top 200 commentsshow all 338

[–][deleted]  (33 children)

[deleted]

    [–]I-Am-Dickish 35 points36 points  (4 children)

    You've just become accustomed to the average content. After you understand the basics, most posts are insanely repetitive.

    This is when you take more of a mentor role. Correct wrong impressions and all that shit.

    [–]Endorsed ContributortrpSenator 9 points10 points  (1 child)

    That's true, I think. I know, at least, whenever I come on I skip over a majority of the stuff. I just read it and think, "Yeah, yeah yeah, I've heard it a hundred of times." Then go trolling around for something interesting, but even then I hardly participate.

    I mean, I've literally learned all I have to learn, and from here on out I'm very aware of my strengths and weaknesses I need to work on, so new posts really don't add much. Which is why I think the half life of a member around here is probably 6-10 months.

    Though, every now and then something interesting will come up that I just have to participate in, similar to debating religion or something. I know everyone already knows the answers, or at least someone else will make my same point, but sometimes I just want to participate.

    Now, I browse far more casually and comment less serious. I think IM's posts are the only ones I make sure to click every time.

    It's rare to have people like the mods who stick in it for long periods of time.

    [–]1-drukpa-kunley- 17 points18 points  (24 children)

    This happens to every online community. As more and more of the slack-jawed troglodytes get involved, the collective IQ of the community gets debased. And I for one applaud the mods for their swift use of the ban hammer. Without that we would quickly be overrun.

    But there is a whole movie about this dynamic: Idiocracy.

    [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 4 points5 points  (18 children)

    But there is a whole movie about this dynamic: Idiocracy.

    Man that movie was boring as shit. Underwhelming, and I suspect the major point it was trying to drive home was missed by the majority.

    [–]1-drukpa-kunley- 7 points8 points  (17 children)

    I agree. It was painful to watch at points. Its hard to make stupidity funny. "Everybody knows you never go full retard." But the underlying observation about the decline of societal standards was spot-on.

    [–]abcd_z 1 point2 points  (16 children)

    Meh. People have always been complaining about the decline of societal standards, and people today aren't fundamentally different from how they were, say, 2000 years ago.

    [–]1 Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 16 points17 points  (10 children)

    “Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.” - Socrates

    [–]southernmost 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    You'll notice that Greece was conquered by Rome just a couple hundred years after Socrates' time.

    [–]2Mt_Arreat 87 points88 points  (2 children)

    The OP, whether aware or not, is speaking from a very Nietzschean viewpoint. Friedrich Nietzsche is popularly referred to as the founder of the school of thought of nihilism - a philosophy suggesting that morals are subjective and do not exist in an objective sense (i.e. the universe is without meaning).

    Of course, in a totally amoral universe, excessively antisocial behaviour would be rampant without deterrents to those who harbour feelings that this behaviour is acceptable. Machiavellianism as a default platform for behaviour would hypothetically become a norm.

    However, Nietzsche did not preach the virtues of nihilism. He actually identified nihilism as being a pervasive issue in society, suggesting that destructive and antisocial behaviours will rise as a result of "the death of God", which he meant as a metaphor for Christian values becoming less and less important in Western society as the Church lost power (irrelevant to my point, but good to know for context).

    His proposed solution to a nihilistic universe was that humankind must take the next step in its evolution, socially. It became man's duty to evolve into the Übermensch, or super man. Not in the sense of leaping over buildings and having a weakness to Kryptonite, but instead that this new kind of person must go above and beyond, and become superior to his predecessor.

    Interestingly enough, we at TRP simply know this as MGTOW. Not all Übermensch are MGTOW, as the measure by which the meaningfulness of the life life of an Übermensch was how he advanced future generations of humankind (or even his own lineage). This idea also ties in with another popular book within the Manosphere - Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius, where he refers to the concept of being a citizen of the universe, with a duty to all intelligent creatures.

    Nietzsche even noted that the primary aspiration of a woman should be to give birth to, and raise, an Übermensch.

    From Wikipedia:

    Zarathustra presents the Übermensch as the creator of new values. In this way, it appears as a solution to the problem of the death of God and nihilism. If the Übermensch acts to create new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism, there is nothing that this creative act would not justify. Alternatively, in the absence of this creation, there are no grounds upon which to criticize or justify any action, including the particular values created and the means by which they are promulgated.

    This refers to the antisocial and Machiavellian modus operandi OP and I have both referred to.

    The polar opposite of Nietzsche's Übermensch, is Nietszche's "Last Man".

    The last man is a term used by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra to describe the antithesis of the imagined superior being, the Übermensch, whose imminent appearance is heralded by Zarathustra. The last man is tired of life, takes no risks, and seeks only comfort and security.

    Sound familiar? Nietzsche was Red Pill as fuck. He identified the concepts of "Alpha" (beyond "fuck bitches get money") and "Beta" way before our time, and he cleverly suggested it was everyone's duty to evolve to become the so-called superman.

    Further reading:

    • Thus Spake Zarathustra - Nietzsche
    • Meditations - Marcus Aurelius

    P.S. To the OP, thanks for posting this. It's nice to see some content that isn't totally fucking stupid for once.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    This comment needs much more visibility, regardless of one's personal ethics. It's a very nice summary of Nietzsche's philosophy.

    [–]Upvote Me!trpbot[M] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Confirmed: 1 point awarded to /u/Mt_Arreat by Cyralea. [History]

    [This is an Automated Message]

    [–]DRMMR76 49 points50 points  (7 children)

    Thank you /u/IllimitableMan for posting this. This is a great counterpoint to some of the nonsense that has been tossed about here.

    Perhaps sexual strategy itself is amoral. Perhaps TRP is supposed to be. But it's not. We've had numerous stories about non-sexual based topics since I've been on here. We're currently going through the "48 Law of Power", which is almost entirely non-sexual. So the argument that no other types of topics belong on TRP because we're only her to talk about amoral sexual strategy is bullshit.

    You bring up some fantastic points. Man has the capacity to either be rational and productive, or irrational and destructive. Those of you who glibly talk about taking another man's wife or girlfriend, should keep in mind that there are no contradictions in life or reality, which are the same. If you encounter a contradiction, check your premises. One of them is wrong. What if someone were to kill your family, or rape(real rape, not regret "rape") a relative, would you feel anything at all? Would you have an emotional reaction? Why? Something inside you would say that it as wrong. For whatever reason you choose, the human animal has developed something we call an conscience. Man is a moral animal. We have the capacity to have values.

    In women, we call the ability to "rationalize" two disparate realities as hamstering. Hamstering at its core is the ability to convince oneself of a contradiction. We see it every day from women. Something she believes is right for her to do but wrong for anyone else. A contradiction of values. We rightly decry this as destructive and while we seek ways to use it to our advantage, we never say that it is "right" or rational. Reality is. A is A. And one can chose to ignore reality, but one can never choose to ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

    But that is exactly what these men are doing, these men who spout nihilism, choose to act without honor, values, ethics, or respect. Again, what if someone drove to your house and murdered a member of your family? Would it be wrong? If yes, than it is also wrong if you were to do it. Making a conscious choice to do preemptive harm or destruction to another is wrong Now what if someone drove the murderer to your house, knowing that he was going to kill someone in your family? Would you hold the driver entirely blameless? If not, we can conclude that making the conscious choice to enable someone else to preemptively cause harm or destruction to another is also wrong. And if it's wrong on one level, it's wrong on all levels. If it's wrong for one persons, it's wrong for all. Contradictions do not exist. Exceptions to rules disprove the rules.

    Ideas themselves may be amoral, but your own actions are not. They can never be. Even something as simple as choosing to eat a Twinkie over broccoli is in some way more. Moral is that which is constructive. Immoral is that which is destructive. We talk all the time about building yourself up, increasing value, being productive, living your own life in a positive way. Is that not morality itself? Making a conscious choice to be constructive. And the inverse would be anything that destroys. If your choices are consciously harming yourself, or another, they are immoral. The concept of honor was created by man to promote moral acts of construction and decry immoral acts of destruction.

    Women are not entitled to the reality of their choosing. We all know this. Well, neither are men. If something is wrong if it is done to you, it is wrong when you do it to someone else. You are not entitled to your own special reality where everything you do is OK because you just call it "amoral" but wrong if others do it to you. And if you're going to take that route, you must be consistent. If your actions are amoral to you, the actions of others in response to you must also me amoral. If you sleep with another man's wife and say it's OK, you must be willing to admit that if he does it with your wife it's also OK. And as another poster said, if he chooses to blow you away with a shotgun, that must also not be amoral to you. You are not entitled to contradictions.

    And IM was right on another point. Theory can always be amoral. But your actions can never be. If we hold that which is constructive to yourself or others as moral, and that which is destructive to yourself or others as immoral, than every action you take will be one or the other. Consciously choosing to employ an amoral theory in a destructive way is immoral, whether you want it to be or not. Again, you're not entitled to a special reality just for you where you can hamster away all of your own actions as fine for you, but then apply a different standard to others. Everything you choose to do to others you must accept them doing to you, or whatever reaction they have to what you have done. You live in a world with other people who have just as much right to their lives, property, relationships, and happiness as you do. If you act destructively, you will and should reap destruction and you have no right to complain when and if it happens.

