Red Pill vs ITR
How much is red pill true in how women and men attract each other vs Socionics and ITR.
Is it all chalked up to female nature, hypergamy, male nature and polygamy, or does ITR trump all this and the redpill community is just a bunch of babies that haven't figured it out yet.
Not saying Socionics has relationships completely figured out but red pill is just misogynistic patriarchal BS.
They are both oversimplifications of noticeable behavioral trends and correlations. And the potential information is used to make overreaching projections and conclusions.
Ease of interaction/long term compatibility =/= attraction. Just because a woman is your dual doesn’t mean she’ll see you in a romantic light, so that’s where looking good and having some charisma comes in
Last edited by Averroes; 04-29-2023 at 04:51 PM.
I don’t believe in the red pill entirely btw. ”High value men” get routinely disrespected by their gold digger gfs and cucked by laidback, deadbeat chads who’ve never had to think about their interactions with women and do/act however they want
What is this red pill business?
and where are all the feminists..
I think for a relationship to last both people need to offer something that the other needs. And that’s typically not type related. Both bring something to the table that the other does not have. As well as having some shared values which mean you can live side by side and plan a future life together which will satisfy both.
Something I’ve been thinking about recently is the idea of a person being ‘too good for another’. Being rejected by your friend will do that to you. Or couples that don’t last because one decides they want out. One person being more keen. With duals, it can be hard to tell if you fancy them at first…can they really offer you anything other than duality? I think a lot of the time people realise they both weren’t right for each other. But maybe sometimes one person is benefitting more..however there could still be a lot of attraction as I’m sure it can feel quite good for a while to be with someone who you find likeable but feel needs you more than you need them..that sounds a bit sinister lol.
excuse any ignorance on my part- I’m a recovering loner/ aspiring feminist.
Last edited by Bethanyclaire; 11-05-2022 at 11:20 AM.
I think that both might be involved. Logical women are probably more likely to take logical approaches and (according to ITR) value emotional men, but they might also have some kind of evolution-based desire to go after certain types of males, or have certain romance styles with males. I'm saying this without really having observed humanity and how it interacts with each other.Originally Posted by Lord Pixel
Theoretically, to see which is the best model for relationships, you'd have to see which correlates the best with actual female behavior. In other words, you'd have to see how well a certain set of principles matches how females act in reality.
There's a possibility that maybe they're not mutually exclusive. Maybe women instinctually like hypergamy and tolerate polygamy, but they also follow ITR's.
And I think it can go both ways. I'm not normally interested in logical women unless they're conventionally feminine. I usually go for Fe-types and delta NFs who are expressive and like prettying themselves up. If I could meet someone who looks like a Beta NF but is straightforward, thick skinned, and likes shy introverts that would be perfect
Last edited by Averroes; 11-05-2022 at 02:57 PM.
Some things I've often wondered about women in general. This is all general. And I'm not a relationship expert or anything. I've not had that many because of a lot of other reasons. So these are just some things I've wondered at times, but try to ignore when I can.
Do they even know what they want in a relationship? A lot of them seem to see dating as like trying new food or going out to a restaurant or something like that and seem to want the experience and benefits of being with men, but not having comit to them.
Do they love men as much as men seem to love them? Men seem to chase women and get hurt more when they are rejected. Don't women love men or does that not happen as much? It seems much more that maybe because women don't love men as much as men seem to love women, they can more easily end a relationship. And because men seem to love women more, women might instinctively know there are many other opportunities for love and be willing to end a relationship. So women tend to end relationships when they feel it doesn't suit them anymore. Women also seem to have more friends that emotionally support them, so it's not as hard on them to end a relationship, which leads to the next question.
What do women find attractive in men? This one hits much more close to home, but it seems women want men that are stoic. But that is not very emotionally healthy. So men can become stoic, sure, and maybe that's what being a "man" is supposed to be. But then as a man, you have to sacrifice some emotional health to live up to an image for your partner. And when men are like this, they tend to form less emotionally healthy bonds with their friends because they are not used to being vulnerable to another person. So their female partner becomes most of their emotional support, which hurts more when they leave. And I think some people are better suited for this though and maybe they are more naturally stoic and those are what women actually want, but if you aren't naturally like that, it does hurt to realize a lot of women won't ever find you attractive. I mean I guess it is what it is, but damn.
