu quoque now in thread form, wait 2 days for the release of Tu quoque electric boogaloo 2
Why start a thread that just is one huge fallacy?
>People have pointed out that the okcupid study would automatically match you with someone if rated them too high, which played a role in why some women may have rated harsher.
This trend goes far beyond OkCupid. Match.com, Tinder, Hinge... on top of numerous studies posted on PPD. 80/20 is probably a bit of an exageration, maybe closer to 75/25. But what is clear is that on looks alone, women are not interested in dating most men.
> Even if you want to ignore the dating message distribution because hur dur women don’t message, the study also showed that less attractive women were less likely to respond to message from attractive men which contradicts the hypergamy narrative that guys on here push:
It doesn't at all.
I read somewhere that the people at Match.com etc figured out that in any heterosexual dating app, they can make the experience as bad as possible for men and get away with it.
So the truth is, there is no 'fixing' this issue. There's no financial incentive for dating apps to be made more equitable, as long as men continue to be suckers and pay for terrible experiences.
I'm not a redpiller, but that doesn't make any fucking sense. Having a Y chromosome doesn't make you a super special snowflake, in fact, it is really tiny and not as information dense as the X chromosome. The only purpose of the Y chromosome is to establish male specific traits. This is also very interesting.
>Since normally only one Y chromosome exists per cell, no pairing between X and Y occurs at meiosis, except at small regions. Normally, no crossing over occurs. Therefore, except for rare mutations that may occur during spermatogenesis, a son will inherit an identical copy of his father's Y chromosome, and this copy is also essentially identical to the Y chromosomes carried by all his paternal forefathers, across the generations.
Here's the #1 best seller on Amazon RIGHT NOW!
>Mona Lisa St. James made a deathbed promise that she would do anything to save her mother's art gallery. Unfortunately, not only is The Red painted red, but it's in the red.
>Just as she realizes she has no choice but to sell it, a mysterious man comes in after closing time and makes her an offer: He will save The Red if she agrees to submit to him for the period of one year.
>The man is handsome, English, and terribly tempting...but surely her mother didn't mean for Mona to sell herself to a stranger. Then again, she did promise to do anything to save The Red...
I think you've lost this one storffishy
That's not quite the objective standard you think it is.
People is known as "Kneepads" in publicist circles, because they basically fellate celebs with the goal of scoring huge exclusives every once in awhile.
Here's a good snapshot of how the process happens.
Basically, it's all about money, not about sexiness
The first sentence from the abstract of a paper from Simon Baron-Cohen on his empathizing-systemizing theory might interest you:
> Females in the general population on average have a stronger drive to empathize, and males in the general population on average have a stronger drive to systemize. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49626102_Empathizing_Systemizing_and_the_Extreme_Male_Brain_Theory_of_Autism]
He argues that this explains the higher number of men in STEM fields, as well as the greater incidence of autism among men (he sees autism as the "extreme male brain", with high systematizing and low empathy). You can read more on Wikipedia.
>Not sterilization, not permanent anyway.
>Should I Get My Tubes Tied?
[...]
>The Pros
>It lasts forever. Though there are other long-lasting forms of female birth control, such as implants (which last 3 years) and IUDs (which last 3 to 10 years), tubal sterilization is the only one that is permanent.
>It is totalitarian, either that, or only men will be able to vote.
Well, I'm glad we've established that seeing as your previous comment said...
>It's not, it's just enforced gender roles basically with consequences for non-compliance.
So we're back to the question of "Why impose a totalitarian dictatorship with absolutely no positive benefit worth a damn."
>It's possible men will agree collectively via democracy this should be done when society declines to a lower level.
Society is not going to decline to a lower level because of this.
Even assuming current total fertility replacement rates continue, it's going to be a complete non-issue before you've lost more than 1/4 of current US population.... and providing that decline is well managed, you should see a rise in per capita utility as it occurs (as fixed input like land become higher per capita).
You're fixing a non-issue with a totalitarian dictatorship. You could at least try to fix a real issue if you're going to put a totalitarian dictatorship in place to form your utopia.
> If subverting gender roles has been so successful for women, why does TRP cling to them so fiercely?
Uh, it hasn't been successful? Women's happiness has been in decline for decades.
TRP isn't clinging to them as much as they're reacting economically - determining what the market wants and giving it to them. When women start fantasizing about Bronies, TRP will go all-pony, all-the-time. It's a reflection of the idea of "Don't tell me what you value, show me what you spend your time and money on and I'll tell you what you value."
I enjoy my 'gender roles'.
>He writes dating articles for women to read and feel good about themselves. His audience is primarily feminist women that share it.
I didn't expect that to be true, but it actually is.
In short: It's better to err on the side of too much than too less.
>We all do it in some way or another.
It's an evolutionary adaption -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21288379
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/07/deceit-self-deception-robert-trivers
I don't care. I said what will happen in ten years, not what's happened in the last ten years. It's just coming into vogue. I remember the BEFORE time, and you will all live to see the after time.
Here is an NGRAM for "transgender"
Its a brand new trendy topic that will cease to exist in any meangful sense when the post op transgender surgery remorse wave hits ful steam and some new schizotypal delusion comes into style.