    [–]JACKDOGBOB 6 points7 points  (2 children)

    Spot on. What disturbs me about this sub sometimes is the amount of guys that seem to gloat or take pride in fucking another man's gf/wife and writing it off as simply amoral or a fulfillment of some sort of Darwinian system. Dont you people see how many relationships and families you destroy? In fact many men KILL themselves after something like this happens to them. Go look at the numbers. Do you want to be responsible for that? Is it worth getting your dick wet? I thought this sub was sexual strategy. It seems to be filled more and more with deviants and the sadistic.

    [–]tyranus89 10 points11 points  (2 children)

    really it's amoral because existential nihilism and science!

    Society's emphasis of science without the backing of philosophy has led to this insanely ignorant mindset, which is a huge part of the "decline" that we all lament, yet most of TRP is a part of. Kudos to /u/illimitableman for pointing this out.

    Blame whomever you want, but not too long ago basic philosophy and moral systems were a major part of high school and even elementary school education. This has been lost on us, and now we're paying for it.

    [–]AdmiralVonJackass 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    If it comes down to a choice of momentary sexual satisfaction versus the actualisation of your own character and dignity, I would hope that this place has done a good enough job in teaching us what the right decision would be.

    [–]TheLameloid 77 points78 points  (45 children)

    I find men that justify fucking someone's wife behind his back repugnant. They are accomplices of the woman's moral felony. Of course, they would spare no punishment for both parties, if they were to be cheated on by their partners.

    These men are the proof that hamstering is not a women-only phenomenon.

    [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 52 points53 points  (1 child)

    100% agree with your post. I despise the hamster in a man even more than in a woman. Men at least have a capacity to be logical and clear-headed should they opt to be. Women on the other hand - not so much.

    [–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (12 children)

    An exclusive relationship is a contract pact between two partners. The dude fucking the wife is not part of it.

    [–]sunwukong155 7 points8 points  (6 children)

    I do see your point.

    But what about fucking a dude's wife is "sexual strategy". Fucking a dude's wife simply represents a lack of effective sexual stategy, unless she is just that hot. Fuck someone else, if you are so "Alpha".

    This entire issues falls under the issue of "a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men." Which is one of the 2 central topics of TRP. Fucking that dudes wife contributes to the decline and lack of a positive identity for men, and that is important to many of the subscribers here.

    All OP is saying is that you should just admit what you are doing is immoral. You are immoral, so what? If that hurts you to admit to yourself maybe you need to examine your life a bit closer and stop fucking other dudes wives. Just a thought.

    [–]fromthebottom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Fuck someone else if you're that alpha.

    This is actually beautiful, because a lot of men seem to think banging a taken girl = bragging rights.. Turning her down and getting it elsewhere is much more admirable.

    [–]Goupidan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Valid point.

    However, shouldn't accomplices should be as equally guilty in the commission of an act?

    [–]sunwukong155 4 points5 points  (5 children)

    Back in the day they would both be stoned.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 1 point2 points  (18 children)

    It's amusing that you use charges of hamstering to guise your own white-knighting.

    You don't owe it to anyone to keep their relationship intact. You automatically assume the man was the instigator in forcing infidelity. That's the type of blue-pill indoctrination that leads to white-knighting. Does a woman have no agency in maintaining her fidelity? Is she not the one who made the agreement to be monogamous?

    Unless he is someone close to me I don't owe other men anything. Stop feeding into the self-sacrificial male martyr nonsense.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Does a woman have no agency in maintaining her fidelity? Is she not the one who made the agreement to be monogamous?

    Exactly right.

    The reason why OP and many comments have gone done this road is because white knighting = moral high ground.

    Let's face it, feeling better than someone else feels damn good. And moral superiority is an easy way to accomplish that because it's not an empirical measure; it's not money, height, benchpress, etc, which can all be measured clearly.

    With morality, all you must do is pontificate with a 2,000 word post with name-calling and if you come off as passionate, people believe you and give you credit ("hey, this guy is serious...must be onto something!") because ultimately, it comes done to SUBJECTIVE opinion and personal choice.

    That's why "purpose" is so tempting to men; men naturally crave purpose in their lives. And defending "honor" in the abstract gives men purpose. And defending another man's woman is now fashionable.

    That is why OP is so confused; he can't fathom his life without purpose. He railed against "free love" with no motivations because he still imbues purpose into his relationships with women.

    But all that bullshit leads to projecting desires that women "should act a certain way", whereas true detachment is recognizing what women do, accepting it, and then dealing with it.

    Does a woman have no agency in maintaining her fidelity?

    According to OP, no she doesn't. He explicitly said in a response to me that the 3rd man is responsible because "what she is doing is wrong, so you're enabling her. Thus, you are just as guilty". Fucked up.

    [–]TheLameloid 1 point2 points  (16 children)

    You automatically assume the man was the instigator in forcing infidelity.

    Instigator ≠ accomplice. I see here all the time that if a woman wants to cheat on his partner, she doesn't care who she uses to do it (as long as he meets her standards). Don't put words in my mouth.

    Does a woman have no agency in maintaining her fidelity? Is she not the one who made the agreement to be monogamous?

    I never said that you should take the proverbial bullet for fucking someone's wife. She still is as guilty as she can be.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 10 points11 points  (15 children)

    Accomplice to what? That word is typically reserved for crimes. There is no crime being committed here. Accomplice to cheating? How can you be an accomplice to cheating if the arrangement was strictly between two people? Would you consider a family lawyer an accomplice to divorce?

    She still is as guilty as she can be.

    She is the only one guilty. She entered a monogamous pact, she is the one willfully breaking it.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    There is no crime being committed here. Accomplice to cheating? How can you be an accomplice to cheating if the arrangement was strictly between two people?

    Read my comments at the bottom of this post. I directly bring this up and it's completely ignored.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    My top level posts are being similarly downvoted. Not sure if it's because of fledgling TRP'ers or a BP brigade.

    [–]useyourmouth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Traditionally, marriage was not simply an arrangement "strictly between two people," but rather was considered a public act, where two people are held out to the community at large as married (in an exclusive union for the purpose of procreation and mutual support or love) and the community/society/government/etc. in return recognized them as such. For instance, a man and a woman could not just perform the marriage ceremony by themselves in private, they needed a third party--typically a priest or some other leader--and usually at least one third-party witness was required. This is because society, at least until recently, recognized that the institution of marriage and the marital family were beneficial to society at large, not just the husband and wife.

    [–]Ralt 3 points4 points  (2 children)

    Ugh, downvoted for speaking the truth. I see the broknights and traditionalists seem to have stopped posting and instead just silently downvote to avoid getting banned.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    We're also likely being brigaded. BluePillers seem to have an affinity for our highest voted posts, they tend to hop in once in a while and mass downvote.

    Ah well.

    [–]JACKDOGBOB 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Adultery used to be a crime actually. Stillis in a religious context.

    [–]2RedPillSafe 8 points9 points  (2 children)

    Excellent Post.

    Altruism (morality) is a learned trait.

    We begin with MGTOW which is the morality of taking care of only yourself.

    Next we learn to care about our children and family.

    Next we learn to fight for our tribe.

    ...with each expansion of our Altruism (morality) we expand our limits of who we consider worth helping.

    At some point this process breaks down.

    • Do NOT have Altruism towards those who are of no relation or value to you.

    This should be obvious, but Feminism has indoctrinated us with the idea of "universal egalitarian humanity" where we become blind to the QUALITY of our relationships. Feminism wants our commitments to be unearned.

    Seek QUALITY, avoid EQUALITY.

    Morality extends to those you consider "allies" (quality relationships) but does not extend to others.

    When in doubt offer less Altruism rather than more.

    Give nothing for free, but don't violate others needlessly for fear of revenge.

    [–]DRMMR76 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    I would be careful using the word altruism and equating it directly with morality.

    One can choose to help others. One can choose to harm others. One can choose to do neither.

    Only helping would be altruistic, while helping AND doing neither could be considered moral. The absence of actively helping someone is not the same as choosing to harm them. The debate currently being discussed is if sleeping with an attached person is moral, and if it even matters if it's moral.

    The subject would be the other persons husband/boyfriend. I believe that the altruistic response would be to not only not sleep with the wife, but to tell the husband of her plans. That is going out of your way to help him. The immoral choice would be to sleep with her. And the the moral but non altruistic choice would be to do neither. Just choose not to associate yourself with that act, but also not go out of your way to tell him.

    The excuse that "well someone is going to do it, might as well be me" is more male hamstering. Just because people are stealing property in a riot and you can reasonable assume that if you don't steal a TV someone else will does not mean it's right for you to do it. Performing an action that you know will cause another person duress (without them initiating such actions first) is immoral. It doesn't become moral due to a group mentality. Anarchy is all fun and games til everyone is doing it. Then you're just another dead body on the side of the road.

