patrick.net

@anonymous this interpretation is quite wrong.

The Red Pill is simply the understanding that biology comes first, for example these basic truths:

1. Women have to be choosy about sexual partners because they can go through 9 months of pregnancy only a limited number of times.
2. Men have to be a bit paranoid about giving commitment, because paternity is uncertainty.
3. Pregnant women, and women with babies, were historically very vulnerable and in need of support and protection from strong or rich men.

Everything follows logically from facts like these. It's all just a game of competing self-interests.

To call it poisonous or hateful is the typical naive mistake people make upon first learning about how sexual behavior inevitably follows biology. It is disillusioning in many ways, and yet once you read through the theory and the shared experiences that men have, you come to know that they have certainly hit upon profound truths which are well known to all traditional cultures, but are strangely suppressed in our own.

The "Theory Reading" in the sidebar here is very enlightening: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/

That's some cheap shit right there. You look up every Trump rally where Hitler Idiots and KKK morons showed up, the Trump supporters put therm out and turned them away.
Keep dividing everyone into groups it's worked so far.

This is what you get when you build a strawman using straw that's been run through a male cow.

Sounds like OP has never read the subreddit he's talking about.

Automan Empire says

Sounds like OP has never read the subreddit he's talking about.

Clearly, or maybe just took a cursory glance.

Once you start putting all the pieces together and ignore the fringe elements, you see that The Red Pill is amazingly powerful in its ability to accurately predict the behavior of both genders in various situations. I'd put it up there with the Theory of Evolution in importance to understanding how things came to be as they are.

Well, the red pill stuff is mostly about how to hypnotize women somehow to fall on your poxy cock in worship, fuck your brains out, then go away grateful for your sanctifying balm, giving you a clean and immediate getaway.

Good luck with that, James Bond.

Ceffer says

Well, the red pill stuff is mostly about how to hypnotize women somehow to fall on your poxy cock in worship

Another misconception. Sure, many guys try to use what they learn to get more effective at picking up women, but Red Pill theory itself is independent of how you use it.

For me, it's mostly about watching what I see all around me and finally understanding it clearly. Women are actually not very mysterious once you know what is going on.

This is outre but closer than the truth than is comfortable:

Many women dream of being kidnapped and impregnated by a tough guy who guards them and brings them food and takes care of them.

And a huge portion of Romance Novels feature bodice ripping by Pirates, Cowboys, Highland Scots Warriors, Secret Agent, etc. who have kidnapped the 'heroine'. And end up being wealthy and powerful and raising the kids with them.

For Chrissakes, a book written at a 7th Grade reading level that started as Twillight Fan Fiction is all about an "Ordinary Girl like me ravished against my will by a billionaire hottie" is one of the best sellers of the past decade, and has I think turned into 2 movies now. 50 Shades of Grey.

"The bad boy that all women want but who only loves me - but doesn't grovel, because that's unsexy" schtick.

Guys run the gamut of preferences, which is basically good evolutionary sense: Guys expand their horizons into strange corners improving their chances of reproduction.
Men have tons of sub genres of BBWs, Waifs, Amputees, etc. The numbers of men with strange tastes is huge.
There are very few female porn sites or romance novels "Skinny Bicycle Wimp Living in a Camper who can't open the can of Pickles he Freegan'd from a dumpster, so Hot" or "Fat Guy on a Scooter at Walmart buying Twinkies with Food Stamps and Disability Payments, oohhh yeah."

BTW, do you know what the least popular Fetish is? Pregnant Women. The next least popular? Elderly Women. Gee, from an evolutionary/reproductive standpoint, I can't possibly figure out why.

I also can't possibly take a stab at why many 60-year old men are hot as hell to many women, but almost no 60-year old women by males.

WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch says

few female porn sites or romance novels

One bit of enlightenment from The Red Pill was that romance novels are female porn. The romance novel industry for women is approximately as large as the explicit porn industry for men. This makes sense because each gender is programmed to want what is good for reproduction. Men are simply into fertility: youth, boobs, symmetry, health. Women are into attracting and manipulating rich or otherwise powerful men to get themselves and their offspring well taken care of.