Estrogen is the hormone of corpulence, so figures that women get dumpy with age. Most of the modeling figures and the fitness models strutting their stuff are on some sort of androgen or some other drug.
Since fat also is an estrogen producing organ, you have a quaint situation of estrogeners and androgeners in US, amusingly both proud of themselves.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1122522-jodie-marsh-on-steroids
And see Bigger, Stronger and Faster: The Side Effects of Being American.
Further reading:
Women tweet the words "whore" and "slut" at nearly double the rate men do
> The view that men suppress female sexuality received hardly any support and is flatly contradicted by some findings. Instead, the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other's sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage.
> I'm going to guess
Why dont you read the damn thing? It is 6 pages long, takes you maybe 15min. The framework is in table 1.
And the author is a 63yo full professor in Texas AM. 267 papers and 23000 citations. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Buss
Huh? More men are geniuses. More men are idiots. More women cluster at the middle. I don't think that shows men have a slight IQ advantage (except at the upper end of course.)
https://www.quora.com/Do-men-have-a-wider-variance-of-intelligence-than-women
Also, one of the leading experts in the field of IQ has said that there really is no difference between men and women: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight
You're asking me what I think of some schlocky feminist writer for a blog that has half as many visitors as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's website?
Do I have to have an more of an opinion on her than above?
My opinion is that she's trying to be edgy to get pageviews. And that's she's trying to make a point about sexual assault rates against women. She's not serious about objectifying men. She's subverting expectations to make a point. Don't worry about her!
>Not entirely true. PUA-hate had a section called "The Red Pill" that looked exactly like The Red Pill looks on reddit. I have no idea if Elliot was involved in that subforum.
Really? Because here is Internet Archive's last update before the ER killings, and I don't see a TRP subreddit: https://web.archive.org/web/20140208062914/http://puahate.com/index.php
Maybe you can point it out for me.
> That's not why people dislike TRP
It's absolutely why some people dislike TRP and I'd go as far as to say that's the reason that the overwhelming majority of women dislike TRP. All of the false theories and gender relations talk aside, no woman wants to get deceived by a beta male wearing the wolves' clothing of an alpha. It's instinctively repulsive to her.
Look at an example of blatant misogyny from a high value man. He's not helping gender relations or promoting nice theories about women. At the same time he's not hurting for money and I highly doubt that he's hurting for pussy, despite literally shouting misogyny for two decades. He's high value, nerds on TRP are low value.
It's the man, not the message.
You left off two definitions from Merriam-Webster:
3 : tending to infringe 4 : involving entry into the living body (as by incision or by insertion of an instrument) <invasive diagnostic techniques>
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
2b: a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
Both terms have been successfully turned into rhetorical weapons by leftists such as yourself, in order to shut down any and all discussion on race and sex that doesn't explicitly confirm your moral narrative.
It's been covered repeatedly on PPD. OkCupid data, Tinder data, Match.com data, speed dating studies, attractiveness studies, anecdotal stories (just off the top of my head).
Sorry but I don't want to sum up 12 months of PPD arguments in a single response.
Can you provide me something to read that indicates these civilizations didn't have male led family structures but were matriarchal? I may be 100% wrong and I'm not well versed in modern feminist versions of history, but I'm unaware of these civilizations being "matriarchal"
Certainly Egypt in the period of building monuments and civilization was not matriarchal. Is the myth of the Sarmatian Amazons now considered true? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians#Archaeology nothing in here about matriarchal families or values?
The Minoans may have had a goddess cult, like say THE CATHOLICS, but how is this evidence they were a matriarchal civilization run by women without patriarchal family values? Many of the most patriarchal societies in history had both goddess cults and female priesthoods for them, tells us nothing of their family structure
Some discussion of the myth of matriarchal prehistory
>http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gender[1]
From your link:
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction
>The distinction between sex and gender differentiates sex, the biological makeup of an individual's reproductive anatomy or secondary sex characteristics, from gender, an individual's lifestyle (often culturally learned) or personal identification of one's own gender (gender identity).[1][2] This distinction is not universal. In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used interchangeably.[3][4] Some dictionaries and academic disciplines give them different definitions while others do not.
Yeah. RP only teaches men how to go from a lose/win to a win/lose. They teach victims of manipulation into being perpetrators of manipulation. They don't have tools there on how to be an effective executive, a good manager, or how to create a win/win.
Good books I recommend are Thinking Fast and Slow, The Power of Habit, The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People, Way of the Superior Man, The Professor in the Cage, and Donald Trump's Think Big: Get what you want in life and business.
I think its funny terpers like D Trump but his book basically runs counter to their ideals because it promotes honour, second wave feminism, and collaboration as tools for success which RP says is a BP thing... Not that D Trump gives a fuck about pills and their shenanigans.
The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business by Charles Duhigg
Explains how to identify what cues start a habit, the routine that is the habit itself, and the end reward that causes you to keep doing the habit.
> Now you may not like that but it is like me not being overly fond of gravity. Reality gives no fucks what our opinion or preference is.