    Your self worth as a man in a truly objective sense can be directly tied to how moral you are (no necessarily altruistic). Just as there is nothing wrong with honest selfishness. In economics if I am selling you a product I will selfishly try to get the best price I can for it, and you will try to get the lowest price. That's selfishness for both of us, but it is not immoral as long as we're both consenting parties dealing with each other honestly. If I sell you something I know is faulty or you try to pay me with counterfeit currency, we are also being selfish but in a dishonest way. It's not the selfishness that's immoral, not the idea of wanting a product for the best price, but the actions we take going about it.

    And whether one wants to acknowledge it or not, we still live in a social world and you don't get to just make up your own rules as you go along.

    [–]2RedPillSafe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I agree.

    There are two sides to morality because one is to be helpful and the other to be hurtful.

    My point was that morality should be an extension of a winning strategy in life.

    Altruism towards unrelated people is a bizarre concept that emerged from the egalitarian ideal.

    Feminists desire Altruism as a standard because they want betas that GIVE COMMITMENT for free to everyone.

    Don't resist the urge to be sexually amoral because you think you must be altruistic and a "nice guy", instead you resist the urge because as a stoic man living wisely there is no benefit to acting on foolish situations.

    • Be wise, don't waste energy on stupid amoral sexually painful situations.

    • Be wise, don't waste energy on altruism towards unrelated persons.

    [–]SariaLystra 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    I think you're onto a greater point. I definitely agree with the major points and bold points you've hilighted. Is life inheriently amoral? To an extent yes: evolutionary biology would suggest that helping someone is only done when you expect something in return and on that basis, an abstraction of morality can be made.

    Furthermore, I agree with your point about the whole justification of acting like a slut via nihilism. But I think its more of nihilism and post-modernism masquerading as "freedom." This is because the question and burden of proof has shifted from "why" to "why not." For instance, instead of asking "why should you be allowed to sleep with 100 dudes before marriage," more people are asking "why cant' I be allowed to sleep with 100 dudes before marriage." The reason is a misunderstanding and (deliberate) misinterpretation of "freedom." For women, this "freedom" comes with no strings attached because men are always there to take the fall hence she has no responsibility. Men cannot posit the same assumption because they are forced to take responsibility for their actions (and other people's actions).

    Finally, this piece is very good as being a "back of the envelope" explanation for why anyone should act in a moral manner. Of course, many philosophers have a few books dedicated to the subject but I think this is one of the better "quick and dirty" articles to warm people up to the idea. For future reference, tone down the language: sometimes it detracts from the point. But keep it up. I want to see more of these topics.

    [–]moodymela 60 points61 points  (44 children)

    I am so glad someone posted this. It's like I said back in another thread: If you want to fuck around with someones woman and feel no moral obligations I hope when her man puts a shotgun to your face you don't feel he's morally obligated to not pull the trigger.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    The issue of one's security is a pragmatic issue, not a moral one. Fear of retribution is a logical reason to avoid married women, not a moral one.

    [–]1aguy01 21 points22 points  (30 children)

    It is just as amoral to blow someone's brains out as it is to fuck a man's wife.

    [–]moodymela 28 points29 points  (19 children)

    The point of this thread that there are no morals. We made them up. The universe is entirely indifferent to our existence on this planet. Hence if you're okay with fucking someone's wife because it's amoral, well then, so is murder.

    [–]tyranus89 11 points12 points  (0 children)

    The point of this thread that there are no morals

    No, it's that there is no morality outside of agency. In other, less accurate words, there's no objective morality of the universe that binds to creatures.

    There is morality; it exists, and we follow it. It can even be argued that we haven't created it per se (see deontology and utilitarianism).

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]jamesodinson 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      You don't owe any one else shit, nor they you.

      You're right, no one owes anyone a damn thing. However, what happened to doing the "right thing" just because it is the "right thing". (Note: I put those in quotations because obviously everyone has different ideas of what is right.) It seems to me like TRP is about being the best man you can be regardless of what others do and not because of women, but because you want to be the best for yourself. This is just my $.02, perhaps I'm misinterpreting.

      [–]rpkarma 6 points7 points  (2 children)

      Murder is far worse than infidelity. And I'm obviously too young and in the wrong country, the worst you're risking here is a beating. Unless it's a bikies wife or something I guess, and in which case I've got little sympathy, you'd have to be a special kind of retard for that.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]rpkarma 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        No, I was, it's just i targeted my hatred and anger at her, not him.

        [–]2jagrmeister721 4 points5 points  (3 children)

        Interesting viewpoint. Much of society's moral and legal direction is to aim us towards a blue pill provider life....like outlawing and stigmatizing sex outside marriage (one example would be prostitution). An 'upstanding' 'moral' man becomes 'responsible' by marrying a woman and having a family. So I am fine bucking "society's morality" and even some of its laws that are not in my interest. But that doesn't mean I kick my conscience into the ocean. Instead I follow my own personal morality and sense of fairness.

        I sometimes fear we will end up emulating a woman's worldview by adopting pure opportunism- doing what one can get away with. I've always felt men live by values; by seeing the big picture. To me, that's what morality is about. Women tend not to have long-term orientation, they function on feeling. We have best friends for life, guys we went to school with, while women go through BFFs every year. We keep hobbies for life, we build businesses across a lifetime. That kind of long-term mindset knows that doing right by other people pays dividends in your own life. It's not a goodie-two-shoes mentality; you can live a successful, uncomplicated life by joining your goals with a moral code that considers the well-being of others. To me, that's a key way the genders differ.

        Separating actual morality (and consideration for others) from society's bullshit blue-pill social engineering masquerading as 'morality' is key.

        [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        This is a commendable post and I share it's sentiment 100% (unless you edit in something after my making of this statement.)

        [–]Glenbert 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I sometimes fear we will end up emulating a woman's worldview by adopting pure opportunism- doing what one can get away with.

        This times a million. This is why I can't dissociate masculinity with morality. Even when I was a libertine, I rarely saw other libertines as true masculine role models. It all just seemed so... feminine.

        [–]Alegretron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Great post... I now wonder how many of the prostitutes I boned over the years where married:)

        [–]Quillz 10 points11 points  (0 children)

        Thanks for posting this. There has been some real bullshit posted lately, and I feel like this is a good counter to all that garbage.

        [–]ibuprofiend 27 points28 points  (14 children)

        Endorsed contributor vs. the mods. Let's see how this plays out.

        [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 27 points28 points  (12 children)

        This assumes I am against the mods. I am not. I have a great relationship with the mods. I am simply building upon their view, not contesting it. My view is perfectly in line with the mods, read paragraph 6. You have misinterpreted my post, but I did not expect it to be easily comprehended or become a top subreddit post. I expect it to piss a few people off. I also expect some people to totally misunderstand me. I also expect some blue pillers to say I'm on crack and maybe seeing the light (too bad guys, I'm still an asshole despite my lucidity.) I also expect some people to try and attack my psyche in the comments. I expect a lot of mental violence and misconception. I am simply ranting. If some people find some value in this and gain some elucidation, then cool. That's ultimately the purpose of the thread, not a challenge of the status quo. The mods do a great job here and I support them 100%, this was written for educational purposes, not out of discontent.

        [–]I-Am-Dickish 9 points10 points  (3 children)

        I honestly can't see this post being attacked significantly. This subject has been discussed a bit in purple pill and your post sums up the conclusion. Amorality is generally only used to analyze a situation free of bias. Everything can be viewed amorally and you don't have to justify that view. Amorality only applies to theories while morality applies to actions.

        Also the amount of hamstering it takes to view fucking a mans wife as ok (and telling him is better) is hilarious. They won't last long, some beta will snap and shoot them.

        [–]Human_v2 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        I think you've got it right here.

        To expand - all actions are covered by morality, you can never do something and claim it is 'amoral'. What the word applies to is the discussion of theory in this subreddit. If we want to understand what it is that makes women in relationships easy to sleep with we have to suspend discussion on whether it is moral or immoral to do so.

        Discussion of morality is simply irrelevant to the overarching theme of the subreddit - understanding of sexual interactions. Imo there shouldn't be any discussion of what to do with the knowledge and even in examples of 'immoral' actions, focus on what the interaction means and what we can understand from it. To argue that some stranger was immoral in one instance is pointless, if you think it's immoral then don't do it.

        As the OP says, have your own moral values which guide your actions. If you want to be destructive, go ahead but don't try to justify yourself as anything but.

        [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        I honestly can't see this post being attacked significantly. This subject has been discussed a bit in purple pill and your post sums up the conclusion. Amorality is generally only used to analyze a situation free of bias. Everything can be viewed amorally and you don't have to justify that view. Amorality only applies to theories while morality applies to actions.

        Perfect summation and really clear. Particularly on amoral = theory, morality = action. I would show up in PPD in my sparsely spare time, but the few times I went I saw too far too much nitpicking so noped the fuck out of there.