That's what worked to bring us down to the present day, for very good reasons. And it's hard-coded into our brains. Feminism is a never-ending war with biology itself.

rando says

Feminism is a never-ending war with biology itself.

I agree with many of your points. And I've read some of the red pill stuff. Like anything, some of it is quite insightful, some of it is about angry misogyny. Different red pillers bring different sensibilities to the table.

But your last comment "Feminism is a never-ending war with biology itself ?"

I just don't know. If we don't destroy ourselves in the next couple of centuries, there is going to be a fair amount of evolution going on, or possibly mutation of the species that's somewhat different from natural selection, and thus not exactly evolution as we know it. Meanwhile, there won't be time for much of that underlying biology to completely change so yes, it's still there and it's interesting, worth understanding, but at the same time maybe somewhat obsolete. The population will probably hit 10 billion, so I guess we've succeeded possibly too well, soon being a level that's hard for our environment to sustain. Therefore I'm not sure how much sense it makes to complain about feminism or homosexuality ruining our family structures.

The blue pill and the red pill both morph automatically into the green pill as soon as they have enough money, power, or prestige.

rando says

Men are....Women are....

I suggest re-reading the what Lipsovitch said above and some of Dan's comments. On Seinfeld, Kramer said it best: "Nature is a mad scientist." The deck is always getting re-shuffled, combinations that worked in the past tend to reappear more often, but variation remains constant. As a software engineer with probably a considerable math background, you should remember probabilities rather than falling into false binaries. You seem to have a recurring tendency to impose false dichotomies and insist that other people don't exist. Physical hermaphrodites, indigenous American berdaches, LGBTQIA, all these people do actually exist. They are not all Realtors(tm) trying to trick you into overpaying for a house. You seem to apply your Realtor(tm) model to everything you weren't taught about in midwestern Catholic school or wherever, and that's a mistake. There is more to life than binary categories (knights and knaves, Realtors and victims), there is rather a vast diversity that enables social species to survive in environments where simpler evolutionary ancestors got wiped out.

If you want to assert a better defense of Red Pill and critique of feminism, you might rather focus on probabilistic factors including how having more education reduces women's chances in marriage markets, including a ~10% reduction in the likelihood of having children by age 44 in the USA, from more than 80% to nearer 70%. Some have suggested college applications should come with a warning label informing female applicants that completing a degree may reduce their chances of marriage and children. It's probabilistic though, so false binaries crash at the first exception.

A feminist is Trump with a sex change

The problem with terms like "feminism" and "red pill" is that people use them, not based on what their definition was, but just to ostracize others. People pick the worst examples of self-identified members of the group they want to vilify even if those members clearly don't meet the definition of the group and then extend the conclusion that all self-identified associates of the group, even those that meet the definition, are represented by the worst who don't.

For feminism, that means man-hating, ugly, and spiteful women and cucks who don't remotely believe in any form of equality. For red pill that means men who are too ugly or uncharismatic to attract anyone. Neither of these is representative of the typical, perhaps the vast majority, of the less vocal members who are more aligned with the principles of group.

Ultimately words are not important. What matters are the definitions behind them and the statements based on those definitions. It's hard to object to equality under the law for all persons regardless of what you call that philosophy. It's also hard to object to acknowledging biological facts and evolutionary psychology, no matter what you call that. Perhaps it would be best if we just canned the words and started advocated goals, objectives, principles, policies, and ideas. Politically charged words just get in the way.

WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch says

female porn sites

anonymous says

"The Red Pill is rejecting the matrix of lies and stupidity and seeing things for how they really are." And who has defined this matrix of lies, determined they are lies and also what is the truth ?

Is this the same group that meets once a year or so at a super secret location that will be divulged only to loyal and trusted members immediately prior to the meeting/conference whatever and who also know the double secret password and the "special" knock on the door code to enter?

