Red Pill Thread 2.0: Neckbeard Revenge

I prefer Wesley Willis, myself.

Antarius_sl said:

We've so far had every single argument in this thread except for the last one. Anyone ever tried incorporating red pill ideals into their life and not been happy with the results?

Click to expand...

If you list off some of these ideas, I suspect that those of us that are happy and well-adjusted men will say that we've either A) always been doing that, B) think its common sense, or C) agree that it has helped a lot. I said some, not all of the ideas.

One good way to think about the reason why TRP gets so much flak is for the same reason "Feminism" as a collective does. It's hard to even delineate what the "core tenets" of feminism would be, but I think we can agree that it originated out of a desire for equality between the sexes. Of course, its so much more than that now. TRP, at one point, was probably as simple as ("Have self-respect and always strive for self-improvement. If you live by this, women AND men will recognize it and want to be around you. Some of those women will want to be more than a friend.") You've probably met men like this -- they're just fun and happy people, and you look forward to being around them.

My personal conjecture is that "striving for self-improvement" is too damn hard for a lot of people, and instead of doing something hard, they'd rather re-define the success terms and talk shit about women. Similar to how the fat advocacy movement originated as "everyone should be entitled to common courtesy and strive to be healthy" and now it's bitter obese women furious that the world won't accommodate them and men don't want to fuck them.

EDIT: Do you find it even remotely ironic that y'all have thrown around terms like "hypergamous" to describe an entire gender, as if men aren't guilty of this? Like 100 percent of men would stay faithful when tempted with some iconic "10/10". This isn't true.

Hypergamy is not promiscuity. It's marrying someone wealthier or of a higher status.

Men do not typically "marry up" and have no expectations to do so. Women expect their mate to make more than them.

Arbitrary_sl said:

Hypergamy is not promiscuity. It's marrying someone wealthier or of a higher status.

Men do not typically "marry up" and have no expectations to do so. Women expect their mate to make more than them.

Click to expand...

I know what hypergamy means; men trade their wife in (or date young hotties) to increase their own social standing. Men are as guilty as this as women are.

Some women expect their man to make more than them, just like some men expect their woman to have huge tits. Who gives a shit -- there are plenty of women in our society who want their man to be happy, successful, have pride in his work, participate in the community... etc etc, and they don't really care too much about the income as long as the partnership hasenough. I realize that you (and Dumar) are slaying tons of puss day in day out via dating websites; it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you have a distorted view of what "women" want. The biggest indicator is that you're trying to generalize an entire gender.

I know, ultimately, you're going to shake your head and think "Well, some people just choose to not eat the red pill." Here's the rub: I'm pretty happy, my wife is pretty happy, we're happy together. Are you? Would you say the majority of TRPers are happy?

Men have been rapidly declining -- in income, in educational attainment and in future employment prospects -- relative to women.

And while the rise of women has been good for everyone, thedecline of males has obviously been bad news for men -- and bad news for marriage.

For all the changes the institution has undergone, modern women as a whole have never been confronted with such a radically shrinking pool of what are traditionally considered to be"marriageable" men -- those who are better educated and earn more than they do.

So women are now contending with what we might call the new scarcity.

Even as women have seen their range of options broaden in recent years -- for instance, expanding the kind of men it's culturally acceptable to be with, and making it okay not to marry at all -- the new scarcity disrupts what economists call the "marriage market" in a way that in fact narrows the available choices, making agood man harder to findthan ever.

At the rate things are going, thenext generation's pool of good men will be significantly smaller.

Click to expand...

This chick, like so many, demand a certain level of income from men just like men demand a certain level of sex appeal from women. She goes on to state that this is a common desire of women, and it synchs up pretty well with the reality most westerners are familiar with. The assumption throughout her article is that regardless of other factors, without superior economic standing than the hypothetical woman, you're not a "good man".

It doesn't even necessarily have anything to do with social standing. Women seek a provider, men seek health. One of the easiest ways to demonstrate the capacity to provide is economic success, and so it's also the most commonly sought feature by women. Likewise the commonly sought feature by men is youth because they're far more likely to be healthy and capable of child-bearing. This is very low level reproductive programming.

Eidal_sl said:

I know what hypergamy means; men trade their wife in (or date young hotties) to increase their own social standing. Men are as guilty as this as women are.

Click to expand...

Except that trope doesn't stand up to scientific study.