        [–]I-Am-Dickish 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I agree on PPD. To many people there just want to rage and force their opinion down the others throat. Personal attacks run rampant. It's hard to hold an intelligent debate staring at each other through scopes.

        [–]1Dev_on 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        makes sense to me.

        If you're an asshole, own it, because women hamster.

        [–]ibuprofiend 20 points21 points  (6 children)

        Basically you're saying that we should apply morality to sex, but we have to keep quiet about it. We can't stand up for our beliefs (because that would be "broknighting" - a ridiculous term).

        I guess that's a balance or middle ground, but it's not something many people will be happy with.

        (edit because I saved too soon)

        I see this debate as concerning the direction TRP will take in the future. A large group here think of TRP as an animalistic, hedonistic, and largely nihilistic approach to life where you give up on modern society and try to act like an alpha monkey from the fucking jungle while civilization burns around you. Other groups want TRP to be about improving the lives of men, not pussy-worshipping wannabe animals. There's no other well-known place online where men can come together and freely discuss culture, politics, etc., but now lots of guys are being pushed out, and our haven from feminism, etc., is disappearing.

        The comments on this popular post from /r/ seduction illustrate how TRP is now viewed as short-sighted and nihilistic, even by the PUA community, while the actual post in that link shows how a man of honor and integrity should act.

        TRP should be a great community that welcomes free and open discourse, not a dogmatic ideology, and I'll gladly sacrifice the latter for the former.

        [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

        I used to subscribe to seddit. It went to complete shit a few months ago. Success is now getting a kiss after a date.

        That said, TRP is trending the same direction. Also I have no idea what I'm talking about.

        [–]Phaint 13 points14 points  (1 child)

        A few months ago? Try years.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I lost interest around the time that Models was gaining popularity, which upon review was almost 4 years ago O.O

        [–]sir_wankalot_here 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Read my comment. OP is not saying anything of the sort. You are sticking words in his mouth.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Despite the constant charges against us, TRP is not a hivemind nor a circlejerk. TRP isn't monolithic.

        It's possible for there to be some disagreement in areas that are inherently subjective, like morality.

        [–]macguffin22 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        I have mixed feelings on the subject. I have been gradually coming around to red pill thinking over the last few years. While my own personal negative experiences with women were a big art of my taking the red pill, the thing that fundamentally changed my perspective was actually listening and watching the women around me. I've worked in healthcare for years and I'm mostly around females all day. What I finally came to realize was that, specifically in regards to their romantic/sexual relationships with men, females are essentially amoral. I noticed that girls who cheated on or humiliated a guy never actually expressed remorse because they believed they had done something morally wrong. They would express regret about the CONSEQUENCES they may have to face as a result, but never the actions themselves. Anyway, the point is that I grew up with a father who relentlessly cheated on my mother and it had very negative effects on my childhood. Until my TRP awakening, I was fundamentally opposed to cheating, and would absolutely refuse to hook up with a girl if I knew she had a LTR. Well now I can't really see why it's a problem. I mean, from what I've observed, women almost never cheat in isolation. If a women will cheat with you, she has almost definitely done so in the past and will do so again in the future. Personally I'm not going to start seeking out married or taken women to sleep with, but if i find out after I'ts not going to affect me other than crossing her off the LTR potential list. Basically I agree with you in principal, but I just accept that it doesn't matter. If you don't want to fuck married women because you feel its beneath you or wrong, that's fine and I can respect that. Just please don't expect very many people to agree with you or support your thinking. Few men and almost no women actually give a shit about respecting another persons relationship. Let it go.

        [–]Stopher 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        From a pure evolutionary standpoint "morality" is only one more evolutioanary behavioral trait. People follow moral rules because those people tend to live longer and reproduce more. If that stops working "morality" will die out and it doesn't matter what anyone here says. Behavior can be an evolutionary trait just like hight or color or mass. Reminds me about how bees will fight for the colony. Something I read about "I'd give my life for my child or 4 cousins".

        [–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (6 children)

        I forget who it was, but one of the authors of one of those recent controversial posts implied that morality and having a conscience is the result of men being feminized. That bullshit is getting really old. I unsubscribed from this sub when I read that, and then subscribed again when I saw this upvoted. Thank you for posting this.

        [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 10 points11 points  (5 children)

        one of those recent controversial posts implied that morality and having a conscience is the result of men being feminized.

        What unenlightened trite. Women certainly didn't invent morality did they? Anything but. Morality, like greater philosophy and law itself are actualisations of abstract male thinking allowed to flourish organically via patriarchy. In female dominated societies like the one we have now, morality falls to the wayside, and the law becomes increasingly corrupt. Whoever thinks these things are the product of femininity is completely retarded. The feminine lacks the spirit of mind to produce such cultural marvels, bar the odd exception every 100 years or so such as Ayn Rand.

        [–]PedroIsWatching 10 points11 points  (4 children)

        I decided to take a break when people were defending the point GLO made on how getting a girl to cheat with you, getting her pregnant, and getting her beta schlub to raise the kid was the "get a lot of alpha points" thing to do. It was completely psychotic, and I took it as a jump-the-shark moment. Thanks for posting this.

        [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

        I don't necessarily always agree with the ethics and perspectives of other endorsed contributors or posters. I don't read GLO's posts anymore, I realised his shit was mostly theatrical a long time ago and lost interest. I am not his target audience. That's just my opinion about the intellectual content of his contributions, it doesn't mean I harbour personal ill feelings. In spite of that, I don't shit on his or any other EC's posts. We don't need to be a merry band of fools to be a fucking community. Take what serves you, discard what doesn't and all that shit. Obviously people take some kind of value from people like GLO because his threads are normally upvoted massively. If those people provide value, even if it is different from mine, and it helps people, then it belongs here.

        I do not value conformity and sameness as much as I do reasoned discussion. I believe differing perspectives can co-exist within an intellectual vacuum, eg: I do not agree with you, but I understand your point, therefore I do not feel compelled to emotionally attack you. If you can show me the same courtesy, we can co-exist. If you cannot, I will be forced to plot your downfall. I'm a pretty rational Machiavellian. I often allow people the first move (to go as white in Chess, and attack me - thus tipping their hand) but rarely is such an attack an ambush; I am aware of how different personalities feel about me and other such political bullshit. People don't really surprise me.

        This place is far less of a circlejerking echo chamber than our detractors would like to think. I doubt everyone likes me either. I'm pretty sure I have pissed off other ECs (like /u/trpsubmitter is pissed in this thread.) It's a good thing I couldn't give a fuck how they feel or what they think. I like to stimulate a higher level of discussion, I will step on fingers and toes to do that. The concept of "they provide value, therefore, I tolerate their existence" also works in reverse. I provide value, so they have to tolerate me even if they don't like what I say or how I approach things. If "what I say is just my opinion" and "everything is amoral" then that works in reverse. It is easy to infinitely stalemate people - thus preserving the peace and causing them to leave you alone out of exasperation. In that way, you can use people's self-interest against them. "I gain nothing from this, therefore I quit."

        The great thing about respect is you don't have to like someone to respect someone, you only have to appreciate them. If you are rational, you can appreciate things you don't like as an abstraction. I appreciate many things I don't like because I have a nuanced view of utilitarianism. EG: Glo's posts are comical/ironic and obviously TRPSubmitter has a lot of experience with night game. Do I want to adopt either of their personalities or approaches to life? No. Do I think there is a certain modicum of value to what they say? Definitely. Dumb people are more black and white than I. I'm sure many people have a favourite EC based on their approach/style. Diversity is good intellectually speaking.

        [–]prodigyx 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        GLO's posts are quite obvious satire/fiction. They are well constructed and entertaining. If you are taking them seriously, I'm very worried for you.

        [–]PedroIsWatching 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Read the post again. I wasn't worried about what GLO wrote, I was worried because everyone else took it seriously enough to defend it from criticism.

        [–]Glenbert 19 points20 points  (1 child)

        Can we all just agree to stop using the term bro-knighting? It's the only term that sounds more queer than man-o-sphere.

        [–]1-drukpa-kunley- 14 points15 points  (3 children)

        This is way more complex than it needs to be.

        Sexual strategy IS amoral. It is a social system that works in a certain way, regardless of how we wish it would work.

        However, it is how we choose to interact with that system that defines us as individuals.

        All IllimitableMan is saying is "Don't be a piece of shit trying to justify your actions with some male hamstering."

        That is like Duke saying "I blame Society". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKIaS0lh-uo

        My suggestion is that we can all have a discussion about morality in the sexual arena by first acknowledging that our concepts of morality are entirely personal and subjective. No single person can say whether an action is "right" or "wrong". It is only "right" or "wrong" to them.

        If the bro-knights simply rephrased their comments like so: "I wouldn't choose to do this because it doesn't agree with my worldview / sense of morality", then there would be no need for the ban hammer. That statement doesn't try to impose a worldview on others. It simply states the worldview of the author.

        And actually, there is enough subject material here for several academic papers. In fact, the whole field of Anthropology is founded on removing the concepts of morality and judgement so we can view social systems without bias. So rather than give a course in Anthropology, I'll end it here.