This isn't reality; this is what you perceive reality to be.
Can you explain how "The Art of War" may apply here?
Anti-Semetic too? You're having a hell of a day.
Yes, you are a racist.
> a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
Come out of the closet, already. I don't understand why you guys pussy foot around this shit.
> Bingo. This is your problem. You don't understand that no one can 'make' the workplace more flexible aside from the employer.
Already fully understood. There goes your counter-argument on that point.
>Once you get in the real world, you're going to find yourself faced with a choice - do you want to work for 'flexible' employers (specifically government is your only option) and make less money or 'real world' employers in the private sector and make more.
I work in the corporate world. There goes your next point.
>You want to come over with me in the private sector where we make more money? I work as, and for, the very jobs you feminists all want - lawyer, CEO, investment bankers, underwriters, etc. guess how flexible a private company is in the capitalist system? It isn't. Me and these other people make more money then the government workers because we choose and are willing to work 80 or 90 hour weeks. You want that, the choice is yours.
I know this. I'm putting forward another way it could be.
The COO of Facebook goes home at 5.30pm every day to be with her children. As more women do enter higher positions, the workplace will naturally change.
The second richest man in the world agrees with me: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-shorter-workweek-may-make-you-a-better-worker-2014-07-22
>If I'm willing to work thanklessly through the night, and you aren't, guess who is going to get the 'big boy' job?
You mean, as women have always done with their babies? You have no idea what women are capable of.
But things will slowly change in the workplace as more women do enter these positions.
And are marriages in which either the husband or wife work 80 or 90 hour weeks going to last? I'd predict they would last in marriages in which the woman married for money and prefers not to see her husband at all. But not in marriages where the parents want time as a family.
>Men "pay" for pregnancy coverage for the same reason that women "pay" for prostate exams, testicular cancer treatment, impotence, ect. If everyone buys in equally it lowers the cost for everyone. And, the only reason pregnancies happen is because men impregnate women. You can't pretend pregnancy costs aren't caused in part by men.
Men already buy in to pregnancies they have a hand in, usually willingly. Why I'm obligated to help pay for a pregnancy that some schmuck ran off upon hearing about is, frankly, bullshit.
>Also, the ACA doesn't guarantee free contraceptives, believe me I'd be taking advantage of that if it were true.
https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/birth-control-benefits/
Even if your employer doesn't cover that, the insurer they go through must. So yes, legally, the ACA does guarantee you that. Enjoy the free stuff.
what is your problem? i don't know why you're so up in arms about this; i'm definitely not the emotional one here. i don't know where you got your definition either, since this is how Merriam-Webster defines bodybuilding:
>the developing of the body through exercise and diet; specifically: the developing of the physique for competitive exhibition
there's nothing about this that requires this level of hostility; seriously, calm down.
Queen Noor of Jordan. Beautiful, educated and very well spoken.
Edit: another is Valerie Plame. I met her a couple years ago and, though she was in her forties, she looked terrific and a great conversationalist.
Women guilt trip men all the time. Why not? I mean, feminists remind us all the time about women's achievements and impact on history. They remind us that "who gave birth to everyone" and "badass things women invented" and "did you know pre-history had matriarchies? wooo, women are awesome! evil men destroyed peaceful matriarchies and instituted oppressive patriarchie" (obviously not true btw)
>I like men a lot but why should I feel gratitude for every single one of them ? Not all men invented stuff, not all men built roads and airplanes .
Just a nitpick; most men working create the economy, the foundation upon which other men are free to create other things. Most things are created by men, without question. Even in non-inherently gender biased things, like the internet, on which you can create from the comfort of home, men dominate in creating everything you love. Men dominating everything else goes without saying.
I dont think "empathy" is a real concept that represents anything, its some vaguely socialist concept made up by psychobabble therapists and "sociologismists"
It's fucking frustrating if people don't even try to get the math behind it.
> Even if men rank women as being more attractive on OkCupid, they're still primarily sending their messages to the hottest.
Because there are enough women rated as (reasonably) hot on OKC, why is that so hard to understand?!
Here, check this. Men send ~70% of the messages to the ~40% top rated women. Women, on the other hand... oh, what a coincidence! They send ~65% of the messages to the top ~40% top rated men as well! Who would have guessed!
The difference is just that the top 40% of women in the eyes of men are all at least above average, while the top 40% of men in the eyes of women start at below average.
It's always funny when bluepillers fail at basic math.
(also: women barely send any messages in the first place, which you guys also reliably ignore when it comes to evaluating these numbers)
Wanting a one-night-stand was historically shamed - to the point that the reassurance that it was really a relationship was even written in popular music back in the 70s.
CF You're more than a number in my little red book - The Drifters - https://www.discogs.com/Drifters-Youre-More-Than-A-Number-In-My-Little-Red-Book/release/2027052
If only there wasn't a massive empirical literature showing male sexuality to be more visual. See this papers introduction for a short overview: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gregory_Strauss/publication/6171622_Sex_differences_in_visual_attention_to_erotic_and_non-erotic_stimuli/links/54cae3730cf2c70ce5243bf7.pdf
I don't know if you can keep up your end of the bargain on this. A woman with traditional views on relationships will expect you to provide for her, and if you put finding a relationship before building your career right now, I'm afraid you're not going to find the woman you really want because you won't be in a state to attract her.