Men do not trade their wife in, hardly ever. Not only are women significantly more likely to initiate a divorce, they are significantly more likely to remarry. They also tend to remarry MUCH sooner (ie: they already had someone in mind when they started the divorce)

Trophies |

The Trophy Wife convention worked in stupid 80's movies plots as a vehicle to infantilize men's commitment to women's long-term security, but when Stella heads off to Jamaica to 'get her groove on' it's called female empowerment.

Click to expand...

Trophy Wife Myth Busted! Rich Dudes Don't Snag Hot Gals

Beauty and Status

Mist_sl said:

Shitty Irish tabloid newspapers? That's where we're stretching now.

These threads are nothing more than an exercise in 'I can google random shit to support any imaginable position.'

Click to expand...

Attacking the messenger is not a rebuttal.

Antarius,

I rather flippantly said that because it's a cliche. Obviously, increasing your earning potential increases your sex appeal...just like exercise, concern about one's health, and education do.

I read through the article you linked me regarding trophy wives, and there are a few key quotes that support what I'm trying to say:

"I've heard doctors' wives referred to as trophy wives by observers who only notice her looks and his status and fail to realize that he is good-looking too and that she is also a successful professional - or was before she had kids and left her job," McClintock said in the statement.

"So, on average, high-status men do have better-looking wives, but this is because they themselves are considered better looking - perhaps because they are less likely to be overweight and more likely to afford braces, nice clothes and trips to the dermatologist, etc."

If the study only included the 543 married couples and threw out the data from the other couples living together or just dating, then there would be absolutely no evidence of exchanging looks for money, according to McClintock.

Doesn't this article indicate that women aren't operating hypergamously? If they aren't trading looks for wealth/status, then what are they trading?

Hypergamy doesnt mean trading looks for money.

Hypergamy means that a woman will sleep with and try to be in a relationships with the "best" possible man that she is capable of attaining. If your value as a man decreases (lost job, gain weight) your woman will leave you and not feel bad about it. Open hypergamy means that a woman will try to both get the best possible genetics for her children (best looking man she's capable of fucking) as well as securing the best provider she is capable of (richest man she is capable of). And not be ashamed of the fact that she has cuckolded the provider.

Antarius_sl said:

Hypergamy doesnt mean trading looks for money.

Hypergamy means that a woman will sleep with and try to be in a relationships with the "best" possible man that she is capable of attaining. If your value as a man decreases (lost job, gain weight) your woman will leave you and not feel bad about it. Open hypergamy means that a woman will try to both get the best possible genetics for her children (best looking man she's capable of fucking) as well as securing the best provider she is capable of (richest man she is capable of). And not be ashamed of the fact that she has cuckolded the provider.

Click to expand...

That just seems like common sense to me -- why would anyone not choose the most compatible partner? I don't see how you're quantifying "best genetic material" and "best provider" -- but how in the fuck does this not overlap?

I acknowledge that women are more likely to initiative divorce, but I've seen this explained by how horrible the child custody battle is for men. In other words, fathers know they'll lose their kids so they're less likely to push for a divorce. I haven't seen anyone say it's because we (as a gender) are getting fat and losing our income. But seriously, how long should I expect my wife to stick around if I start packing on the pounds and stop earning any money? How long would YOU if the tables were reversed? I didn't marry a loser, neither did she. If one of us becomes a loser, then the other should GTFO.

The final sentence is what really indicates to me how cynical you think. What hypothetical partner of mine is going to cuckold me with no shame? Zero. Now, the nasty sluts you and Dumar bang day/in day/out via internet dating might include some fucked up sociopathic women... but holy fuck, y'all are finding each other for a reason.

The rate of cuckolding is 10% across the population, in all industrialized nations. But that isn't the interesting part. The interesting part is that is that in lower economic brackets it is at 30%. Meaning if you're poor there is a 1-in-3 chance your kid isn't yours. It declines steadily as income increases, becoming virtually 0% at high incomes.

It isn't cynical to look at the data. This was first unearthed in studies about forty years ago, every follow-up study has found nearly identical numbers.

Do you really think that 10% of women who give birth are sociopaths? And bear in mind, that is 10% of births. Given the nature of sperm armies, that means that an additional ~1-3% of guys got lucky and their army happened to win, despite what was a non-advantageous situation because when women cheat like this, their body does everything to can to give the advantage to the man they perceive as having better genetics.

Have you done any reading in this field at all? I don't mean TRP, I mean Evo Psych or Clinical Sexology.

The Master_sl said:

The rate of cuckolding is 10% across the population, in all industrialized nations.

Click to expand...

Source?