        [–]renegade 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Even shorter: You can TRP without violating the social contract. If you find yourself edging up on violating the social contract (i.e. committing adultery) you should check yourself.

        [–]feldspath 11 points12 points  (0 children)

        I think those people saying sexual strategy is amoral have a "watch the world burn while you still can" mentality. They don't realize or don't care that their actions are making society suck even more than it already does. Their only contribution to society is to create pain, destruction and sorrow in the lives of others. They justify it by saying that if they don't do it, the next guy will. Or they say that everybody does it. How is that a justification? Morality is doing the right thing even when everybody else is doing the opposite. I encourage you to use the knowledge you gain here to better yourself, but also society as a whole.

        [–]TRP_Rookie 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Thanks man, this is something I've been thinking about since that recent post which went up. You've essentially laid out my thoughts, plus more. Great to see someone who is well respected in the community with this kind of well articulated rational opinion.

        [–]MaslowsHammer 7 points8 points  (3 children)

        Thank you for posting this, it brings up a few great points on the subject of morality. I would agree with you that morality forms the foundations of a man and of society at large and those examining sexual strategy are reaching the wrong conclusions of morality, but I disagree about sexual strategy as a question of morality.

        Sexual strategy creates amoral techniques but its end results are subject to morality. Sexual strategy, for both men and women, forms the means to achieve ends: sex, and commitment, respectively. If a man used game he learned on TRP to convince a new girl he met at a bar to fuck, we could say the results are not immoral, they might be considered on the grounds that the hook up benefited both parties. Now, if that same man used the same game to fuck a married woman, we could consider the action to be immoral. Because the result of the sexual strategy changed, the morality of the action changed. However, the sexual strategy remains unchanged. The strategies in and of themselves, are amoral. The question of morality should be focused not on the strategy but the application of the strategy.

        Questioning the application of sexual strategy allows segregation of means and ends. Having a clear division between method and results of strategy highlights the true nature of sexual strategy as a tool. Sexual Strategy is a means, Morality is the ends.

        [–]JACKDOGBOB 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Beautifully articulated. TRP strategy is like a firearm. Simply possessing it is an amoral fact of life. Its how you use it.

        [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        men and women, forms the means to achieve ends: sex, and commitment, respectively. If a man used game he learned on TRP to convince a new girl he met at a bar to fuck, we could say the results are not immoral, they might be considered on the grounds that the hook up benefited both parties. Now, if that same man used the same game to fuck a married woman, we could consider the action to be immoral. Because the result of the sexual strategy changed, the morality of the action changed. However, the sexual strategy remains unchanged. The strategies in and of themselves, are amoral. The question of morality should be focused not on the strategy but the application of the strategy.

        Completely agree with this. Methodology is not capable of being moral or immoral.

        [–]Goupidan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Very well put, the way you wrote it synthesized my thoughts clearly and put words where I was looking for them.

        [–]semondemon24 8 points9 points  (0 children)

        I think your writing is making the world a better place. These cunts in TRP want to watch the world burn because they want to get their dicks wet in all the wrong cunts. You are doing the wrong thing if you are ruining a family. At the very least, don't lie to yourself about what you are doing, you hamstering faggots.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          Great post and given me a few things to think about in relation to that specific topic. Thanks dude. Saved to RES.

          [–]newlifeasredpill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Really good post. I disagree only with your contention that married women only want sex, not an emotional attachment.

          That is describing some married MEN who have affairs.

          Women who have affairs looove the emotional charge they no longer get from their "boring" husbands.

          I started an affair with a woman who told me "I don't want a lot of drama"

          She really meant "my husband is my best friend and I don't want to leave him but he wants a mommy not a wife. And I'm soooooooo bored"

          [–]bobbatosakosanose 10 points11 points  (2 children)

          Morality is a male trait the way I see it. After all it was us men who created the whole subject of philosophy. Women want us to go back to the neolithic. I personally wont follow. They can follow their Gina tingles. I prefer rationality.

          [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

          I agree. You have my support with that stance. Civilization is a male abstraction actualised.

          [–]ex_astris_sci 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          I don't know if that's true. Evolutionarily speaking, moral behaviour is a human tendency, a capacity that evolved in both males and females, as seen in other non-human animals.
          In view of our current situation, men have been shown to have lower moral standards in some circumstances; also women's tendency to yield to group pressure is higher compared to men's, which contributes to them being good moral actors in most circumstances.

          [–]DarkCircle 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          I have been thinking about something like this for a few days. This sub seems obsessed with dark triad behavior and when I have looked at the dark triad people I have met, they almost always seem to end up being miserable people.

          The goal should be to cherry pick the best bits of being dark triad/beta/whatever and building a self that is optimally successful sexually and in other areas. A lot on this sub seem to believe that simply hurting other people makes them some form of glorious dark triad. If you can have that edge while still retaining who you are, I think you are winning. I have done the opposite and been super nice and that too is misery. Even if you try to be amoral, you do have a conscience and violating it is not heathy.

          Where I would disagree with you is that I would say "reality is amoral". Wherever you find life, some sort of moral code quickly develops as life's preservation depends on many hands.

          In nature a genuine alpha male is quite different from what is preached in this sub. They are leaders (out of respect and or fear). For a lion to be in charge of the pack, they cannot go around banging everyone's wife or shitting on too many people. They depend on the help of others to lead and someone that builds up resentment will quickly end up being overthrown.

          Me personally I am going to spend some time this coming year cultivating the dark triad part of myself but find a balance and optimize for happiness.

          [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          Me personally I am going to spend some time this coming year cultivating the dark triad part of myself but find a balance and optimize for happiness.

          You are wise to seek balance. Be "evil" only when necessary and you will live optimally. Sadism should hopefully eventually be bred out of the gene pool. Schadenfreude is more than sufficient. There are far less destructive ways for one to get their kicks.

          [–]MyNewAccount9 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          It wouldn't feel good to me to help damage some other schmuck's relationship.

          Pretty simple.

          I dont need a philosophical argument. It would feel fucked up and would make me unhappy.

          TRP is about taking care of myself and others i care about. Why do something that would feel shitty, and that has no real benefit to anyone.

          Who needs to fuck chicks who are taken? Pussy isn't that scarce, and I'm not that hungry. The whole point of TRP is you dont have to be pathetic.

          [–]no_face 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Let's take a moment to clarify certain terms in pragmatic ways.

          Moral refers to actions pertaining to code of values and moral actions are those in line with them. Immoral actions are those that are explicitly against the code of values. Amoral refers to items that are not concerned with any values.

          From a practical point of view, moral actions are ones approved by society that you live in and immoral actions are ones that are those that are disapproved.

          The disapprovals will be proportionate to how seriously the value is viewed in a society. For example, murder is strongly disapproved in most cultures enough that the perpetrator will be captured and killed. Other actions such as adultery may be viewed as equally vile in some societies and may result in death by stoning while it may simply result in loss of social standing in other societies.

          Science, objects and strategy for the most part are amoral. The queens gambit, a chess strategy, all-in or fold, a poker strategy are amoral because they do not represent actions in a code of values.

          Sexual strategy while being amoral, the individual participating in its execution will be subject to society's determination of morality.

          Do not conflate the strategy part (DHV/negging/escalation) which are amoral with aspects of how you apply it (coersion, adultery) which can certainly be immoral.

          You will suffer loss of social standing for some actions. High quality people may cease associating with you. Your professional network may shrink. Your ability to run for office or hold important positions may suffer. Consider these practical consequences and ask yourself if this special snowflake is worth the trouble.

          Guard your reputation, so much depends on it

          [–]token_stache 2 points3 points  (2 children)

          I agree with parts of what you're the saying. The not fucking taken women, the long term vendettas you may get out of it, but the whole create a family, be a patriach. Maybe cause I hate being around kids and domestic life, it isn't a requirement for a full life. Personally I'd rather have cancer than a family.

          The basis of civilization is a codified law, complex social structures and abundant food supply. You can look at a myriad of civilizations from the aztecs, Rome, Greece, Sumeria, the United States, China and the British Empire. They do not share the same moral values.

          Society can be amoral, as long as people don't riot, loot and cause enough disruption for infrastructure and law enforcement to become ineffective.

          It also takes a significant majority. If we trps, got to our job, follow the written law, we will not effect and cause civilization to decay. We are gaming the system sexually, for us it's a big benefit for society the effect of us few is pretty much null.

          Imo, there are no objective morals, and fucking loose women won't cause the end of days.

          [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          There are no objective morals, and fucking loose women won't cause the end of days.

          https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/the-price-of-female-sexual-freedom/

          I'm going to have to agree with J.D. Unwin and CH on this one.

          [–]token_stache 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Fair enough. We just have different perspectives on this.

          [–]Hyperian 7 points8 points  (5 children)

          I am assuming this post is a response for an earlier post about "If i don't fuck this taken chick, someone else would so it might as well be me, and there's nothing wrong with that because sexual strategy is amoral"

          i tried to articulate your point of view but everyone started shouting how being "alpha" is about not thinking and just doing. Lets see what happens with your post.

