Categories
alpha males beta males chad thundercock douchebaggery entitled babies irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA red pill reddit

Women won’t have sex with you if they know you’re a Red Pill douchebag, Red Pill douchebag warns

Women discovering that the dude hitting on them reads The Red Pill subreddit
Women discovering that the dude hitting on them reads The Red Pill subreddit

Apparently the first rule of Red Pill Club is to never talk about Red Pill Club in the vicinity of some hot babe you want to get with, because the chances are good that she already knows about Red Pill Club and if she finds out you’re a member of it she might start laughing at what a gigantic loser you are.

At least that seems to be the point of one dire warning I found on the front page of the Red Pill subreddit today.

Noting that “most women who frequently use the internet have at least a vague idea what [The Red Pill] is,” One_friendship_plz urged his fellow Red Pillers to never, ever let their Red Pillery “leak” in the presence of a woman because “it makes you come off as more pathetic than a beta.”

You don’t say.

And while a “genuine slut” won’t care how much of a pathetic woman-hating douchebag you are, he goes on to argue,

any half-brained woman knows about TRP. I would say an equal number of women know about the red pill as men, quit trying to come off as unique by spouting shit from here to women about how enlightened you are on the sexual dynamic.

I know a lot of men on here are bitter as f**k, but do not ever appear to be misogynistic to women if you’re trying to get laid.

Shocking, but true. Women tend not to like it when men they don’t know greet them in the club with a hearty “hey, genuine sluts!”

They will take your resources and still be your friend, but they will write you off from the “have sex” list.

NEVER LET A WOMAN GET HER FILTHY HANDS ON YOUR RESOURCES!

For example, if you have manganese deposits in your backyard, don’t ever let her see that shit! Put a tarp over them, or something.

Now, One_friendship_plz doesn’t actually say anything about manganese, per se, but this is something I personally learned the hard way — when I caught a woman I thought was my girlfriend digging for manganese in my backyard with the help of none other than Chad Thundercock himself!

By the way, “digging for manganese in my backyard” isn’t some weird sexual euphemism. Though maybe it should be.

Anyway, back to One_friendship_plz and his stunning insights.

[H]undreds of thousands of women, easily millions know about PUA, MGTOW, TRP. They don’t understand our perspective but they … consciously stay away from anyone associated with this …

Women do not want to have sex with people who they think are from TRP, even if you’re not.. if it seems like you are, then they won’t f**k you. (Even if they’ll be your friend.)

The real takeaway from all this? If you’re going to be a douchebag, make sure you’re a douchebag to dudes as well.

Those douches you see who f**k women, treat everyone like shit & not women exclusively so they never leak off as misogynistic, which is why they still get laid.

Wisdom for the ages!

I made a card out of it. Well, tried to. The text was too long. Hopefully this captures the essence:

those-douchesbae17

She is totally into him, obvs.

150 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Seven of Mine
Seven of Mine
5 years ago

Addendum to my criticism of that article:

In the section where the author is whining about the guys at the office who are totally decent-looking being rated below medium, he actually concludes that women have unrealistic standards about male attractiveness based solely on the fact that he thinks those guys are totally decent-looking. Apparently “unrealistic” is defined as “doesn’t concur with my personal preferences”.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
5 years ago

Thanks Mish and Lea. To be fair though, sad boner trolls practically mock themselves. It’s so easy.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

The difficulty of “getting laid” (which I interpret as a one night stand or other kinds of casual sex) depends on how many people in your target group would be personally open to that sort of thing. Many people never have a one night stand for all kinds of reasons. They might be shy, have safety concerns, enjoy kinks that don’t work well with a one time partner, have no particular desire for sex with relative strangers, personal ethical reasons, religious beliefs, don’t enjoy sex at all, etc. If someone is not up for sex you’re not gonna have sex with them, no matter who you are (keeping in mind that rape is not sex).