​
You can also try Match.com or Christian Mingle.
Lifetime of failure and frustration makes incels more susceptible to TRP radicalism; lifetime of failure and frustration is risk factor for radicalism. I'd temper TRP with a side of ethics; I'd recommend Meditations by Marcus Aurelius as a good starting point. Get the Hays translation: it's the best.
This is discussed in pretty good detail in the book Models by Mark Manson. He calls it knowing your demographic. Not only did I not know my demographic very well when I was younger, but there were certain things I wish I knew growing up in this regard.
The main point I've learned is there are important traits that cast a bigger demographic umbrella than others. Also, sometimes what you're looking for is not what you think you're looking for, so catering to a specific demographic is not always an effective strategy in comparison to catering to the biggest demographics. Some traits are just more bang for your buck:
-Physically fit and muscular is more attractive to more women than scrawny or fat.
-Confidence is more attractive than insecurity
-Being clean cut is generally more attractive than being grungy looking. I struggled with this one growing up as I was always had a beard and longer hair. I liked my look and the girls I dated liked my look. The girls I dated sucked ass.
-As far as TRP is concerned, IMO being a leader of men who does not waver easily, with an IDGAF attitude is generally more attractive than being a follower. There is a lot to extrapolate from that and its not easy to do, but overall, striving to be this type of person is a good move.
They are.
"Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool, or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, 'If I live I will kill you, but if I die you are forgiven'. Such is the rule of honor. "
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
Those who are unable to defend their rights/safety of their own volition would do well to form strong and lasting relationships with those who can and will, and cherish them.
Big Brother won't always be there to protect you.
Excellent post, Xem.
One thing you're getting at here, is that a lot of stuff RedPillers blame on feminism is really the fault of capitalism, and they can't see it because of the right-wing politics of the sub. Heck feminism itself is but a stepchild of capitalism. There were no feminists when Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations. They want to focus on a medium-sized but by no means all powerful social movement while ignoring the gigantic continental plates that have shifted beneath their feet in the past one, two or three generations.
I dislike self help books in general. I find them to be a way to take advantage of people's fears/insecurities by using "motivational speeches" to make them feel better for about half an hour. They rarely have any science behind them and anyone can write them.
A book I found very emotive was "Man's Search for Meaning" by Frankl. Even though it isn't self help, it is strongly related to psychology and explores a lot of what drives men to live. It's quite interesting since he was the founder of logotherapy.
It's a joke. One of the organisers is a pro-Sharia activist. Feminism just doesn't mix with Sharia and there's no two ways about it, and if you think so you're an idiot. They're mutually antagonistic ideologies. And then there were all the check-your-privilegers
It speaks volumes, it does. That those dirty old men have all of the power and could just as easily intimidate the women to keep quiet.
Just now Donald Trump, the Red pillers god has been often linked to paying porn stars, playboy bunnies for sex, and having sexually harassed many women.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/trump-women-accusers/index.html
The reason red pillers are against the metoo movement is because they don't want to end up in jail for shit they have done, and they want to be free to do whatever the hell they want to do to women.
It would be interesting to find out if this finding was replicated, because there are plenty of social science findings that end up being BS. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a myth. It makes a good sound-clip, so it's easy to see how it could spread regardless of it's veracity.
Also, if this was true, I would wonder if we should also find that couples with more positive attributes are more likely to have males - since males have higher reproductive variability. Small, weak males are unlikely to leave any offspring. Large, successful males can leave plenty. But, females are likely to have a few children regardless of how good or bad their genes are.
It's also known that short males and tall females have more trouble finding partners. This suggests that tall parents should have more sons and short parents should have more daughters. Or, at least, it's in their genetic interest to do so (if evolution can find a mechanism to make that happen).
yup. and you can prove it mathematically using coin flips. such as heads is above average height and tails is below average height.
if you want a man who is above median in all 10 traits that you pick:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/coin-flip-probability
that's the same as landing heads 10 times out of 10. that's less than 0.1% of men. that's STILL a compromise because median is 5'9" in many countries. well below 6" that is desired.
and people are here really saying "it's not that extreme." No man, some people's preferences are mathematically impossible in cities of 10 million people. There are some women with real preferences out there that are not mathematically possible on this planet because only 8 billion people live in it.
>As they say no one has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American populace.
​
It only takes reading the PPD sub to figure out the intelligence of the American population.
👍
Doesn't matter if you switch the genders. When you take away the government-enforced safety nets, people take personal responsibility for their own life choices. They never will otherwise.
Darn it...I can't find it.
Oh, I'm SURE he gave off a 'weird' vibe. But is TRP going to cure people's weird vibes too?
He went to a seminar on how to date women. I don't know what the seminar was. But much of the advice that's floating around is not that different. The movie "Magnolia" has all sorts of claims that are very much echoed in the advice I am reading on TRP. So he surely got some advice about how to play the game--and it wouldn't have been TOTALLY unfamiliar to people in the subreddits.