          [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 16 points17 points  (3 children)

          I am assuming this post is a response for an earlier post about "If i don't fuck this taken chick, someone else would so it might as well be me, and there's nothing wrong with that because sexual strategy is amoral"

          That is hilarious. But no, I didn't see that, I haven't spent much of today on Reddit. That does sound like grade A hamstering though. Someone is taking on female psychological mannerisms and using it to justify their immorality. BOO! How I see it is this: if you fuck another person's girl and you feel the need to justify it with "WELL SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE DONE IT ANYWAY!" not only are you full of shit, but you feel enough shame to bullshit people with shitty reasoning. If you didn't think it was bad, you wouldn't feel the need to justify yourself in this manner. If I fucked your girl knowing she was your girl, I would know it was immoral, and I would call it that. When you qualify your immorality as amoral, you are ultimately hamstering. The "if I don't X, someone else will X" argument is called diffusion of responsibility. I find it funny how people feel the need to justify their immorality and then come down as morally righteous on people who judge their immorality, it's a perverse irony.

          [–]1FunAndFreedom 9 points10 points  (1 child)

          This is a really good post. I'm not going to judge a guy who sleeps with another guy's girl. But at the same time if he needs to go on a diatribe to defuse whatever guilt he feels it's no different than female hamstering.

          The reality is fucking another mans girl is an ego trip. It can make a man feel like a god and it's addicting. I get why people do it. But spare me the pseudo-philosophical justifications.

          [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          The reality is fucking another mans girl is an ego trip. It can make a man feel like a god and it's addicting. I get why people do it. But spare me the pseudo-philosophical justifications.

          Got it in one. As for the part in bold: Hence my reference to sado-narcissism.

          [–]vorenus-et-pullo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          If i don't fuck this taken chick, someone else would so it might as well be me, and there's nothing wrong with that because sexual strategy is amoral

          That's more tragedy of the commons, and that does apply everywhere in life. If you can "solve" it, be sure to get published as it would be beneficial in many areas from exhaustion of resources to pollution.

          [–]edwardhwhite 4 points5 points  (3 children)

          Karma exists. You sleep with your own brother's wife, you'll be shunned and cut out of the will. You sleep with the boss' wife, you're fired. These are stone facts.

          Its a question of circumstances.

          [–]vorenus-et-pullo 5 points6 points  (3 children)

          The thing is, this is a sub about sexual strategy, not morality. We are here to learn how things work, and people who present themselves as "family wreckers" are also doing some things right.

          Disagreements in morality is fine, but saying "it is not redpill" is wrong. TRP has no morality, it is just a collection of observations on sexual strategy. What those people are noting down IS sexual strategy, it does work, and therefore it is part of what TRP should be inspecting and explaining.

          Trying to push these people out of the sub on the basis of moral disagreements is basically the equivalent of feminist censorship you'd get in the greater world against TRP, which is why bro-knighting is bad.

          [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          Agreed. Alpha denotes a successful male, typically with regards to sexual strategy (though it often applies to other areas like financial success). A man that can fuck multiple married women is absolutely Alpha, even if you feel he is morally defunct. The same is true of pure Dark Triad CEO's. Dick Cheney is a great example. The man was arguably one of the most powerful men in the world, and immensely wealthy, despite being an immoral psychopath.

          That he is an Alpha does not necessarily mean that he is a role model. Only that he is successful.

          [–]JACKDOGBOB 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Yes but its how you APPLY the strategy that upsets people

          [–]through_a_ways 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          Everything is amoral. This is the doctrine that everybody lives their life by.

          However, few people actually realize that they live their lives by this doctrine, and even fewer can handle the cognitive dissonance that stems from it.

          Example: I eat meat. I eat veal. I don't really give a fuck about killing those animals. I also like dogs as pets, and eating dog is illegal.

          A "Bluepill" person would try to hamster some sort of rationalization as to why dogs are more "self-aware" than cows. (Whether they really are, isn't the point. If dogs are a bad example, then substitute in cat or some other pet).

          A Redpill person recognizes the moral double standard of the act, but he also recognizes that it is not a double standard he should concern himself with; because it insignificant to him.

          This mirrors women's rationalizations extremely closely. Complete with the "blame" for not valuing something: The person doesn't care about eating cows and pigs, so therefore those animals are inherently inferior to dogs. He won't admit that he just doesn't care about those animals, because that would make him a selfish douche.

          When a girl doesn't like a guy, she will rationalize her preference by actually attacking the guy's character or ability, rather than straight out admit that she just isn't attracted to him. Admitting that she just isn't attracted to him, even if he did everything "right", makes her a selfish douche. She doesn't wanna be a douche, so obviously, there are many things WRONG with this guy if she's not attracted to him.

          [–]magus678 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          I predict this post will be met by a lot of "male hamstring."

          You are trying to undo the rationalization and social whitewashing language some are using on this sub. I hope it works, but I'm skeptical.

          I don't mean this as an insult, but a lot of the people here aren't ready for that. I suspect it's an age thing, but that's just a guess.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

          TRP is about determining the objectively best sexual strategy (objective being sex). However you define right and wrong will not change that strategy.

          Therefore, the strategy itself is amoral even if committing the use of the strategy is immoral (by whatever definition of good and evil).

          [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

          TRP is about determining the objectively best sexual strategy (objective being sex).

          Is fucking married women an objectively efficient sexual strategy? Much more efficient to fuck bar/club sluts. I have argued it is not an efficient strategy (needless destruction, high chance of revenge from her allies/kids etc.)

          Therefore, the strategy itself is amoral even if committing the use of the strategy is immoral

          Got it in one.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          My experience is that married girls are easier and better in bed, while bar sluts are better looking. Naturally, I prefer the sluts.

          needless destruction, high chance of revenge from her allies/kids etc.

          To be perfectly honest I think that sort of drama is exciting. I don't want to get shot, but its exhilarating to jump out of a window in your underwear and hide in a dumpster two blocks down the back alley. Then, after your pursuer passes by, you backtrack and hop a fence only to be met by a territorial dog and.

          But I also thought being homeless was a blast.

          [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Is fucking married women an objectively efficient sexual strategy?

          There is the argument that you are competing with only one man, rather than many, as is the case with single women.

          [–]1NightwingTRP 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Hurrah! Somebody gets the subtle distinction I was making in RedPillWatchtower's pinned topic. I'd taken the loss on this and just put it to one side in my mind. (More important things to worry about right now.) Good read as usual man.

          [–]needoptionsnow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Solid philosophical underpinnings. Excellent post.

          [–]sunwukong155 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          I just want to direct everyone's attention to the side bar.

          The Red Pill: Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

          Notice the second part? in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

          OP is spot on if you ask me.

          [–]rocklion200 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          I appreciate your post on this and it gives an enlightened other view on a topic that has been hotly debated over the week.

          I just started coming to this sub a little more than a month ago and am still in the process of learning. I was having a tough time with wrapping my head around previous threads that basically threw morality out the window in an attempt to say we can do what we want because it's the Beta's fault for not keeping his woman happy.

          This generalization is one thing I have a problem with. I'm a US Army veteran. I've been overseas and have many buddies who have been overseas. I've seen multiple "Dear Joey" letters to my buddies from wives and girlfriends saying, "Sorry, I met someone else." They are shit women my buddies didn't deserve to be with in the first place if they are going to fuck on their guy serving his country 3,000 miles away. But, also, at the same time, my buddy doesn't deserve to be looked at like a Beta chump while he's carrying an M249 with a ruck on his back and walking 15 kilometers a day in some war torn desert.

          Sexual strategy is amoral. I get that. But it also doesn't make it moral to take another man's wife. There are terms that have popped up. Bro knighting for guys who want to tell other guys they cheated on their girls. White Knighting for those who want to come to the rescue. Here's a term. "Wife knighting." It's those guys who go after married women and justify that it's TRP and perfectly acceptable to go after a married woman.

          Ultimately, it's going to come down to an individual choice for any of us on what we do in a certain situation. All we can do is educate ourselves and develop our own sense of morality about what is right and wrong. I can't bring myself to fuck another man's wife when there are kids involved. Have I before? Yes, I have. I'm not proud about it. But I did it. Over the course of the last month while reading this sub and swallowing the Red Pill, though, I've found something important about myself. I don't need to fuck another man's wife. Why? Because I value myself more than that and especially value myself more than she values herself. Posters on here rant about single mothers and how they are garbage. Do you know what is worse? A married mother. They are the bottom of the sexual food chain. I've decided I'd rather not have another man's scraps.

          Would I fuck a girl who had a boyfriend? Sure. In my mind it's not immoral. There's been no promises made between both parties of a lasting committed relationship. But after reading this post, I can say I will stay the course of not going after married women either. Especially those with children. And it's not a case of morality I've reached that decision. It's a case that I know my own worth and value. And messing with married with children has no added value in my life. It's just that simple.