In my experience, many of the manboys who complain about how difficult it is for men to “get laid” aren’t actually trying to participate in that kind of activity. They just assume it would be impossible, so why even try? I think it’s obvious from the whinings of MRAs, MGTOWs, PUAs and other misogynists that they don’t have much experience even talking to women or being in the same room as a woman. They have fantastical ideas about the minds and bodies of women, and even more fantastical ideas about what a woman’s daily routine looks like.

They have not only given up on interacting with women, but they’ve also given up on being a decent human being. Without making any attempt to be nice and decent, they’ve decided that it’s too difficult and the deck is stacked against them.

I say this as someone who has never had “casual sex” and probably never will. When I was a teenager I had some level of resentment for people who would hook up with randos, since that kind of behavior can seem threatening to someone who has low self-esteem and insecurities about their self-worth, and I interpreted those feelings as warped jealousy based on my belief that I was simply dealt bad cards and couldn’t possibly do what those people were doing.

Later on, after I’d had a long term relationship, I realized that I didn’t actually know if I could “get laid” or not. I had never tried, and when I thought of the idea of having sex with a relative stranger I felt very uncomfortable and nervous. After realizing that I just wasn’t very interested in “casual sex”, life became a whole lot easier. Instead of thinking of the hookup culture people as a club for cool people to which I don’t have access, I started viewing it as a thing that some people participate in and enjoy, and others don’t, for whatever reason.

Shaking off the burden of thinking (consciously or subconsciously) of women’s bodies as luxury resources that only the most fortunate men are allowed access to, makes life so much easier. Personally, I found that escaping the teenage bubble of insecurities made me easier to get along with, more relaxed and confident, more likeable, and just in general a better and less selfish person.

Speaking of what benefits feminism can have for men*, ^this^ is a specific benefit that I personally have enjoyed through understanding and adopting basic feminist thinking. When you’re not constantly obsessing over who’s having sex with whom or trying to figure out ways to manipulate and abuse women, you don’t have any reason to spend most of your time online yelling about manginas and white knights. People with this kind of behavior are clearly lacking any form of inner peace and doing everything in their might to avoid examining their own motivations.

*I don’t identify as a man, but you know what I mean

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
5 years ago

And yeah, an OK Cupid blog post is not very scientific. The author draws the completely unsupported conclusion that if a woman rates a man as lower than medium, she thinks he’s not good enough for her.

I didn’t see anything suggesting that. I see no data on how people rate themselves. A lot of women think they’re ugly, even when they aren’t. Nor do I see any data on how high a priority users are making looks.

Bryce, when you find yourself in agreement with a troll, you should probably stop to consider the possibility that you’re doing something wrong.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
5 years ago

IP,

Exactly. I wonder if anyone has ever done a survey asking only people who actively seek hookups how many partners they have had. I tend to think that most people who try to have casual sex, have a higher number of partners than the general population. No matter what they look like.

We also can’t assume that if a man is turned down for casual sex, that the woman thinks he’s ugly and would’ve said yes to Chad Thundercock. Maybe men are just more likely to hit on women who have not indicated that they’re looking for casual sex with anyone.

Viscaria
Viscaria
5 years ago

I lost interest in OKC’s silly little pop psych polls when they went from: “most of the people who identify as bi on our website will mostly or exclusively interact with other members from only one of the two genders we allow users to choose; i.e. a bi man might interact mostly with women, or with other men, but is unlikely to interact equally with both,” to “I guess people who call themselves bi are mostly a bunch of lying liars! Haha.” And a big fuck you to you too, OkCupid!

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Imaginary Petal,

*more applause*

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

@Alan
In addition to your points, the OKC surveys are completely optional and you have to seek them out. It’s possible there might be a required survey when you sign up (I don’t remember), but for the most part they were part of this optional area you could check out. And I remember reading a post where they did some data analysis and decided that the 3 factors in how successful your relationship would be were whether you like beer, whether you like to travel alone, and I forgot the third one. Because of the people who took their survey the 3 questions the successful couples answered the same way were those 3. It made me wonder if they’re only looking at the successful couples, if they’re only looking at the questions answered the same way, and how representative their participants are. Plus they jump to a conclusion based on some correlations, which is not very scientific of them, either.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Kupo

and I forgot the third one

That’ll be the beer. 🙂

But yeah, self selecting surveys with no objective criteria are pretty pointless.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
5 years ago

Internet surveys are only useful for validating the opinions you already hold. They’s garbage. @IP’s opinion is a waaay more solid foundation to work from. ’cause it’s IP, so, you know. Way more trustworthy than the sausage-aggregator-and-delivery-system which is OkCupid.