This seems too one-sided for me, maybe it's because as a male you can only really view things from your perspective, but I think you can perfectly invert the roles and end up with the same questioning. Do men even know what they want in a relationship? It often seems to be a game to them, women are treated like a commodity, like a key to a social status boost. No one wants to be the virgin, they want to be the alpha. Look at these menosphere videos and talks, they're all about increasing your sexual value so you can get more laid, but is it for the sake of women? No, it's to compete with other men. It's like they're not even people, they're creatures you must tame and breed. All they talk about is the quantity of relationships and sex, never quality. You maximize your gains so you can go higher on the social hierarchy, have more value as an individual. It's never about the woman and what she wants in a relationship. If the relationship ends, men are free to go out looking for as many other women as they want, being seen as a "player", while women would be seen as "sluts".
What do men find attractive in women? It seems that men want women that are fierce but submissive. Someone's who able to contribute but never really go against or attempt to overrule the man. Intelligent, but not enough to challenge them. Emotional, but controlled. Don't bring your problems out but also be completely honest and open, while allowing me to be secretive about what I choose. It's these paradoxical views that make women's role in society complicated.
You might read this and find it unfair. "I'm not this asshole, this doesn't represent all men." Yeah think about how women reading your post feel too. Besides the subjective, some things you wrote are straight up untrue, possibly distorted by your own experience but not really an indicative of the whole. Men don't love women more than vice-versa, there's nothing pointing to this. There's no general trend, it's on a case by case basis. You might see women telling you the exact opposite, that they love men much more. I disagree with both. You might be right that while men tend to have more friendships in general, women, due to their nature, will be more emotionally open and supportive of one another (men becoming victim of the toxic masculinity standards in society set by themselves in the past), but I don't think it makes ending relationships any easier. Friends are great but are no replacement for intimate love, which makes it all the more soul crushing. I've seen women go through breakthroughs and become completely depressed for a long while, despite having a lot of deep friendships. I've also seen others get over it quickly. I've seen the same happen to men. In the end it depends on the person's personality and how much love was invested in the relationship to begin with. FYI, I'm also male. I just think it's important to do an exercise to try to recognize and address your own biases.
I often asked myself the same questions you did, but in general, not about a particular gender and not just in the context of heterosexual relationships. Do people, men or women, really know what they want in a relationship? Do they really want to commit and submit to someone, to nurture a relationship, to give their fragile heart to another and receive that person's heart in return? To become codepedent, not just two people anymore, but a couple, blurring the lines of individuality. It's a big task that asks a lot of you and can be crushing when it fails, so why does it seem like most are so ready to jump into it. Is it fear of loneliness, or desire for experimentation, or an idea that society implanted in our hands that only relationships will make you whole and you're a loser if you're not in one, or something you just do it because you see everyone else doing and don't want to be left out, or is it something else? I don't really know. Regardless I can't help but think of relationships as a commodity with the way they're generally treated by society. They're something to acquire, the subjective, personal factor, the feeling of love for a particular person becomes secondary. A lot of relationships especially these days are more casual, with less strings attached, more about the company and the sex, not the most romantic and deep thing. But even these relationships are risky, there's the chance that one ends up completely falling for the other, who still doesn't view it as that serious, resulting in obvious heartbreak.
This is why to me the most important things in a relationship are honesty and mutual understanding of what each other wants and expects out of it. In my view, just wanting to date "someone" is a vapid wish. You're starting off putting the burden of filling the emptiness inside you on an imaginary, idealized someone you don't even know, which is already an awful way to go. Real love is about "the one", not anyone, but the single person you've met and spent time with that makes you feel like you're ready to spend the rest of your life with them. It's a real feeling about a real person, you know exactly what you need and not having it makes you feel terrible. That's genuine love, it's a personal and tangible feeling. This is why to me you shouldn't worry about trying to conform to what you think the expectations of the majority of women out there are. Live your life, be yourself, put yourself out there sometimes in situations that make you meet new people, and one day you might someone who likes you for what you are. This "lot of women" is irrelevant when you only need one.
Right, well I don't disagree with you, "it's just been my experience", so it's going to be biased, and like I said, I try to ignore it because it's not positive thinking to dwell on and it won't help anything. It probably doesn't help that I'm neurodivergent as well, so I'm sure when I was younger I had too many issues that some women were more than happy to leave...but I'm actually one of the people that don't get the alpha male thing, but it's kind of funny to hear people justify it for the same reasons I mentioned. Then it's not about having numbers or outcompeting other men, but not feeling vulnerable with women and getting used by them lol, which kind of makes more sense to me because that's an emotional motivation of being hurt and afraid that makes them abusive, whereas outcompeting men and just seeing women as nothing more than a score is kind of psychopathic. I don't really get that, but if you could explain it to me, I'd love to hear it.
But then the "alpha men" don't respect women because they don't feel women respect them is probably a thing. But I'd rather not have a relationship (because it won't be positive), if I gotta be like that, so I don't really get it anyway. Those people probably have a lot of dark triad personality traits and I've honestly never even met anyone like that anyway, so I don't put much stock in it. A lot of the internet talk about "alpha males" is kind of a show I think. Most men don't really want to be that, they just want women to respect them and so maybe it gets all the attention. I think there are a lot of sad and lonely people and they want a narrative that fits their experience, whether objective true or not. I mean let's say I grow up in a small town and all the women there are what I said they were; well obviously that doesn't apply to all the women in the world, but my subjective experience would still be true, so I'm not really sure why you feel the need to tell me I'm biased.Of course I am, if I wasn't, I wouldn't be an individual with my own ideas, opinions, and thoughts on things. So I understand, but huh? This is just my experience, I'm not saying anyone should accept it as their own. Just one perspective of many.
edit: As for why people want relationships. Who doesn't want love, affection, emotional support, understanding, intimacy, sex, someone to experience life with on the most intimate level and will help you and be with you at your worst (and best) moments? I think that's why I want a good relationship or that's what I want. I know that's probably asking a lot though. And it is very lonely without it or maybe it's because I've had a taste, so I know what I'm missing. The whole it's better to have loved and lost sounds like complete bullshit to me.
Last edited by Popcorn; 11-05-2022 at 10:44 PM.
Alright, so my experience aside, there is stuff like this
So is this just bullshit? Is there no problem?
There does seem to be some kind of problem. Maybe it's not redpill exactly, but men seem to have more issues with loneliness (emotional connection) and dating now (and suicide, though I don't know if they mentioned it in the video). And women seem to have higher standards for men that they can't seem to meet.
Doesn't this imply some truth to the redpill? If not, then why do you think it wouldn't? I don't really like the idea of just sweeping redpill under the rug like there is no truth to it, but maybe it's not convincing, but please explain this phenomenon then. I suspect a lot of this has to do with why redpilling is becoming a thing now. I never heard of this word before, but now it's gaining traction. Is that just nothing? Is it just men's fault? And obviously, this is a statistical argument here, since no generalizations will apply to everyone or even necessarily most people, but nontheless it seems to be more prevalent now.
it is simply because men are more dependent on women than otherwise
We'll obviously all have our own biases, like I said, our own perspective is the only one we actually get to experience. Doesn't make us bad people, but my point is that these biases may cloud your judgment and makes us only look at reality in a certain angle when the reality is a lot more complex, which is why it's important to question ourselves and try to see the other side of the coin. It makes us grow as people and see things in a more nuanced way, which in turn helps us understand others better. Some of the things that happen in our life are simply fate, or have other reasons behind them that we can't really comprehend and that's something we should consider before assuming they have an universal meaning. A lot of the things I said about male beliefs and behavior are subliminal, although they look like pathological behaviour from a conscious, rational view, most people will experience it but not that way. Most men would not admit to be interested in the status relationships give them, I can't say they're lying, because they themselves don't even acknowledge or recognize it within themselves, but they do. It's a pressure from society, it's subtle, it's hidden, but it's there. You don't want to stand out from the norm in any way that could be viewed as inferior, and that includes not having a partner, and this affects your self-worth. That's just one the way we are dishonest with ourselves and pretend to be much less superficial than we actually are. Everyone likes to believe they're above it, but if that was the case, it wouldn't be a discussion in the first place.Right, well I don't disagree with you, "it's just been my experience", so it's going to be biased, and like I said, I try to ignore it because it's not positive thinking to dwell on and it won't help anything. It probably doesn't help that I'm neurodivergent as well, so I'm sure when I was younger I had too many issues that some women were more than happy to leave...but I'm actually one of the people that don't get the alpha male thing, but it's kind of funny to hear people justify it for the same reasons I mentioned. Then it's not about having numbers or outcompeting other men, but not feeling vulnerable with women and getting used by them lol, which kind of makes more sense to me because that's an emotional motivation of being hurt and afraid that makes them abusive, whereas outcompeting men and just seeing women as nothing more than a score is kind of psychopathic. I don't really get that, but if you could explain it to me, I'd love to hear it.
But then the "alpha men" don't respect women because they don't feel women respect them is probably a thing. But I'd rather not have a relationship (because it won't be positive), if I gotta be like that, so I don't really get it anyway. Those people probably have a lot of dark triad personality traits and I've honestly never even met anyone like that anyway, so I don't put much stock in it. A lot of the internet talk about "alpha males" is kind of a show I think. Most men don't really want to be that, they just want women to respect them and so maybe it gets all the attention. I think there are a lot of sad and lonely people and they want a narrative that fits their experience, whether objective true or not. I mean let's say I grow up in a small town and all the women there are what I said they were; well obviously that doesn't apply to all the women in the world, but my subjective experience would still be true, so I'm not really sure why you feel the need to tell me I'm biased.
edit: As for why people want relationships. Who doesn't want love, affection, emotional support, understanding, intimacy, sex, someone to experience life with on the most intimate level and will help you and be with you at your worst (and best) moments? I think that's why I want a good relationship or that's what I want. I know that's probably asking a lot though. And it is very lonely without it or maybe it's because I've had a taste, so I know what I'm missing. The whole it's better to have loved and lost sounds like complete bullshit to me.
It's important to not try to vilify one side, or a group, but try to understand the phenomena and systems behind the problems that plague us and how they affect all of us. I'm not saying the issue doesn't exist so much as that by focusing on women and making them the cause of the problem you're not just antagonizing and needlessly tribalizing them but missing the forest for the trees. Like in the video you linked, is it really fair to cherry pick a group of women who are clearly in a position of privilege in society (just look at how they dress, where they are and their makeup) and thus have no idea what the realistic standards for the average man are supposed to be and extrapolate that towards the entire female population? Is there any indication that this sample of data isn't skewed and represents the entire female population at least in America? The signs point to the opposite. Is it really how most people experience dating? Are the people you meet on youtube surveys and TikTok videos a good representation of those you meet you in your life? If women in general have unrealistic dating standards, shouldn't they be incredibly lonely too, since they're going for a very low % of the male population, and themselves make up around 51% of the population, meaning there wouldn't be enough men to satisfy the women? Do you really think it's wage or height or facial features that are keeping most single people from dating? Why the sudden rise? It would be very historically significant if it was true, because obviously most people who don't fit the criteria have historically always managed to get around to finding someone. Does reality really reflect that?