Yea really. A whole 200,000 subscribers who know the truth and want to "discuss sexual strategy".

rando says

To call it poisonous or hateful is the typical naive mistake people make upon first learning about how sexual behavior inevitably follows biology. It is disillusioning in many ways, and yet once you read through the theory and the shared experiences that men have, you come to know that they have certainly hit upon profound truths which are well known to all traditional cultures, but are strangely suppressed in our own.

Profound truths that are strangely suppressed in our own culture? You have got to be kidding. What culture are you a part of? Women want romance leading to sex and men want sex that could lead to romance or could just be sex is a profound truth suppressed in our culture? You can't be serious. Reddit is a bunch of guys who are angry because they don't want to or don't have the ability to relate to women in terms women find acceptable.

Skinny Bicycle Wimp Living in a Camper who can't open the can of Pickles he Freegan'd from a dumpster, so Hot"

Lol

-------------

The most informative part of all of this Red Pill stuff to me, is that so many "men" had no clue about the way things are. I always thought it was the womans job to be so confused about the way things really are. Which is why I assume most of the people posting about this stuff are "lonely, young, or vulnerable" teenagers who can't tap any ass.

As the huckster Reggie Hammond once said:
"Lack of pussy make you brave, man!"

www.youtube.com/embed/kvzIRuIg288?start=120&end=132

bob2356 says

Reddit is a bunch of guys who are angry because they don't want to or don't have the ability to relate to women in terms women find acceptable.

errc says

The most informative part of all of this Red Pill stuff to me, is that so many "men" had no clue about the way things are. I always thought it was the womans job to be so confused about the way things really are. Which is why I assume most of the people posting about this stuff are "lonely, young, or vulnerable" teenagers who can't tap any ass.

Many people on Reddit are frustrated young guys in the "Anger Phase". The sheer number of the posts reflect that.

The penultimate Red Pill truth is that ALL Humans lie to themselves and avoid self-accountability. Society simply puts more pressure on men to perform and deliver, whereas women are allowed more leeway ("I change my mind"). That's the key take-away from the site, more about the (male) readers cultivating habits and setting goals most of which have little to do with chicks. Serial whingers are often chided to STFU and "Go into Monk Mode".

errc says

The most informative part of all of this Red Pill stuff to me, is that so many "men" had no clue about the way things are.

Yes, that's pretty amazing. I myself was pretty clueless until I ran across this stuff. So many lightbulbs went on at once I almost went blind, lol. Years of wondering instantly gave way to certainty and clarity. It was fantastic.

bob2356 says

Profound truths that are strangely suppressed in our own culture? You have got to be kidding. What culture are you a part of? Women want romance leading to sex and men want sex that could lead to romance or could just be sex is a profound truth suppressed in our culture? You can't be serious. Reddit is a bunch of guys who are angry because they don't want to or don't have the ability to relate to women in terms women find acceptable.

Bob, you know for a fact that merely stating anything about the utility of traditional gender roles and the greater happiness of people in those roles is quite likely to get you fired at any corporate job in America. But those roles are extremely useful in getting the jobs of life done, and do create the maximum happiness for both men and women.

Getting fired = suppression, yes.

You also know (I hope) that what women say they find acceptable is extremely different from what women actually find acceptable. If you're still unaware, you have a lot of reading and observing to do.

marcus says

But your last comment "Feminism is a never-ending war with biology itself ?"

Yup, this is 100% true. Feminism is the radical notion that women are men. But women are not men. Women and men have dramatically different thoughts and motivations, and this is an inevitable result of biology.

curious2 says

Some have suggested college applications should come with a warning label informing female applicants that completing a degree may reduce their chances of marriage and children.

Lol, excellent because it's true. I would never stop any woman from doing what she wants to with her life, but there are likely consequences that women should be aware of.

Thought of a super-evil bumper sticker: "Feminists Die Lonely"

rando says

Thought of a super-evil bumper sticker: "Feminists Die Lonely"

A lot of people die lonely. Looking at some my neighbors who are multiple survivors of the "divorce wars", they wind up preferring to die lonely to risking a repeat performance.

rando says

curious2 says

Some have suggested college applications should come with a warning label informing female applicants that completing a degree may reduce their chances of marriage and children.