(((Hambeast))) Now With Extra Parentheses
(((Hambeast))) Now With Extra Parentheses
5 years ago

Wwth said

I wonder if anyone has ever done a survey asking only people who actively seek hookups how many partners they have had. I tend to think that most people who try to have casual sex, have a higher number of partners than the general population. No matter what they look like.

As someone (cis woman) who did have a lot of casual sex, this sounds about right. Only one data point, but hey, you gotta start somewhere! And even back in the day (ack! 30 years ago) on my best day, I wasn’t ever going to be mistaken for a swimsuit model!

We also can’t assume that if a man is turned down for casual sex, that the woman thinks he’s ugly and would’ve said yes to Chad Thundercock. Maybe men are just more likely to hit on women who have not indicated that they’re looking for casual sex with anyone.

Also true for my case. My main criteria for hookups were feeling safe with the person, feeling like there was mutual respect, feeling like there was mutual attraction, and feeling like that person would be fun in bed. I hooked up with more than a few guys I would’ve rejected on looks alone; and that would’ve been my loss!

And yes, I felt that I had to be careful not to blatantly indicate that I was looking for casual sex!

Dr.DeadAnimals
Dr.DeadAnimals
5 years ago

Re: Imaginary Petal (great points) and people looking for hook-ups.

I have always been reserved and somewhat conservative in my personal behavior (although I don’t expect the same of friends, in fact I find less reserved people much more interesting). Anyways, at the end of my freshman year in college I decided I would cut loose and make out with a random guy at a party (a fairly common past time for some of my teammates). Casual hook-up is definitely something that takes practice. I was so bad at it, for example, that not only did the guy not kiss me that night, we ended up married.

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

I think IP hit the nail on the head when they said that it’s not about having sex, so much as about gaining the male homosocial status that it implies. There’s a reason why pickup artists and “incels” are so hateful towards one another.

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

@DrDeadAnimals

Casual hook-up is definitely something that takes practice. I was so bad at it, for example, that not only did the guy not kiss me that night, we ended up married.

Awww. Kismet!

Bryce
Bryce
5 years ago

Holy hell, that article is biased. I mean, yeah, according to those numbers, women rate most men as less than “medium” on their attractive scale while men rate most women as “medium”. However, even though men seem to be more generous in terms of their ratings, they’re far less generous in terms of who they’ll actually talk to. The charts show men messaging by and large only the women at the highest end of the scale whereas women will message mostly men at the lowest end of the scale.
The same holds true throughout the charts. Men have much higher standards for who they’ll talk to.
Also, what the actual fuck is up with posting photos of guys at the office and being all “boo hoo these totally decent-looking guys were rated less than medium feeeeemales are so meeeannnnnnnn”? It’s just so illustrative of these toxic attitudes. Women might rate them as less than medium, but the article’s own numbers show that women would probably still be perfectly willing to talk to them, unlike men with women they’d rated less than medium.

My take on it is that because there aren’t many males rated ‘3’, ‘4’ or ‘5’ , the majority falling within a narrow 0-2 range, the differences in attractiveness between men are considered less significant (since most are unattractive). Women who took part were more than likely aware how unrealistic it would be to only message a minority of above-average looking male profiles. Men on the other hand see a higher number of women they consider above average and end up thinking they might have chance there. It implies men aren’t as realistic, rate their own attractiveness higher than they should do, or fail to consider women having their own preferences.

Doesn’t change the fact that most of us are considered well below average, assuming this has some credibility. And appearances are obviously a big factor when being considered for casual hook-ups. For red pillers who talk about sex as an indicator of ‘social value’ this is a big deal.

occasional reader
occasional reader
5 years ago

> weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Your boner is not an acceptable measure.