To Have and To Cuckold: Whats the real rate of men getting duped into fatherhood? - Washington City Paper

This article was written by Cecil Adams (straight dope) and says that number is more like 4 percent for a general population, and 1.7 percent for a couple that is confident they know who the parents are. I don't see anything wrong with these numbers. So, show me these follow-up studies showing 10-30 percent?

The only reason to discuss this is because its part of the TRP arsenal to describe an entire gender as... what, exactly? What would you say if we had a quantifiable number on how many men have fathered children unbeknownst to their current wife? Obviously, this is well-nigh impossible to find out.

My disgust with TRPers in general is that they'd like to present this "we the wronged" front and talk mad shit about an entire gender, but whenever I dial in on specific examples, they're just pissed off men who have fucking issues and date women with fucking issues.

Non-paternity event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to read all the linked studies. The thing is most studies look at only a particular population. Sometimes, yep, that population is 1.7%. Sometimes it is 30%. Hence the 10% being thrown around as a rough average, because it is, if you put the studies together.

Also a link to an article by someone not in the field who, at best, talked to a couple of people who were concerned only with their particular sample population is really not a good way of approaching the subject.

I don't know much about TRP to be honest, but I know a lot about clinical sexology.

Rate of infidelity amongst men is also pretty well known, but is harder to tie to non-paternity events, you're correct. I condemn cheating period on a personal level. If you want to have an open relationship, fine, but don't lie, and don't cheat. But when you're looking at a population and trying to understand how people function, treating them as a statistical group is fairly common in all the "soft" sciences.

Eidal_sl said:

Source?

To Have and To Cuckold: Whats the real rate of men getting duped into fatherhood? - Washington City Paper

This article was written by Cecil Adams (straight dope) and says that number is more like 4 percent for a general population, and 1.7 percent for a couple that is confident they know who the parents are. I don't see anything wrong with these numbers. So, show me these follow-up studies showing 10-30 percent?

Click to expand...

Revealing False Paternity Ethical Considerations

Doctors regularly lie to fathers about paternity and keep it a secret. They believe that it is the ethical thing to do for the well being of the child.

The paternity myth: the rarity of cuckoldry - Gene Expression | DiscoverMagazine.com

The problem is that there really just haven't been enough studies done this way, because it doesn't benefit the people that provide doctors with research money/funding.

Among white people in rural west michigan, it was 1.5% in 1963 (1500 tests)

The problem is that most of the studies that showed less than 10% were done before genetic testing, when they only used Blood typing, and ONLY concluded cuckolding if the father could not have possibly been the father. (o father) (a mother) (ab baby) for example. From blood typing ALONE, they showed that 1.5% of men could not have possibly been the father, even if they thought they were. If, for example the father was B and the Mother was A, and the baby turned out to be A, they assumed that the baby was the father's, because of the possibility of BO, even though it would have been STATISTICALLY impossible for ALL such examples to have fallen in favor of the mother's truthfulness. Nevertheless, that is what the study did.

With modern genetic testing =
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Baker and Bellis 1995 concluded the rate was at 9%


Non-paternity event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cecil used a flawed source in his answer: Kermyt Anderson 2006. Because Kermyt Anderson used flawed data in his paper, because he included those low reporting earlier studies before the advent of genetic testing.

To get his 4% number, he used those prior studies, came out with 1% for high confidence, and 30% for low confidence... and then Asked a bunch of people in Albuquerque how confident were they that they were the father of their child. If you CANT see the 2 flaws in that methodology, I'd like you to attend my sister's middle school science class sometime.

And yes, with published findings from testing labs, the numbers range from 30-50%, but that's only if you "suspect" the baby isn't yours.

The Master_sl said:

Non-paternity event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to read all the linked studies. The thing is most studies look at only a particular population. Sometimes, yep, that population is 1.7%. Sometimes it is 30%. Hence the 10% being thrown around as a rough average, because it is, if you put the studies together.

Also a link to an article by someone not in the field who, at best, talked to a couple of people who were concerned only with their particular sample population is really not a good way of approaching the subject.

I don't know much about TRP to be honest, but I know a lot about clinical sexology.

Rate of infidelity amongst men is also pretty well known, but is harder to tie to non-paternity events, you're correct. I condemn cheating period on a personal level. If you want to have an open relationship, fine, but don't lie, and don't cheat. But when you're looking at a population and trying to understand how people function, treating them as a statistical group is fairly common in all the "soft" sciences.

Click to expand...

I think you mean sample, not population.