Lol, excellent because it's true.

The only reason getting a college degree reduces a woman's chance of getting married and having children is because of female hypergamy. Women insist on marrying men who make more money, and in general, have as high or higher level of education and social status. Today more women than men get college degrees, and the college degrees that men get tend to be useful, but strangely of low social status in our fucked up society, than the ones pursued by women. So if women avoid STEM professionals and also insist that a potential husband is at least as educated as they are, then this reduces the pool of available mates.

By the pigeon hole principle, some women have to either go without mates or share mates with other women, which is not allowed under our current marriage laws. That is why more educated women are less likely to marry.

Do note that this is purely a female mating preference. There is no male who says "This woman is beautiful, rich, intelligent, and nice, but she has a more advanced degree than I have or makes more money than I do, so I'm not going to marry her.". This never happens. The more intelligent, productive, income-producing a woman is, the better wife material she is. The problem women create for themselves is that they insist, for reasons explained clearly and in detail by evolutionary psychology, that the man does better than she does.

The solution, quite simply, is for women to abandon hypergamy. It's easy for any woman who isn't completely disgusting to get laid by high status men. This has nothing to do with how likely those high status men are to marry the women they sleep with. The high status man will have sex with over a hundred women and consider maybe a handful to be potential wife material, and can ultimately only marry one of them at a time, and he's only looking to marry once anyway. Put simply, there is therefore zero correlation between a high status man having sex with a woman and considering her a real wife possibility. Most women, foolishly, do not realize this. They have deluded themselves into thinking if they can sexually attract a man, they can convince him to marry them. This is empirically false.

Men with good jobs and finances like STEM professionals can take advantage of this, but I've always considered it taboo to pretend to be interested in someone as a long-term mate if you are not. I've never led a woman on like that, and I never would, simply for ethical reasons. I don't want to be that kind of person. I'm all for short-term relationships and friends with benefits if, and only if, both sides are honest about their intentions.

If the ethical argument isn't compelling, men should consider how many false rape accusations are the direct result of women believing they were duped by a man only interested in short-term sexual relations. Such fake accusations, of course, are a terrible atrocities and should be prosecuted, but the reality is that most men get screwed over by the mere accusation. Our society and legal system are very unjust and unconcerned about justice. And ultimately, no pussy is worth that much trouble, especially since you aren't really getting the biological benefit, reproductive access, as all women are voluntarily infertile until they decide they want to reproduce, typically after marriage or age 35, whichever comes first. So all your really getting is the illusion of fulfilling your lifecycle.

Sure sex can be fun, but the fact is that it is the most overrated thing in our world, and the older you get, the more bang for your buck you can get from things other than sex. For women, that means the only successful strategy they can use is to cash in while they are young, 20 to 25, and with rare exception 26-29. For men, that means the optimal strategy is to bang as many chicks while your young and poor, and then be very choose and crazy-avoidance when you are older, financially establish, and have more to lose and less to gain. That flip happens at age 30. And I'm not talking about a 35-year-old man dating a 35-year-old woman. I'm saying it's far easier for a 35-year-old man to bang a 25-year-old woman than it was for that same man to bang a 25-year-old when he was 25.

Anyway, I don't know if you want to call the knowledge in this post red pill, blue pill, green pill, or whatever. I call it scientific fact because that is what it is. It is objective factual statements verified by all of biological and psychological sciences and game theory. There are no judgements here, just the facts. Any judgements to this conversation, you bring yourself. They don't change how reality operates. The important thing is to first understand reality. Don't let your political or social agenda prevent you from understanding reality, or whatever choices you make will be bad ones regardless of what your political or social agendas are.

Dan8267 says

Anyway, I don't know if you want to call the knowledge in this post red pill, blue pill, green pill, or whatever. I call it scientific fact because that is what it is.

It's pure Red Pill knowledge. Men who have not read about the Red Pill have no idea what hypergamy even is, much less how it can work for or against them.

Dan8267 says

The solution, quite simply, is for women to abandon hypergamy.

I think that's impossible, because hypergamy is hard-wired into female brains from eons of evolution. Women who went after high-status men were almost inevitably more successful at passing their genes along to the next generation.

rando says

1. Women have to be choosy about sexual partners because they can go through 9 months of pregnancy only a limited number of times.

2. Men have to be a bit paranoid about giving commitment, because paternity is uncertainty.

3. Pregnant women, and women with babies, were historically very vulnerable and in need of support and protection from strong or rich men.

Patrick, well put!

WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch says

There are very few female porn sites or romance novels "Skinny Bicycle Wimp Living in a Camper who can't open the can of Pickles he Freegan'd from a dumpster, so Hot" or "Fat Guy on a Scooter at Walmart buying Twinkies with Food Stamps and Disability Payments, oohhh yeah."

bwahahahahah, thanks for the best laugh I've had all week 👍

rando says

Bob, you know for a fact that merely stating anything about the utility of traditional gender roles and the greater happiness of people in those roles is quite likely to get you fired at any corporate job in America. But those roles are extremely useful in getting the jobs of life done, and do create the maximum happiness for both men and women.

Getting fired = suppression, yes.

You also know (I hope) that what women say they find acceptable is extremely different from what women actually find acceptable. If you're still unaware, you have a lot of reading and observing to do.

What are you babbling about? Who talks about gender roles at work? Utility of traditional gender roles and the greater happiness of people in those roles? WTF kind of navel gazing is that? The girls as secretaries to the man who is the boss the way it should be? Is that the deal in your mind?

Yes those "women" who are of course a monolithic block thinking and acting in perfect harmony. I never had any problem finding out what women find acceptable. Maybe because I talked to women instead of reading about and observing them. If you can't spot the gold diggers and phonies a mile off then you need to stop reading and observing and start talking more.

So what anyway? I've dated japs (the jewish kind, not the oriental kind) plenty of times. The deal is always having a good time, with the goy until the jewish doctor/lawyer comes along. Works for me. Everyone knows the rules. If you call out the gold diggers and phonies they will usually fess up. I don't care, I'll hang out with them. Once everything is on the table you can have a good time. Good time being defined as having a relaxed time, finding out what they are about, and getting some laughs. If it leads to bed then fine, if not then fine. If you are sniffing up their leg from the get go you aren't going to get anywhere.

Was having a drink in mezza luna at aspen post skiing years ago. Talked to a couple good lookers and had a good time. Asked if they wanted to have dinner after I had a shower and got changed. They said no they were looking for guys who help would finance their vacation. I said cool, glad to have met you. Saw them the next day with a couple polished fingernail, expensive clothes older guys. Ran into them all week off and on. If the sugar daddies weren't around we partied and hung out. Cool with me. Gold diggers,japs, feminists, lesbians, fast trackers, whatever. I'll call then out and if they come back with it then I'll be glad to hang and have fun if not then I'll move on down the road. Never hang out with people that aren't fun.

rando says

I think that's impossible, because hypergamy is hard-wired into female brains from eons of evolution. Women who went after high-status men were almost inevitably more successful at passing their genes along to the next generation.

Men who don't override their Stone Age instinct with frontal lobe thinking get thrown in prison. Clubbing a sexual rival to death and dragging his mate off to your cave was a very successful strategy in the Stone Age. It's not today.

If men can be expected to overcome their base instincts, so too should women be expected to do so. That's equality. Those who fail, deserve no respect.

We are animals, but we're thinking animals. We don't have to act solely on obsolete instinct. The human brain is capable of understanding things far beyond the survival needs of our ancestors.

Damn, even Bell is guilty of hypergamy. Going for the rich prince with servants instead of a committed, loyal, family-centric guy like Gaston.

www.youtube.com/embed/ZlO-N0GVO1c

Bonus video...
www.youtube.com/embed/CxOqEOPEpAo

Dan8267 says

Men who don't override their Stone Age instinct with frontal lobe thinking get thrown in prison.

when a woman doesn't do it she gets an award.