Now there is an idea here. There is already the inch, the foot, so why not the boner ? That could become the “mètre étalon” (arh arh ! … hum, sorry) of “TRP female attractiveness” (because women is too polite of a word to be used, and there is obviously no homosexual or transexual men in the TRP).
I suggest you make a patent of that, you could make a lot of money, as they speak about that all day long (between two rants against feminism).
So, maybe HB10 is not Hot Babe 10, but 10 Huge Boners ? That would explain a lot…

Tahia
Tahia
5 years ago

Bryce, that study says, men rate women on a ball curve, but only message those they deem to be on the upper end, while women rate men as mostly not that hot, but still message them.

If we were to take this study to mean anything, it would be, men expect a victoria’s secret model, women are fine with a dude. (Outer appearance only here, of course)

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
5 years ago

Why are appearances a big factor for casual hookups? Where does the data say that?

And why are we assuming validity again? I’d trust data from the CDC or the Kinsey Institute so much more.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Bryce,
You are making wild guesses when you could be listening.
Might it be that you are not winning over the ladies as often as youd like because this is typical behavior for you and the sexism in your assumptions here extends to other areas of your life and that is more than a little off putting to us women?

Naaaaah. Must just be that women are all shallow.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

Re: rating women’s appearance

That ‘HB’ scale is obviously subjective (also, is it linear or logarithmic?). However Arthur C Clarke did once try to apply some objective criteria to this pressing issue.

He started from the fact that Helen of Troy was so beautiful she was responsible for the launch of a thousand ships. So all you need to do is establish how many ships a particular woman could get launched and that would provide a measurement. He proposed a unit; ‘the milli-helen’. That would be the quantum of attractiveness that could get one ship launched. And then you just worked from there.

Now as Arthur described his own sexuality as “mildly cheerful” it may be he didn’t have that big an interest in this particular discussion, so perhaps we should take his suggestion with a pinch of salt. Still makes more sense than all that HB/SMV nonsense though.

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

@Alan
Uh-oh. My face has launched zero ships. Not even a rowboat. And it’s not like I live in the landlocked Midwest.

I’m gonna take a page from the MRM.

I blame men and their unreasonable standards (which their fathers taught them) for this lack of launches.

Helen of Troy? Who’s she! My face deserves to have launched at least two thousand ships.

Hop to it, guys.

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

I’ve come across the milliHelen before and I’ve got issues with it. Specifically, there is no SI definition of “ship.”

This is the sort of ship that Homer wrote about.
http://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/89/97/14/899714eede9b43cb2a361f7f00be4486.jpg

This is the sort of ship that we have nowadays.
http://www.funcage.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Worlds-10-Biggest-Cruise-Ships-002.jpg

Even someone who is not a maritime engineer can see that it would be harder to launch a thousand of the second sort of ship than the first. Homer says that people in our later degenerate age do not have the strength and beauty that they did in the time of heroes. I think he’s missing the point: we’ve just gotten better at building ships, and this has impacted our measurement system.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
5 years ago

I’m not a sciencey person but I’m pretty poor, so I’ve got a different issue with the milli-Helen.

What if I would definitely launch ships if I had them in the first place* ? Also, what if my launching of said ships was based on something other than physical attractiveness ? Does the measure still apply ?

Besides, what if I know for a fact that the person in question isn’t the sort to take too kindly to ships being launched for them ? ’cause then it’d be much smarter to not launch them at all. Does this then nullify their milli-Helen value ?

*I can probably afford to buy a thousand sheets of paper and make boats or planes out of them though. I’d definitely do that.

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

Doesn’t change the fact that most of us are considered well below average, assuming this has some credibility.

As has already been pointed out, it does not.

And appearances are obviously a big factor when being considered for casual hook-ups.

What makes you think that?

For red pillers who talk about sex as an indicator of ‘social value’ this is a big deal.

Why do you care what’s a big deal to red pillers?

Antoinette Hines
Antoinette Hines
4 years ago

That sounds like the first rule of Fight Club:

NEVER talk about Fight Club.

1 4 5 6
%d bloggers like this: