all 101 comments

[–]1IVIaskerade 211 points212 points  (5 children)

Do you want a brand new lock on your door, or a lock that's had seven penises in it?

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]1IVIaskerade 21 points22 points  (2 children)

    Funny enough, I never had too much success with my "Dick Pick"

    [–]3 Endorsed ContributorF9R 20 points21 points  (1 child)

    You'll need a torsion wrench too; call a buddy to help you out.

    [–]3kempff 62 points63 points  (7 children)

    Well of course she was stumped. There is no rejoinder to a statement of truth.

    "The sky is blue." [Silence]

    [Four minutes later] yeah, but I'm not a slut

    [Eyeroll]

    [–]1redpillbanana 14 points15 points  (6 children)

    "Yeah? Why?"

    "Because i say so thats why."

    [–]nrjk 14 points15 points  (4 children)

    "Because I say so that's why."

    That's the most satisfying phrase a woman can give after a disagreement. It always symbolizes their rhetorical defeat. And they know it, too. Anything you say after that is just rubbing it in. I've heard this, or variations of it, from girlfriends, friends who are girls and my mom. I've even heard a few men say it.

    I think it goes back to when parents of young kids who have authority say it-"Clean your room." "Why?" "Because I said so." Children acknowledge the authority of their parents and when they grow in to adults they use it in a more playful manner to really mean, "I give up and can't possibly offer any opinion that is better."

    [–]3kempff 19 points20 points  (3 children)

    That's where the cliche came from, "Because I'm your mother".

    A father would never pull that kind of argument-from-rank on his own kids. "Clean your room." "Why?" "Because it's a mess."

    Women hide behind authority. Men exercise it.

    [–]AKTY 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Fathers absolutely do pull this kind of shit on their own kids. Trust me, that "because I said so" was my dad's favorite line to the letter as I grew up.

    Point is plenty of men hide behind authority too, don't kid yourself. It's a minority of men that understand how to exercise authority right.

    [–]nrjk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Excellent point. I remember several of the teachers I had using the "Because I said so" line. It really did piss me off. I'm actually a guy to listen to reason, even as a child. I still argue, sometimes playfully, but if an argument is good enough I'll listen to reason.

    [–]iPoPobeast 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    "Women hide behind authority. Men exercise it."

    This line just made my day. thank you.

    [–]AngraMainyuu 74 points75 points  (29 children)

    A lock that's opened by many keys is broken.

    But I love this analogy, because its so directly analogous. Ask a girl if she'd rather have a lock on her door that has seven unknown keys that could unlock it, or a lock that can only be opened by ONE key. Women are all about their safety and privacy, so they usually understand the importance of having a good lock. Right?

    Well to go one step further the key. It has to be the one special key that has the power to unlock the great lock in this case. The one that has to fit and knows exactly how to tick just the right tumblers in order to make the lock tingle its way open. In addition, the person who owns the key must be trustworthy, strong, and a fierce protector of the lock. This is the way that makes the most sense, and sounds like the traditional narrative.

    Sadly today's standard, the lock opens for multiple keys, and wonders why she keeps getting robbed.

    [–]GreatWhite_Buffalo 15 points16 points  (2 children)

    Dont judge her for the previous keys though.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter 32 points33 points  (0 children)

    ≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

    Repost this if you're a strong beautiful lock that don't need no master key!

    [–]lazypengu1n 10 points11 points  (0 children)

    one of her pins was out of alignment that night, but she's changed now. that key isn't her type anymore.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Women are notoriously bad at understanding analogies, instead focusing on how they feel about the analogy:

    "Omg, I can't believe they just said women are like locks, we're not even made of metal, smh"

    It's men with whom this particular analogy resonates with. No point in using it on women, really.

    [–]razor5151[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

    "I you had to choose between two things, a lock that can be opened by all keys, and a key that could open all locks, what would you choose"

    Short and to the point. :-)

    [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    I think you need to go further with this understanding than a simple lock/key analogy. "Oh yeah, it must be a shitty lock". But go further and understand why a woman is a lock.

    A man's sperm, (and to an extent men) are disposable; he produces literally hundreds of million per ejaculation.

    Women literally ovulate once a month. This difference is dramatic and enlightens the reason why women are more selective than men. This simple fact has manifested the "double standard" in the psyche through natural selection; a man is careless with his sex, a woman is much more selective.

    We have developed not only physical phenotypes through adaptation, but psychological traits to increase our fitness. Fitness is defined as an organisms ability to produce fertile offspring. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't mean the literal "fittest" by definition.

    If a woman fucks ten guys in one night, has she increased her chances of producing fertile offspring? Does this behaviour contribute to a higher level of fitness?

    If you put a male in a room with ten women, and he copulates with all of them, has he increased his chances of producing fertile offspring? Does this behaviour contribute to a higher level of fitness and further his chances of contributing to the future gene pool?

    I believe this is an essential dynamic in understanding the "double standard" of "sluts" and "players".

    [–]bam2_89 20 points21 points  (18 children)

    If you really want to stump them, elaborate on the lock and key analogy with male and female reproductive strategy. Male reproductive strategy is to maximize the number of females he impregnates while avoiding commitment. Female reproductive strategy is to extract maximum commitment from the best available male.

    If a woman is easy and does not insist on high standards, commitment, or both, she is a failure that we have decided to call a slut. The male who has sex with as many women as possible is a success. The male equivalent of a slut is not a direct comparison, but an equal and opposite one. The male slut is the beta orbiter who pays for shit, spends his time and energy, and rests his hopes on a particular woman and never gets sex out of it. That is our equivalent of a failure.

    [–]Ulquiorra_Schiffer 3 points4 points  (8 children)

    How would you categorize the mgtow? Through their own choice, they avoid sex with women because society is fucked. They've still failed as the goal of life is to pass along your seed as much as possible, but they also aren't giving any woman their resources.

    [–]Fuzzlefluff 9 points10 points  (3 children)

    They've still failed as the goal of life is to pass along your seed as much as possible

    This is your problem. MGTOW rejects the idea that the meaning of life is reproduction. Would you rather everyone have your hair color? or would you rather be the first man on mars? Sex is only going to help you with one of those goals.

    [–]markasstrick123 3 points4 points  (2 children)

    Primally, a mans success is built on how many women he fucks. However, we don't live in those days anymore. Success comes in many forms. Whose more of a badass? An astronaut that's been with with one women in his life who he's been married to for 20 years, or the fast food employee who has been with 20 worthless sluts? That's what I thought.

    [–]xcaptnwigglesx 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    I think in both cases the mistake you make is that success should be measured externally. The instant you measure success externally, you lose control entirely of the destiny of your outcome as an individual, a man, and a human. To measure success internally means to forgo any sort of objective comparison and measurement, but it means you take full responsibility for your destiny, accomplishment, and success.

    [–]newusername112 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    How do you realize and percieve your own success without measuring it against the world?

    [–]1Judasace 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    If you're a stupid simple animal, then sure, that's the goal. Of course, by those standards the guys with 12 different kids by 10 different women are top of the charts and you're a failure every time you use a condom.

    One of the most important lessons of TRP is that women aren't the center of the universe. If the only goal you have in life is fucking, then you probably need to expand your horizons a bit.

    [–]Hydris 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Mgtow don't exactly forgo women or sex. They just live thier life without the need for them.

    [–]bam2_89 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Voluntary celibacy would be a direct comparison. I guess they'd be the equivalent of feminists who decide they don't need a man. The only difference is that MGTOW don't need a tax base to support them.

    I'm not saying that passing your seed around as much as possible is the goal of life, it's just the baseline goal of reproduction we evolved with for thousands of years. In fact, the state has made that strategy wholly unworkable and our lifespan has made it less than ideal. Personally, I'm for a return to patriarchy and the abolition of no-fault divorce. Monogamy and patriarchy are not the instinctual nature of either sex, it's a compromise between alpha-male polygamy and peak-SMV-female hypergamy for the benefit of society.

    [–]dawg826 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    From the perspective of evolutionary biology, the man must succeed in two parts: maximize spread of his genetic material while minimizing his material investment. Clearly the second is of lesser importance. MGTOWs do fail at the first and more important task.

    From the perspective of living a good and fulfilled life, are the evolutionary successes the same as what will fulfill you? TRP is pretty divided on answering this question. Many will tell you that you must be slaying pussy to be happy, others will say you don't.

    [–]teeay 2 points3 points  (7 children)

    This is one of the parts of TRP wisdom that I struggle with. Why do we care how many men the women sleep with if there is no commitment extracted from the male? Why treat maximum impregnation as the goal, post mid-life vasectomy? Why not just do what feels good for both?

    So much of this sexual strategy stuff works differently when you're 20 to when you're 50. A mature woman who has many partners might just be strong, know what she wants, and be unashamed to go get it.

    [–]bam2_89 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    It's possible. Humans of both genders have the full range of emotion and motives. But possible is not probable. More likely, a person operating contrary to their sexual imperative is damaged. Due to birth control and prophylactics, that behavior isn't necessarily harmful physically, but the psyche hasn't caught up.

    [–]teeay 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Mate, by the time you get to 50, everyone's damaged.

    I think my point is unlikely because most people wouldn't shake the biologically based view - most people aren't that self-aware - but i suppose I'd be grasping at unicorns to suggest some could.

    [–]bam2_89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    That's part of the reason we developed monogamy: to avoid the trouble that goes with wading through Edna Krabapples in our twilight.

    [–]TheThingsIThink 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    The problem with promiscuous women is they tend to stay promiscuous. They are inclined to give less of themselves (they have already given it away), harbor fantasies about past lovers, and are more likely to cheat and file for divorce.

    [–]teeay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    So don't marry them, and don't depend on then exclusively for your sexual needs. Not sure about your "give less of themselves" logic, desire isn't a zero-sum game.

    Personally., I'd rather have a hot woman who knows what she wants and is passionate than a compliant and boring one. If the sex is good, who cares if she's getting some elsewhere too? (assuming common sense about diseases, etc).

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    If you're referring to simply fucking women, there is no conflict. Aside from potential STI risk there's no reason to avoid promiscuous women when spinning plates. If anything, they're much easier to score with.

    It's in regards to seeking commitment from a woman that you should be very, very cautious around women with slutty pasts.

    [–]teeay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Absolutely agree. But seeking commitment from women is exactly what I don't want.

    Perhaps it's my relative RP newness speaking but I had the impression that the standard response around here was to demand faithfulness/next their cheating asses if not. I'll read some more. Thanks.

    [–]CryptoManbeard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I wish I had gold to give for this.... Excellent analogy

    [–]1redpillbanana 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Yet another feminist losing the debate.

    Feminists are so used to our culture of "making women nod" that they're not used to any critical opposition - so when they do encounter it, they are taken aback and have nothing to counter with.

    "Because i say so thats why."

    Feminist arrogance in a nutshell.

    [–]ShagggyDog 29 points30 points  (5 children)

    "Because I say so that's why."

    The strongest logical statement all arguments with feminists conclude to. I can't really argue with that. Haha.

    [–]andyjeff76 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Actually that statement sounds like flirting.

    [–]Alegretron 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Feminazis only attack with vitriol online. In real life they flirt and are sub to alphas.

    [–]ShagggyDog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Exactly. That's when you win and time to collect the winnings.

    [–]Mechbiscuit 10 points11 points  (1 child)

    "Just say yes."

    Just not say no when he leads her to the bedroom.

    [–]Steve_Wiener 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    If I was there, I would have started a slow clap.

    [–]Modern__Day__Pricus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Exactly.

    The alpha female is one that becomes wallpaper on a man's sexual desire. SEXUAL, of course being the key term because for relationship long term wise if it does decide to go that far, the character she portrays will not last long.

    The "bimbo" act and concept is more so a "entrance" than the actual "store" if you get my drift. Her best weapons will ALWAYS be what she brings to the table sexually and submissive wise.

    This is why its always amusing when women get that "Oh my god no WAY" look in their face when you tell them WHY that guy likes you. SURE, AFTER he gets with you he MAY want to get to know you if he wants to either because he TRULY wants to, or simply because he is desperate and doesn't want to lose the pussy, but overall what you bring to the table is your looks and body. You being a object of desire is not a bad thing.

    http://associationofchronos.com/2014/09/19/objects/

    Why is it so wrong for a man to see women as such? Because these chicks want to be lied to and feel as if the idea of love and relationships is real. They want Santa Clause to be alive so bad

    http://associationofchronos.com/2014/07/18/santa-clause-is-real/

    Overall, sexual access is a woman's best weapon. Bitchy, rude, arrogant, etc only works for men that have no other choice and must deal with that type of woman. For the man that does have control and has earn the right to make his own choices though, if he could he would seek out what brings him pleasure first. His definition of the alpha woman would be different than the one forced down our throats

    http://associationofchronos.com/2014/10/19/the-alpha-female/

    Its all acts in the end when it comes to them. The only time you will see the "realness" of a woman is through pain and orgasm.

    [–]mangomangocheesecake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    don't stalk my history

    [–]lazzatron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Rofl when you said all she gotta do is say yes

    [–]Catch11 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    men don't have to do all that shit to get laid. only two requirement. look good and social skills . Also once you stop seeing sex as an achievement, somehow you get a lot more of it.

    [–]etcomro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    So you out-logic'd a woman.. not a big accomplishment. So the TRP helped you win an argument.. so what? Are you happier and better for it?

    [–]drfell101 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    A mans gotta look good, smell good, be loaded with money, be confident, drive a nice car, wear nice clothes, be tall, be charismatic, be alpha, have a sense of humor, be chivalrous, be funny, not to mention well endowed and muscular if he even wants a shot at bedding a woman.

    I just don't even know where you get this from. You seem to be suggesting that only a very, very, very small number of men ever actually get laid, because barely anyone has all of those traits.
    Also, maybe tell a story that actually happened and not one you daydreamed.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Only 40% of men historically reproduced, as compared to 80% of women. It's much harder to have sex as a man than as a woman. Thought this was obvious to everyone.

    [–]razor5151[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    Dude this actually happened. Not making this up.

    As far as your first point, yes i agree i may have exaggerated a bit, but still you will agree that men have it harder than women when it comes to dating.

    [–]markasstrick123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    You raped her how dare you you misogynistic pig! Nyah

    [–]Vegeta_is_king_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    This is glorious. If I would've been there I would've high 5d you so friggin hard and maybe even bought you a case of beer

    [–]ilovemyself101 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Story time! I argued against a good friends girlfriend on the pay gap myth.

    And got support from all the guys, the three girls arguing their case were stumped.

    The girlfriend stood up and screamed "fuck you guys" and threw her drink(not the container) at all the guys that supported me and stormed off with the 2 others in tow, to make sure she's "ok".

    You cant argue logically with women. They're overcome with emotions and when that happens their logical part of the mind is minimised so to speak, this is truth in men and women. However men are more difficulty to get emotional (unless roadrage/gaming/infidelity sort of scenarios)

    [–]sureshot8 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    /r/thanktrp stop spamming TRP prime with this shit.

    [–]TheSatoriMovement -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    If she really ended with "bc i said so" that must have been such a sweet victory

    [–]WhatsHerFace92 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    This really does depend on the level of quality you're looking for in a sex partner.

    A good looking guy that every girl wants to fuck isn't fucking a 300lb girl with a face piercing and pink hair. If a girl wants a quality fuck, she needs to do a lot more than say yes. Just a 'yes' will get them some deperate loser in a club who is going round every girl using the same lines until one gives him the time of day.

    We'd all get laid a lot more if we dropped our standards. Point is, nobody wants to (or has to, for that matter), but must take quality into consideration when this old argument rears its head.

    [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Not eating like a truck is insanely easy. And as a woman, that and be young is pretty much all you have to do to get pretty decently quality men.

    Try spending months and months learning form for a technical bodybuilding program, and then spending another two years or so to build up your muscle to the point where it is immediately noticeable to the other sex.

    Yes, if you want to achieve commitment from a high quality mate, you need to bring something to the table as a woman. But I suspect even the 300lb woman could get a dumpster diving hot guy if she was discreet enough/made it easy enough for him/had some redeeming feature (very large boobs, perhaps?)

    [–]WhatsHerFace92 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Perhaps, it of course depends on whether goals and ST or LT, and personal standards.

    There's a lot more to convincing a girl to have a ONS than being ripped. I think there is far too much emphasis on the male physique here in terms of its importance in getting laid. Muscles doesn't automatically make girls sleep with you. You need game. In some cases, game without muscle will work

    A lot of what women need to get laid in your opinion is beyond their control. You can only be between 19-25 once, and genetics plays a large part in what your body looks like regardless of the hours you put in to diet and exercise. If you're lucky enough to have a babyface as a woman, you could be mistaken as younger for a good view years before you hit 35.

    So again, standards play a part, as does goal in terms of ONS or relationship.

    [–]chewis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    How dare you make her feel stupid, you insolent, pro-rape pig??