(Note: I just discovered TRP and I'm mainly curious about it as a subculture. I'm not getting all bent out of shape about it. I have views but I think it is foolish to worry about whether people on the internet share my views. On the other hand, I love the internet as a window into other people's views and I love learning about subcultures on the internet.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Collier_Township_shooting
Edit: Found the diary! https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Mass-shooter_George_Sodini,_diary_and_last_words,_PDF,_4_Aug_2009
What is it with people, saying hello and greeting them?
It is about acknowledging that people exist and that you validate them. Flowers are a symbol of love and affection, and they also show that you thought about it/gave a fuck.
Different point: Are flowers worth as much as on any other day?
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Two-factor_theory
Motivators that give positive satisfaction
Hygiene factors that do not give positive satisfaction or lead to higher motivation, though dissatisfaction results from their absence.
Normally flowers would be motivators but become hygiene factors on Valentines day
It has different meanings depending on the situation when it is given.
Just be yourself means don't be what you ought to be because people think a certain way of you. Some people try really hard to confirm to the social pressure.
Relevant:
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pygmalion_effect
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Self-discrepancy_theory check the ought self
Another possible meaning: Imitation is suicide.
Just be yourself often gets thrown around when someone changes his personality radically (imitation)
Often just be yourself is supposed to give you a confidence boost:
Women are generally more cooperative and don't want to hurt your feelings and want you to feel good. This is why they tell fat girls that everything is fine and the guy is just an asshole. Or guys who want to start lifting that they don't have to do it because it will look gross. A positive body image is important to women. So in that case just be yourself is feel good bullshit, which often gets thrown around when someone is nervous/self-conscious. But when that person in that moment just needs some confidence then it as good as an advice as fake it till you make it. And maybe they also know that confidence is sexy and want you to become confident and then it should work out. Or they like the real you and like it.
I know some people (male and female) with confidence issues, around me, their family, friends they are cool but with new people they are different, not themselves.
One tip I often give is treat new people as if you were already friends. If you do this you have more confidence and you behave like yourself and not different. So people get to know your real you and you can start to build rapport on a good foundation. You know with self-disclosure and putting yourself out there people will also be more personal and like you more.
Does anyone really think anyone means: Stop improving with just be yourself?
You can have children without being married. And "more people opting out of marriage and childrearing" doesn't mean "vast majority of people opting out of marriage and childrearing". I still think that most people want children. That's why there is backlash against people who decide to not have children and inversely a new flux of articles/blogs explaining why it isn't "bad" to be childfree. I still don't see any backlash against parents and people wanting to become parents, nor articles explaining why it isn't "immoral" or "selfish" to be a parent. That's because the very vast majority of people link adulthood and parenthood in their mind, and it's nowhere about to change. See how global population fluctuates. I think you have nothing to worry about.
Resources is not only food. We also talk the raw material it takes to make each of these 7, 8, 10, 15 billion people live comfortably. Now, I know that there are people living below the poverty threshold, and we already don't feed all 7 billion people. There's a resource problem and a resource distribution problem. But adding new humans to the mix isn't gonna make it easier to find a practical solution.
What are the bigger problems with negative and slowing growth? What are we risking? How is it worse than exponential growth?
What about this:
Just be yourself means don't be what you ought to be because people think a certain way of you. Some people try really hard to confirm to the social pressure.
Relevant:
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Self-discrepancy_theory
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pygmalion_effect
Or: Imitation is suicide. Just be yourself often gets thrown around when someone changes his personality radically and then it often is just imitation.
I know some people (male and female) with confidence issues, around me, their family, friends they are cool but with new people they are different, not themselves.
One tip I often give is treat new people as if you were already friends. If you do this you have more confidence and you behave like yourself and not different. So people get to know your real you and you can start to build rapport on a good foundation.
Does anyone really think anyone means: Stop improving with just be yourself?
> Right. My goto study for lane-changing AFBB is this: https://www.academia.edu/413334/The_Terminal_Investment_Hypothesis_and_age-related_differences_in_female_preference_for_dads_vs._cads
The article spoke about primates, so i'm assuming the research is going to back to the beginning of humans. I'm no expert on pre-history, so my questions would be these:
- very young females (under age 18) have far greater rates of death in childbirth in developing countries mostly due to underdeveloped bodies. Wouldn't witnessing this tend to steer women away from getting pregnant early?
- did men and women know how pregnancy even occured back then?
- how did women know their fertility was declining?
- menopause was only named in the 1800s. Did people know it was a definite thing before then?
- In cavepeople days, did women commonly die before the age of menopause and never know a time when they weren't fertile?
- men's fertility also declines as they age. If men lived to older ages, it wold have been observed that older men taking young wives wasn't working as effectively as young men taking young wives.
- if young women want to have babies with cads, then why don't they? Why are they instead waiting for dads before having babies (in most cases)
- isn't it more likely young women these days just want to have fun and not get tied down with a baby too soon?
Knowing that any kid I have would probably at least have some Aspergers if not full blown autism like I do, I wouldn't force him into sports unless he wanted to do it. But I would definitely steer him away from gaming.
I would get him into stuff like dance and popular music (DJing etc), not sausage parties like metal or hardcore rap. I would get him into fashion and stuff as well. If he's unathletic he might be metrosexual.
Shows like Maury are essential to make sure he protects himself. If I notice him reading sci fi, I would pick up non-romantic "street lit" books from street vendors and slip them into the pile so he will become popular and learn about real life.
I'm also going to give him books like The Intelligent Investor and Business Adventures so he can get rich.
I would get him into driving as early as possible so that he is known as the guy with the car, even though where I live, most people don't drive.
Closest "alternative" I can find is Models by Mark Manson.
Which I'd still say is like a sanitized version of TRP without the headgames.
Could probably call this Purple Pill.
You best be boosting up that SMV mate. Im talking top 10-20% if you want hot girls. Top 1-5% if you want hot girls on tap. There's no frat to fall back on after college.
As for actual game, there's lotsa good books and articles. Book of Pook, Models by Mark Manson are recommended by TRP.
I agree with you that cold approach and online dating is not optimal, if practical at all, for girls on tap. You have to build up all over again for each new girl.
For me personally, I've found success in developing a wide social circle in a small, bubbled community and a persisting presence being involved in the community.
If you're interested, I wrote out my university campus game to a user. I'm very much up there in SMV so results will vary.
So, essentially, out of a sample of 209 men and women, 44% out of 30% think they'd like to be the opposite sex for more than a week? 27-28ish? And curiosity is a factor?
That sounds about right. Most wouldn't be trans.
I wonder how well they'd adapt, if it were possible to make the switch without causing any gender dysphoria? 1 2
The odds are good, they're really not prepared.
it is; it's one of the definitions of respect. RPers choose to only acknowledge the definition that means admiration and awe, though. strange, for a bunch of self-proclaimed geniuses.
it's pretty obvious no one is suggesting that you should be in total awe and admiration of everyone you pass on the street, guys...
> Combine with a really good automated fleshlight, and I think we'll be reaching the point where the sheer stimulation of porn outweighs the human connection unique to sex.
Feminist man here, literally no one I've ever met who identified as a feminist, even the (actually) blue haired ones have ever expressed this either. And the original source of the quote always said that it wasn't a literal or factually-intended quote. It's from a fictional story ffs.
>Are you implying that there is no discourse in the US about its history of race relations?
>
>It's America, race is literally all we talk about, from the lowest levels of society to the highest institutions
I was not thinking about race at the moment but the plenthora of US wars to be honest. An US friend of mine told me how there was very little awareness about the horrors brought by it in the general public.
On the matter of race though, I recently read about laws governing how racism history is taught in US schools (Copy and paste article into DeepL to be able to read it) and am therefore thinking your discourse has a long way to go bevore it can reach some closure.
Check out this view of the results.. I filtered out all other responders besides those who thought that there were significant differences between the sexes. Scroll down and look at the sex difference questions. Even though everyone shown thought that there were significant differences between the sexes, there was still a lot of variance in the responses.
We both abhor the FDA. You don't get what i'm saying. I actually just said what you're saying (Europe is shit tier in innovation).
It's easier to get cutting edge cancer meds in the US it's much harder to get basics. For example, my acne cream is considered a prescription product. Its a 40 year old formula, theres a reason I order it from India.
Retin-A isn't worth more than $5 but if I wanted to get a prescription, I would have to 1. go to a specialty clinic, which my insurance won't cover cuz its not my PCP, and 2. pay $80 at Costco to buy the actual product because I'm over age 25 and therefore a vain old lady avoiding wrinkles.
I know it would be a huge change and it could never happen overnight.
But things can and do change. During the industrial era, men and women and even children commonly worked 12-16 hours per day.
I'm not the only one who thinks shorter working weeks could and should happen (slowly and in the future):
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-shorter-workweek-may-make-you-a-better-worker-2014-07-22
Ever heard of this? To be fair, that system's what's also getting me laid. But like I said, it was only 1 in 20 dates before bulking and then 8 in 20 afterwards.
I didn't know what I was doing when I first started so I looked online and studied things by dating "experts." I followed that book's system and it helped me lose my virginity and started getting laid as a beginner (if you're wondering what I might be doing differently than you).
Women dominated society
>“The well-mannered man never puts out his hand in greeting until a lady extends hers. This is a test of good breeding that is constantly applied. To those uninitiated in the ways of society, it would naturally appear the right thing to give as cordial a greeting as possible. Therefore the hand is held out, even on introduction to a perfect stranger. This is wrong. The first move in the direction of cordiality must come from the lady, the whole code of behaviour being based on the assumption that she is the social superior.
>“It must always be borne in mind that the assumption of Woman’s social superiority lies at the root of these rules of conduct. It is bad manners to introduce people without permission. Nor must this permission be asked within the hearing of the second party. If Mr. A wishes to know Miss B., the lady’s leave must be obtained before he can be presented to her. The only exception to this rule is at a dance or ball, where introductions need not be regarded as leading to acquaintanceship. They are only for the dance, and may be ignored next day. Here, again, it is the lady’s privilege to ignore her partner, if she choose. But if she should bow to him he must raise his hat, whether he desires to follow up the acquaintanceship or not.
https://archive.org/details/mannersformen01humpgoog
Your understanding of reality and history is warped by feminist hate propaganda.
First, this claim is pretty ridiculous.
Second, the OP seems to think that men spent all their time out hunting (and none of their time doing other things, including foraging).
Third, gathering plants takes a long time. If women were "gatherers" in the hunter-gatherer equation, then they were busy doing that and raising children through most of the day. If you look at chimpanzees, you'll find that the majority of their day is spend foraging for plants to eat. It's time-consuming and tribes spent more time foraging for plants to eat than hunting, yet OP seems to think that men spent 95% of their waking hours out hunting, and women spent next to no time foraging for plants.
Here's a chart showing that chimpanzees spend more than half of their waking hours foraging for food. http://www.chimpanzoo.org/enrichment/Foraging-chimpanzees.pdf
There's also not much difference in male/female foraging behaviors among great apes. Yet, OP seems to think that prehistoric males only hunted, while prehistoric females were the only members of the tribe who foraged.
> On average, orangutan males spend more time feeding, incorporate more insects into their diet, range more widely and have larger energetic costs than females. [Note: eating insects is forging behavior.]
> Gorillas show no significant sex differences in ranging, but males spend more time feeding and on the ground and have a greater proportion of insects in their diet than females.
> Bonobos appear to show no significant differences in foraging behavior and the sexes forage together in relatively large parties.
> Women are NOT men. We don’t ridicule men online the way men ridicule women
http://imgbox.com/g/agKf0EDKuA
And this is what 99% of women think, only some of them have the balls to admit it on social media. Now show me an album of men saying these things about women. I'll wait
> Skeptical is a synonym of cynical.
They are similar, not synonymous. Using "skeptical" to describe a character in a story paints a far different picture than "cynical", because those words have significantly different connotations.
And if you want to go to the dictionary (which doesn't establish definitions so much as it follows how the words are actually used), note that other prominent dictionaries do not list "skeptical" as a synonym of "cynical". Related, but not synonymous.
> I did call them naive and idealistic earlier.
Speaking of connotations, a description of people as "naive" and "idealistic" in conjunction with clearly pejorative context ("edgelord") obviously carries the implication that you're calling those people "dumb". Clearly I was not claiming you literally said they were dumb; I was claiming that "they're dumb" was the undeniable subtext.
You're presenting yourself as a student of the English language; you should know how this works.
Getting married WAS one of my mistakes, and that's one of the things I try to teach young men, to avoid it.
Nevertheless, as a bachelor, I did pretty well with women, and some lessons are timeless. I actually met my wife on OLD, although it was the early version of Match.com, one of the first full screen dating apps. Before that, I met women in the personals section of a local cultural newspaper, and in nightclubs. I'm not one bit worried about how I'll fare, when I divorce. If anything, it will be easier at my age, given the demographics, and the physical state of a lot of my "competition".
Frankly, I'm not impressed at all, with what I've seen from the Millennial/Gen-Z men here. They are incessant whiners, woefully uncreative in their approaches, and they let the slightest obstacle stop them.
I've been chased around an apartment, by an angry BF wielding a claw hammer. I've been sprayed in the face with mace at a nightclub. I've received the vast majority of my rejections, not from behind a nice safe screen, but from women standing two feet in front of me. Sorry if I find it difficult, to drum up a lot of sympathy for these OLD rejection fears.
>It actually does work like that. Source: multiple web devs.
Do they work in CRM? Here are live tests of attempting "de-personalized" Google searches.
https://moz.com/blog/face-off-4-ways-to-de-personalize-google
Regardless, I used a previously unused browser, logged out of Google and results were the same.
I mean, I know this is anecdotal, but I know a ton of friends who are having babies now. My partner and I are also planning to have children in the not-so-distant future.
And aren't we having an overpopulation problem anyway?
Edit: Birthrate is still more than doubling death rate.
Men have an out group bias to women and children; women have an in-group bias to themselves, and an out-group bias to women and children. There is data supporting this I. II
For a man to be protected as much as a woman or child would, the heuristic would suggest he must either be defined as 'child' or 'woman' in her eyes. This necessitously means sacrificing the benefits of his masculinity, such as his potential sexual attractiveness to a straight woman, in favour of a same-gendered sympathy or a motherly warmth and pity.
See Rational Male 'Intersexual Hierarchies' on the Hierarchy of Love
>the numerous articles that get published that confirm RP or show fallacies in Bluepill logic (thereby supporting TRP)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma
>from the numerous FRs we see, [...] by reading posts on reddit from subs like /r/relationships[1] , and from experiences I see in my own life, I know that TRP is accurate.
Then how come dating sites are almost 50 / 50?
Edit: for those asking: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-male-to-female-ratio-on-the-big-five-dating-websites-Match-com-eHarmony-PlentyofFish-Zoosk-and-OKCupid
>Like if we just shut all this shit down and went on with our lives we might not have the problems you guys are endlessly discussing?
I think you've confused the sequence of cause and effect.
The issue quite often is not what is happening offline in the real world, but with the conclusions that can be drawn from it.
In the industrial developed countries of the anglophone West (if not elsewhere), there are both
- more single people
- more single people 'playing the field' and living what earlier generations would have seen to be a hedonistic lifestyle
- more divorced people
- fewer married people, and
- fewer married people with children in their 20s
Added to that social media has created new ways of interacting and especially of dating and hooking up what with <em>Match.com</em>, Tinder, Grinder, Bumble, Plenty of Fish, etc. not to mention the very wide availability of porn and escort sites as well as the proliferation of ways to express one's gender and/or sexuality
All of these things are having a direct impact on our life now - of the life of everyone on this sub - whether directly, indirectly, or vicariously.
Emily Witt's Future Sex is one response to these social phenomena
Other responses include intersectional feminism, The Red Pill, MGTOW, InCels, PuAs, MRAs, #MeToo, #YesAllWomen, #NotAllMen, etc.
They may well be wrong - they may well in fact be wildly and hysterically wrong in their assessments of what's going - but one thing I am fairly sure of - they are not the cause, but the effect.
LOL. AFI <strong>does</strong> consider many of mine in their top 50 RomComs. So even by your definition, you have to admit probably ~80%+ of mine, which are all found on various critics' lists of RomComs, are Men-accepted RomComs.
40 year old virgin made the list.
Annie Hall
Jerry Maguire
Pretty Woman
Say Anything
Sixteen Candles
Should have been on my list, but weren't:
There's Something about Mary
Wedding Singer
Clueless, which is definitely on par with several of my 1990's movies.
Depends, Gab is gaining traction recently. Tommy Robinson set up a Telegram channel when got banned off mainstream social media and even though basically no one in the UK uses it, his channel got tens of thousands to sign up to hear what he has to say.
And if we're talking 10-20 years, the future of the internet is decentralisation so you will have platforms with no central moderation authority that are resistant to government regulation.
The tech already exists right now in beta form. You can go and install Status on your phone right now and have access to the decentralised internet, a decentralised and encrypted chat app, and a cryptocurrency wallet (so, decentralised money).
You can also access the decentralised internet through Brave Browser on desktop and mobile.
If you've watched the show Silicon Valley you probably thought it was a fictional fantasy but no it already exists on the blockchain.
As the government seeks to regulate the internet more and more, it will only drive people to platforms that cannot be regulated. Decentralisation is the future of every part of the internet - websites, apps, communication, financial transactions. And the tech is designed specifically to be impossible to censor or control and to allow anonymity to users.
Yap. They are right. And I'm saying this as a man. This is why men and women need to start a conversation about the language of codes between them. As described in the book Lovism.
I don't think you are well-versed in that field then. You won't have to dig deep to find plenty of books from well-known biologists on that topic. I enjoyed this one: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Instinct-Primeval-Impulses-Modern/dp/0553814923
>I’m just genuinely confused how you think a woman’s sexiness keeps changing with time.
Beauty standards for men and women change all the time. Just think about the "thicc" or "dad bod" memes. Not even 15 years ago, this used to be considered a "huge" ass:
https://www.amazon.com/Guerra-Signed-Magazine-Beckett-Autograph/dp/B072JWXHBG
And now it's not even notable.
>I partake in these rituals but still don’t quite see why men like women to be hairless like little girls. Seems a little pervy to me. Especially since body hair is beneficial
Opposites attract. Men like certain features, women are generally attracted to the opposite. Soft, smooth features vs strong, rugged ones. Long hair vs short hair. Agreeableness vs dominance. It's not really that hard to wrap around, and your mileage may vary of course.
> The case where men are advised to lie to their wives about having affairs in order to become more desirable, otherwise known as "Dread Game Level 10."
.
>Dread Level 10:
>TELL her how it is going to be- or else you are leaving and filing for divorce. I got to this point in my marriage before it turned around. I told my wife: "You have a simple choice to make. Fuck me...or fuck you." If you make it to this point you must be mentally checked out enough and pissed off enough to actually move out and file for divorce if things don't improve. Your IDGAF is no longer an act. Read The Art of War and The 48 Laws of Power.
There is nothing wrong with pleasure. I am not advocating an ascetic lifestyle. Far from it. I advocate living a life that constitutes a life, something that transcends mere existence.
One of the worst feelings is that life is an endless cycle of alarm clock, work, home, bed. Finding some purpose helps make this cycle meaningful. That purpose is up to the individual to decide, and one's life purpose changes from year to year or moment to moment.
Vicktor Frankl wrote a fantastic book (Man's Search for Meaning) on the subject that really changed my views on the topic. It's a nice tonic for an existential funk.
The Power of Habit explains the science of habits.
Cue --> Routine --> Reward
Find the cue, change the routine, get the same or better reward. Repeat.
Since humans are basically pattern finding meatbags that operate on habits, I say yes, it is possible to change any part of your mind, including personality.
It will take greater effort as you get older but it depends more on how much you give a fuck about bringing change rather than age.