Think about it, what has actually changed in the recent times and how it impacts people's sexual and dating lives. For one, there's the emancipation of women, who are rising in position in society and thus, by not depending on men to live, allowing themselves to express their preferences. But I don't think that reflects in salary, appearance or any of these superficial things and more about how they want to be treated. Someone who isn't abusive is respectful and is able to communicate and be emotionally available and supporting. It's fair to say, and the guys go over this in the video, that men are often not well equipped to deal with the emotional side of things, because they haven't been taught to. That's a problem in our society, but not one to blame on anyone but our history, the important thing is to try to improve because it's not too late. The other thing that has changed and greatily affects both genders, but moreso men is the rise of our isolationist culture. With the advance of the digital and the online and consequentially social media, along with late stage capitalism forcing people to work and/or study for over 60 hours a week in order to survive, it's no surprise that people have generally been hanging out and interacting in the outside world less. None of that is a coincidence, the fact is it's hard to meet people close to you when your vitamin D levels are too low. We've been leaving our homes less and substituing real life interactions with online, but they have vastly different dynamics and impact, to the point where we can't use one as the substitute of other. Everything is more artificial in the digital world. Furthermore, online we are much more likely to organize ourselves in niches and interests, which many times sends men and women in different directions, with hobbies like videogaming being historically male-dominated. Thus we reduce our chances of meeting someone of the opposite gender, of building real and long lasting full relationships, not just romantic but purely platonic ones too. It's just dating that's in decline, it's social interaction in general, including friendships. Feeling lonely makes us generally unhealthier, more prone to anxiety, insecurity, self-loathing, which makes us even less likely to fix that issue. It creates a massive negative feedback loop which is certainly affecting people's relationships. Men, due to the interests they more often grow up with, like the afromentioned gaming, are more easily pulled into this, but the reality is it affects us both.
That's the thing with the red pill ideology, they conjure arbitrary walls between men and women that make them seem much different than they actually are, in fact they refuse to acknowledge them as equals in any conceivable way and they analyze everything through the lens of males who are entitled to relantionships and sex. By having their preferences, women are denying them the sex they deserve. Apparently that's their fault for not accepting any man exactly for what he is and they should feel ashamed and acknowledge that they contributed to the creation of this culture, even though preferences aren't even up to the individual nor is there anything wrong with having them and complaining about them is hypocritical since everyone has standards. Not to say there aren't some problematic tendencies, like both men and women putting a lot more importance in the income of a man than of the woman, but that again just goes to show one of the ways we are equal, because we are both victims of the patriarchal baggage we carry that estabilished these standards for what both men and women should be or aspire to be. It hurts both of us.
I wonder if it was feminism is one of the thing that create red bill. Like one side get toxic so the other side get toxic as well. Jedi vs Sith
Ok lol.
I actually don’t understand these things very well. I’m not even intereste in relationship if not for socionic.
💯
Souls know their way back home
Agreed, I feel the same way.
Red Pill seems like a hierarchical Beta Quadra system
Souls know their way back home
Small addition: there is something of Gama NT in their writing
Souls know their way back home
The idea of IR is to get emotionally better pair and more useful cooperation.
As friendship relations are not done quickly, then IR is more about long relations preference. As to have friendship with more of people needs more efforts, then taking into account IR is more for those who limits the quantity and more values quality of relations.
There are instincts/wishes which are not always match between each other. Meanwhile to nature relate both contradicting sides.
Polygamy predisposition exists for both sexes. And also exists for both the wish to have emotionally good pair.
Can be supposed that for most of people of both sexes to have 1 human in a good pair is more emotionally pleasant and generally more useful cooperation than to have many with surface and so-so relations.
People seem are predisposed to make pairs for 3-4 years after what reduce sexual interest. [3-4 years is the time when in _natural conditions_ a human woman borns children and can't born other children during this time, as permanent style of giving milk to kids changes her hormones to levels when she can't become pregnant] Neither men, nor women have no significant problem to make monogamy relations for this time and during this time mainly evaluate relations as emotionally acceptable. And then similarly _both sexes_ surprisenly find relations as much lesser satisfying after this time.
So "female nature, hypergamy, male nature and polygamy" is wrong. The example of similar to humans predisposition to make temporal monogamy pairs exists at genetically close chimpanzees.
Can this predosposition be overcome? Good chance that - yes. There is nothing reasonable to think that friendship is limited by time. Mainly, during the said time there is no objective reduction of biology traits important for sexual interest. What happens - is just an instinct to change a pair, which predisposes to reduction of sexual attraction. In common situation, when people has not become good friends what stays between them is social situation and nothing else, as sexual attraction and the charm inspired by it is gone.
The other situation will be in case good friendship is established. It makes sexual attraction reduction going slower. And it allows to keep the interest to each other even if that "sexual attraction" will drop low. As objective reasons for this reduction do not exist, then after a time (when people have friendship emotional contact) - sexual attraction arises again. On practice this means - appears good and stable level of sexual attraction, which mb some lower than in beginning time.
The only objective biology changes happen - age. But same changes individual importance of sexual attraction - the instinct to seek a pair and make kids becomes lesser. Both processes compensate each other and the the interest to keep the pair stays as high. Such people evaluate to be in the pair as emotionally satisfying until end of life. In case both have established good friendship or love state, the state of joined minds and shared life.
The place of IR in this - to have them in good match helps to establish friendship. As people have similar important views, want the similar (functional values) and as they have different strong sides to be able to help each other (different strong functions).
IR applied to marriage pairs is hypothesis. Which has a chance to be checked in the future. It's stucked on the quality of typing methods. When there will appear more objective methods to decide about types (functional IQ tests, physiology params) - to make the mass research of IR influence will become not hard.
While, on today everyone may try the approach of good IR on own. By guessing Jung types (hard way). By intuitive evaluation of the state being in mind joining with other human for potential pair. You tune to personality of other human and imagine yourself alike "perceiving the world same as him" (do the introjection). The more you feel good in this state (pleasant, optimistically assured and strong, perceive the life more positively) and feel lesser of negative (pain or anxiety, doubts and dissatisfaction in yourself, exhaustion, perceive the life darker) - the more exist good psyche compatibility to establish friendship (it's general evaluation, not only Jung types may influence on such impressions). To deal with N methods of introjecton, tuning and mind joining helps a training. Also to feel and understand a human better is useful to have significant communications, better when two people do together the same tasks where they need to cooperate as equals.
Lol, red pill. I'm of the mind that not every woman wants someone who works out 24/7.
I'm of the mind that compatibility is 2 major things:
Random or circumstantial events, and the choices of the people involved.
Since random event are out of your control, I'd just focus on the choices.
As such, if you really want to know how compatibility works, just create a small little decision tree in your head, or on paper, wherever, and work through the major decisions and events you can have during or before a date to figure out whether anything here really would matter to you. And then see what you're willing to do out of those things. That's more or less all of the planning I'd do. For example, at looking clean for a date is something I'd care about. I can do that pretty easilly, so yeah, I think it's fair to be clean for a date. I'm not buying a 300 dollar suit for a first date, though, for example, so I wouldn't expect the other party to worry about it either. Then you'll want to decide what to do about this stuff. Do you specify that the date is going to be casual? Do you warn the person that you might be late because you just got off work, and need to take a shower? Etcetera, etcetera. It's a lot of logistics.
But yeah the focus of the matter is trying to look for someone who works for you, and doing what you can to meet that expectations of the other person, so you work for them. As such, you need to learn what the other person's expectations are. This means communication is important.
Red pill is about changing yourself for someone else. Both can work, both can fail, but I think red pill puts more of the stress on you, as it's not so much a two way thing. Communication might also break down, as you automatically assume what the other person wants by the nature of the red pill telling you. This can help if your goal is not to communicate, which is a valid thing to want. I'm pretty sure a lot of the people on tinder are not looking to talk over their problems per se. If meet the check boxes, you're golden for attracting those women, this can be appealing to some people of both sexes. As such, I can say for sure, that red pill does work some of the time, when the pre-drafted assumptions are agreed upon by both sides. Just don't go to deep, and don't take it too seriously.
So logistically, red pill is attractive because it gives young men a way to say I did all this, I should be getting a date. But if they have some flawed expectation, and some of them do, they're going to have problems meeting people without that flawed expectation, and this is where the randomness comes in.
If you have some high expectation, this means that you're most viable strategy is to date a lot of people until you find the right person for you. Make sense? So your most viable strategy is to do everything within reason for your date, and to not get so worked up if something doesn't work out.
So, yeah, while I don't follow red pill ideology myself, I do recognize that some people have had success with it. I'm just going to go my own way, and not worry too much about dating when I do it. My priority is going to be having fun, over appeasing the other person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
It has truth to it. There's obviously truth to almost all negative stereotype about any group of people even if it's not kind to point it out - although it's not really as true as incels make it out to be and those relationships are often unhealthy and don't last anyway. But they are jealous of it because the primal sex part is better than being rejected all the time. To be with women you either have to genuinely adore and love them or you have to trigger their primal sexual instincts - you can't be with them simply being superficially polite but then secretly/not-so-secretly being disgusted with them the way the incels do like Jason Alexander's character in that Pretty Woman movie. I think EIE's comment about it being an oversimplication was the best I was just trying to add to it lol.
To answer your question, IEI women can be especially sexually submissive and want a Chad that dominates her and can sometimes be too cruel and unkind to males genuinely being nice to them ((its like overly obsessed with Se dual seeking above all else)) and they can be annoying that way, kind of diarrhea of the mouth ish and they always play the victim of why they can't find a good relationship because they are constantly just looking for some dark bdsm lust thing that doesn't last or turn into anything positive or healthy. Yet the incels are jealous of the primal lust etc.
Esther Hicks is a woman and seems LSE or ESE and not very IEI-like at all and her husband Jerry seemed like aloof and sweet and genuinely good-hearted guy. Not some drug dealing alpha male. It's kind of overly paying too much attention to what IEI females are getting up to and unfairly applying that to all women. Like people are just so obsessed with what IEIs get into anyway don't they? Hi, Alive.
Facts = misogyny
"Precision beats power and timing beats speed"
I love how my quadra really doesn't care about any of this. I mean its happening, Rome needs its coins. But at the end of the day you get what you pay for.
Sorry thats so cryptic. But really is society going to change because of your movement? Probably but what are you willing to sell to make it happen? If you haven't been laid by 25-30, there is something deeply wrong about YOU, not "them".
If you are not manly enough then get on some testosterone. If you can't find any, look a little deeper, its easy to order online. I can hook you up with manufacturers in China. For real.
Also recommended is psychoactive drugs, you need to be tossed out of the default thinking mode, even periodically. 6 hours on 8 grams can change your entire internal framework. Buyer beware, it can also trigger latent mental issues that might take many turns around the sun to unravel, but maybe its for the best?
there. are. solutions. Be brave.
Last edited by Finaplex; 04-21-2023 at 06:17 PM.
I appreciate the sarcasm. I think its hard to deal with ANY person, regardless of sex, that acts entitled, bitchy. There are examples on all sides.
"be impeccable, a warrior is impeccable because he knows all his acts could be his last" - Don Matus, Dream of Ixtlan
I think something like like 60 percent of men in the west are sexless. Pretty sad at least the red pill acknowledge this fact and are mentoring men to find alternatives like going overseaa to find a wife or buy a sex doll.
"Precision beats power and timing beats speed"
There’s a growing amount of people who have not married compared to earlier years, yeah, but that’s probably because personal goals > raising a family of 7 at age 24. People are delaying marriage. I don’t think it’s a good or bad thing, just a choice. As such, the population might go down, but we kind of expected there to be a large die off with the baby boomers.
On a personal level, men and women aren’t in the same position where they have to get married as soon as possible or else there’s no possibility of having a family. ImI also think rising work demands, where you’re expected to either get an education or work below living wages, is dictating a lot of this decision. Women probably want to have careers now instead of living their lives stuck to some guy they dated for a 4 years that can barely support himself financially even though he works full-time and you never see him. It gives them an added layer of security having the job.
Note that in 1975, the period where everyone was getting married, only 10% of the population of women had a 4 year college degree, and a little less than 20% of men. College rates have gone up immensely. I’m thinking that this shows evidence that people are delaying marriage to work on their careers, and this will disproportionately affect some people. That coupled with rising cost of living means there’s going to be less kids. Hypothetically, people might date more in their 30s, meaning that in 5-10 years the stats will even out. At the very least marriage at 18 is kind of an antiquated thing. I’m sure there’s people who do that, but uh frankly, I consider it weird.
But yeah there’s a stigma against people not getting laid; I don’t get it. I’m of the belief that it’s fine to wait to date if you’re busy working all the time. For example, I’m gonna wait until I at least try my hand at business, but I’m gonna need money for that which will take around 5 years. Means I’ll probably start looking around age 30.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
63 percent of men under 30, and 32 percent of men(in the US) are single. 34 percent of women under 30 describe themselves as single, and 28 percent of women.
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-re...gle-americans/
I agree it's a sad fact, but I also think the "mentoring" done by the red pill community is mostly toxic (to both genders). At the same time, it is somewhat understandable that men's movements would become so popular since sadly it isn't feminists who care about men's issues in this society.Pretty sad at least the red pill acknowledge this fact and are mentoring men to find alternatives like going overseaa to find a wife or buy a sex doll
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
Toxic how though? Modern day society is toxic as whole. The only red pill content I'm not crazy about is pick up artists because these guys basically just get their value from sleeping with as many women as possible. However they have a lot of knowledge when it comes to relationships dating, women and female hypergamy etc.
"Precision beats power and timing beats speed"
Both are uniquely cringey
Both are down right stupid and too ideological to have some truth
Library because this site has become sort of an idiocracy
In the sense that they tend to preach a counter narrative to modern society (and I agree mdoern society has its toxic aspects) that doesn't get men to face their problems or society but only to withdraw into a kind of virtual or imaginary space. I'm thinking of MGTOW movements for example. I also dislike how the red pill movement tends to see everything as caused by biology - for example female hypergamy. While I think it is a thing, I also don't see any reason to think it is caused by genes as opposed to conditioning/society. It's quiet imprisoning to see everything as determined because it leaves you with little personal freedom to change anything.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
red pill is toxic baseless hogwash. they're all sexist who think all woman should be in the kitchen....exactly the types who will spend all their time with lotion and tissue paper getting off to VR porn and robot dolls. in the end, it's all about relationships and having mutual understanding with each other. these retards need to learn how to communicate. communication is key to love. love wins.
Take the green pill: Swear off women, make money.
MGTOW tells men to find their own path due to unfair legal system that benefits women. You're probably thinking about incels who are more Nhilistic. Female Hypergamy is a fact, if you read into evolutionary Psychology or even look at the bodies of men and women you see obvious sexual dimorphism. This is due to female pre selecting men due to favorable genetic traits such as height, board shoulders, Chizzeld jaw etc.
"Precision beats power and timing beats speed"
The couples I see are usually equally matched in terms of desirability/social status?
I really don't know much about red pill so I cannot comment in a knowledgeable sense... on the idea
but I have come across similar/splinters of this idea in videos and such I think; mostly stuff online
I don't know if I necessarily agree with that female nature hypergamy and male, polygamy; in fact I am quite adamant on the monogamous stuff and have absolutely come across men - family, friends, who desire the same in their life/parter/marriage whatever...
and female = hypergamy is interesting...
I am not sure I fully understand "social class" (unless its like... determined by your beauty? I can kinda get that idea, and/or wealth etc) but as to educational background... I would prefer someone around the "same" but the range is wide I think. And I don't even know if I would abide by this when it comes to actually having feelings and/or potentially marriage
I've learned at least one thing from the online manosphere: there is a lot of anger between low socioeconomic status black men and women.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