          [–]thepillwastaken 1 point2 points  (6 children)

          I hit a crossroads on this because I do not believe a 100% selfish existence is mentally healthy. I lived one for years and I believe part of life is being able to give back to people - it's not easy.

          That being said, it does not change my sexual perspective at all. It does not change how I go about business or anything else. But you want to maintain balance.

          Personally I have worked on giving more time to others and not just thinking about my needs all the time. It is not easy, but I believe it is key to having a balanced existence.

          [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Personally I have worked on giving more time to others and not just thinking about my needs all the time. It is not easy, but I believe it is key to having a balanced existence.

          All extremism is inherently detrimental, no matter what your views are.

          [–]dykmidk 0 points1 point  (4 children)

          You can't give to charity if you don't make any money. This translates fairly well to how positive you can be with others. You can't give out much if you don't have it yourself.

          [–]thepillwastaken 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          I never once mentioned charity.

          I feel like that is part of the problem. People think giving is monetary. It's not. You can give your time to help others too.

          It's stunning to me that people immediately think that giving equates to money. There are plenty of people with nothing who give anyway.

          [–]dykmidk 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          Charity was an example of something you could give, not a specific talking point.

          [–]thepillwastaken 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Focus on giving some time to others. Focus on helping other people as much as you help yourself. That is the high level message.

          [–]dykmidk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I agreed from the start, I was making a side point. The better off you are the more you can help.

          [–]Endorsed ContributorAFPJ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Morality is an ideological construct to deter individually favorable Prisoner's Dilemma type decisions in order to achieve a collective Pareto efficiency high enough to allow a society's continued existence despite itself.

          When individually favorable choices outweigh collectively favorable choices on enough fronts, it ends. It will always end because the inertia of time combined with consistent collectively favorable choice making create enough surplus for rampant individually favorable choice making to begin and go on for enough to be irreversible before collapse due to the very same inertia which allowed it. In our current stage of civilization, we are long past the crest of morality.

          What's past that crest? The decline / absence of morality, hence the saying "fall into depravity". This is important because once "the whole" begins disregarding morality, it's near the end. Those still embracing morality crash first.

          [–]albete 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Wonderful to read this post. It's good to know there are men of good character who will take the high road. This is how we progress as a species.

          FRDevlin makes a good point that it's easier to encourage moral behavior if females as modest, for one because men have much stronger sex drives, so it can be more difficult for them. Now that women are encouraged to slut it all out, it's good to know men of good character are willing to work to get things back on track.

          Well said OP.

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]Mihawk01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            It isn't immoral, anyone who says so is just being stupid and hasn't understood the whole point of RP yet.

            [–]Entrefut 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            This right here is where I really enjoy the application of the 38th law of power. I will continue to have my own personal beliefs on morality, but act in a way that keeps me aligned with the general population and their opinions on morality, for my safety and that of societies. By picking and choosing the situations that benefit me most to be ammoral, I am limiting the number of people who view me as an immoral person. Personally I don't see the personal benefit in fucking a woman with a family, unless it is of no effort on my end (in which case it's my dick or 1 of 50 in the bar) or yields substantial personal gain. Is fucking this woman going to do anything for me and my future that I couldn't do with a couple minutes and some hand lotion in the bathroom? You never know when the man who's family you defiled can come back and bite you in your ass. Making uneccesary enemies and opening yourself up to risk for some easy pussy is not in my list of priorities. From a societal stand point, not fucking married women is of more personal gain to you than fucking them... unless you're trying to speed up the failing of their relationship. In the end we just have to ask ourselves, what does this woman offer that other women don't and are the risks associated with that worth it?

            Whole thing reminds me of a story arch from Lost. Sawyer's family was destroyed on a con, which sent him on a blood hunt for the man who ruined his childhood. An extreme example, but can you afford to make more enemies? Cheating with a senator's wife in your home town is going to give you much more struggle than gain. Where as fucking a Senators wife in a different state, country, or continent will have much fewer downfalls. Understand and accept the consequences of all that you do. Don't say, "I CAN FUCK HIS WIFE WITH OUT CONSEQUENCES CAUSE LIFE IS AMMORAL." say, "I openly accept the possible consequences of my actions, but this decision pushes my personal agenda more than it sets it back, so in the end, I don't give a fuck."

            [–]QQ_L2P 3 points4 points  (1 child)

            Well then, I came here expecting another insightful post by the Illimitableman, but I didn't expect this.

            If I have understood your post correctly, you're saying that even if you have not engaged in anything immoral by sleeping with a taken chick, you bear some responsibility to the consequences and therefore you shouldn't do it because it might hurt someone else? Married chicks with kids and serious LTRS are off the table because "think of the children" but those without children and whores aren't? What the hell man? How do you even decide something like that? There's a very clear line in the sand which you're conveniently ignoring. The line is "is this chick in a relationship". Flatly put, you did something wrong. You fucked another mans chick. Whether you want to spin it as your personal code of morality or she was a whore, it doesn't matter. You either fuck another mans chick or you don't. There are no "degrees of immorality", there is just "immorality". The self-flagellation that your "code of morality" makes it OK to do it to some chicks and not others, or "I don't want to hurt the kids" is utter bullshit. It has nothing to do with legal precedent or messing up the kids.

            In all those instances where a taken woman cheated on her other half with you, why did she do it? Did she do it to intentionally hurt him? Then she is being sadistic. However, did she do it because of sexual attraction? That isn't being sadistic, it's following her "feelings". She isn't being immoral, she's following what she believes to be the best decision. The action then becomes "immoral", because another person got hurt, therefore the action could not be condoned, because if every Jane, Sally and Mary followed their "feelings", one of the cornerstones of society (marriage) would crumble and fall out.

            The act of cheating in a relationship also doesn't stand up to comparison with "murder/theft". One is a one-way action, you don't "choose" to be murdered. Cheating on someone requires two people to consent to have sex. A better comparison may be two business partners cutting a third out of a major deal and walking away with the profits.

            Nature is amoral. 'Gina tingles are amoral. Desire is amoral. What it comes down to as an individual is whether or not an action you take is worth the effort and the consequences. Risk/Reward. Cost/Benefit. That is what it comes down to. Is one person willing to live with the consequences of their actions. If you can, do whatever you feel comfortable doing. If not, don't fucking do it. We don't need 1,000 words of some guy who, with one hand, reminisces and justifies his actions to us while with the other, he condemns others for taking actions they are comfortable with because it doesn't fit with his own code of morality.

            I don't know what you were trying to convey with this post, but holy shit, sleep it off man. One thing that Ted Mosby did get right was that nothing good happens after 2am.

            [–]ihaphleas 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            This should be in the sidebar.

            [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 2 points3 points  (6 children)

            I think if there's any area that's going to be a grey concept in TRP, it's the subject of morality. My opinion rather differs from yours, but I don't think less of you for it.

            You're right about morality being a pillar that holds up society. At some point we agree certain actions are either acceptable or not. The problem is, this is subjective, and the adoption of each tenet isn't absolute. While the vast majority might agree that murder is morally wrong (in that nearly everyone can agree that it increases unhappiness), there are less obvious cases of morality. Is it morally wrong to deny children candy that they really want? Most would argue not, despite that making the child unhappy. Is it morally wrong to do the same to your girlfriend? You can see how this creates a not-so-distinct case of morality.

            The notion that not fucking another's wife being moral to you is something I understand, while not conforming to it myself. At some point we make decisions about which decisions are preferable to favour the self over the other. Walking out on your girlfriend because she is giving you shit is something I think you'd agree is not immoral. It's a case where it's preferable to favour yourself rather than kowtow to some bitch's demands, despite what feminists would prefer. In the same vein, I believe that fucking a married woman is the same.

            I'm not going around looking to break up families. But if I see a woman who is already got her feelers out and is straddling the line of fidelity, that's a case where she's made her decision and is just feeling guilty. She's going to fuck someone who's sufficiently alpha. As men, we're biologically programmed to be self-sacrificial for women, and I believe this is a case of self-martyrdom. We take the onus for breaking up a marriage, when in fact it was already broken and we simply were there to enjoy the benefits of it.

            If you think I'm selfish for this I wouldn't entirely disagree, but I put it in the same category as instituting dread for my personal benefit.

            [–]useyourmouth 1 point2 points  (3 children)

            So if you leave your wallet sitting in the seat of your unlocked convertible in a shady parking lot and I take it, I won't take the onus for your loss. I can consider your wallet already stolen, I'm just going to be the one there to enjoy the benefits of it.

            [–]Sheensta 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            As men, we're biologically programmed to be self-sacrificial for women, and I believe this is a case of self-martyrdom.

            So what you're saying is that you are sacrificing yourself for the sake of a cheating woman? What about MGTOW?

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

            No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that the urge to automatically assume the role of the protector is biologically ingrained, and that you need to recognize when it's misfiring (as it is in this case). White-knighting is predicated on this biological reality. White-knights stand up for the "honour" of a women, even when they're in the wrong, or otherwise castigate the man more harshly than the woman because of this instinct.

            [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter 4 points5 points  (45 children)

            Obviously this post is in response to my a couple of my latest posts and the latest controversy here with the Bro knight circlejerk. So I'll respond.

            I'm a huge fan of you, IM. But all you're trying to do is play to the crowd here.

            "don't judge my immorality, really it's amoral because existential nihilism and science!"

            "fucking up peoples families is fine"

            Really, dude? No one has said that ever. And obviously if someone did, they'd be full of shit obviously. All you're trying to do is label one side of the argument with false-flags, because obviously no one likes hypocrites and everyone will be galvanized against them.

            So do I agree with your premise? 100% yes (I've even explicitly said morality is important, but just not in the sexual marketplace. I actually went out of my way to mention morality as important because I knew someone would try to twist my words into "TRPsubmitter = condones immorality!")

            But your premise is faulty, because no one is saying "go around and ruin other people's lives on purpose because there is no such thing as morality!" (If someone is actively saying how amoral = immoral = okay, then I'd like to see where).


            What sexual strategy is amoral means is that peoples' MOTIVATIONS in the sexual marketplace are not dependent on morality. It doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist or isn't important. It means morality lies outside the realm of sexual decisions whether we like it or not (that last part is very important).

            That is why people cheat and lie in relationships. They know it's "wrong", but there's other motivations that override their morality. Those (those factors are hypergamy, AFBB, etc, you know them all). They don't cheat in order to actively hurt their bf/husband (in which case it would be immoral and "sadistic" as you put it). No. They cheat to satisfy an other, overriding force...their sexual motivation.

            So what my original point is all of this was simply: While you may make a moral decision in your sexual behavior, don't expect women (or other man) to do the same. Because morality isn't what motivates/guides people when it comes to sex. Further, expecting people to be moral in the sexual marketplace and then finding out people aren't, inevitably leads to rage/hurt.

            Anything is amorally justifiable, even theft and murder. You're not going to go around doing that now are you? No. Why? Because it will put you prison. But you won't get locked up for fucking people's wives, so you think you can justify the same kind of immorality due to a lack of legal sanction.

            This is a terrible analogy. Murder and theft are non-consentable crimes. The very definition of theft and murder means the victim didn't consent to having their life/stuff stolen away. When you sleep with a married/engaged woman, that woman DECIDED to do it. You're relating a victimless (cheating) action with a victim (murder) action.

            There are no victims in cheating; the only "victim" you can possibly have in that situation is the cuckolded guy. And even then, he's not a real victim...because no one has the "right" to fidelity/honest marriage. It's not an inherent right like physical safety you are taking away from someone.

            It's a privilege that can be earned and lost and nothing more. But with all things nowadays, loss of privilege by a certain group always results in rage.

            so you think you can justify the same kind of immorality due to a lack of legal sanction

            Again, your premise that cuckolding is the "same kind of immorality" as murder/theft, and the only reason people do it is because of "lack of legal sanction" is totally wrong.

            In lying, there is a reasonable expectation and social contract that you don't lie to your friends/family. Because you know them. If you break that, that's immoral.

            There is no such contract if I sleep with a random woman who has a wedding ring. First, she herself consented to the action. Second, you have no obligation to someone (the man) you've never met; that man doesn't get to imbue his moral expectations onto another man.

            due to a lack of legal sanction

            Again, anyone who says X is morally okay just because there's no law against it is retarded.

            People are genuinely motivated to cheat for legitimate reasons (more alpha man, richer man, etc). Those reasons may be ugly, but they're real and evolutionary and primal. So recognizing that people want to cheat is also recognizing human nature. No one is going around saying people justify cuckolding just because there's no law.

            I've fucked women with boyfriends (knowingly and unknowingly) - but not any married women.

            Lastly this. This is perfectly fine and I've never said any different (if someone has actually labeled not wanting to cuckold as beta/bad/weak, then that's wrong obviously. And I gave another explicit disclaimer about this in my last post). That's what your comfortable with and that's great.

            So where do you get off rationalizing another's position as "needless destruction partaken in only to satisfy sadistic-narcissistic urges"?

            You see what I'm getting at here? This is what I'm talking about with the bro-coders and the high morality circlejerk in TRP. They can't let bygones be bygones and say "hey you want to sleep with a woman and she happens to be engaged...ok fine. I don't want to do that, but you can.".

            Why does it always have to be some rationalized bullshit like "nihilistic tendencies to engage in destruction"? What does that even mean beyond pontification to sound good? I don't go around saying refusing to cuckold is beta...so where do you get off saying engaging in cuckolding is "immoral destruction"?


            TL;DR If your premise is that people who cuckold are actively trying to hurt other people and ruin their lives and/or only do it because they derive some sick pleasure from it, then yeah your post is 100% true. However, that's not the case, at least for me.

            For me, cuckolding is a unique type of sexual situation and nothing more. All that is required for a sexual act to not be immoral is to not violate consent or betray someone's trust in the process. And a random man who I don't know holds no trust to betray.

            [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 11 points12 points  (21 children)

            I'm a huge fan of you, IM. But all you're trying to do is play to the crowd here.

            Thanks dude. Yeah I'm a bit of an asshole but I do believe I educate with my assholery. I also love a good rant.

            Really, dude? No one has said that ever.

            They don't need to say it. Everything runs along a slippery slope. When we abstractly determine that science/survival of the fittest gives no fucks about morality, and use that as a basis for doing what we want in the SMP, it opens up a pandoras box for doing all kinds of destructive and unnecessary shit. EG: fucking/fetishising married women.

            I've even explicitly said morality is important, but just not in the sexual marketplace.

            Well I disagree when kids and families are involved, otherwise, sure. Also, rape: obviously, avoid that. Not trolling or being condescending, but again, someone could read too much into your statement, so I'm covering that base.

            But your premise is faulty, because no one is saying "go around and ruin other people's lives on purpose because there is no such thing as morality!"

            Refer to my paragraph 2 response. My premise can stand on it's own as a rebuttal to a hypothetical yet very plausible construct. Or basically, we don't need to wait to let such an attitude take hold in order to disdain it and talk shit about it. Prevention is worth a pound of cure and all that shit.

            This is a terrible analogy. Murder and theft are non-consentable crimes. The very definition of theft and murder means the victim didn't consent to having their life/stuff stolen away. When you sleep with a married/engaged woman, that woman DECIDED to do it. You're relating a victimless (cheating) action with a victim (murder) action.

            This is a terrible interpretation of my analogy. How can the woman be the victim when she consents to the crime? If we are going to go down analogy street, the woman is the accomplice to your murder, she's the insider in the bank helping you with your theft, because she is betraying her family. She is not a victim, you are quite right. The people her actions affect are the victims though: her husband/other half, her kids and possibly her family if they rely on her marriage for political reasons. You enable her bullshit by conspiring with her.

            So what my original point is all of this was simply: While you may make a moral decision in your sexual behavior, don't expect women (or other man) to do the same.

            I agree.

            There are no victims in cheating; the only "victim" you can possibly have in that situation is the cuckolded guy. And even then, he's not a real victim...because no one has the "right" to fidelity/honest marriage. It's not an inherent right like physical safety you are taking away from someone.

            That's why I draw the line with marriage. As I said, I have fucked women in LTRs. Marriage expressly stated a legal right to monogamy, although that has been reduced simply to a superficial implication through feminist legal vitiation.

            There is no such contract if I sleep with a random woman who has a wedding ring. First, she herself consented to the action. Second, you have no obligation to someone (the man) you've never met; that man doesn't get to imbue his moral expectations onto another man.

            You have no obligation to him because you don't know him, you are correct. But she does, and you are enabling her, so you are an accessory to her immorality, you are immoral through association. You diffuse responsibility because "you don't know them, it's not your fault" but you enable her anyway because you want to get yours. If your SMV is high enough there are plenty of other women out there, beautiful women, unmarried without such bullshit, yet you opt not to pass up her pussy specifically, even though you could without any harm to yourself. Why not "let someone else" do that, why be an accomplice to her bullshit? There is really no respect in that, it is an unnecessarily risky and destructive attitude. What is the cost-benefit of married pussy vs. unmarried pussy? There is none. Hence my point on sado-narcissism. It's the only logical reason I could deduce one would specifically seek out/enjoy/not pass up these women assuming they have other options sexually.

            So where do you get off rationalizing another's position as "needless destruction partaken in only to satisfy sadistic-narcissistic urges"?

            See previous paragraph.

            Why does it always have to be some rationalized bullshit like "nihilistic tendencies to engage in destruction"? What does that even mean beyond pontification to sound good? I don't go around saying refusing to cuckold is beta...so where do you get off saying engaging in cuckolding is "immoral destruction"?

            I wanted to address this but I don't fully understand what you're getting at, so I can't.

            TL;DR If your premise is that people who cuckold are actively trying to hurt other people and ruin their lives and/or only do it because they derive some sick pleasure from it, then yeah your post is 100% true. However, that's not the case, at least for me.

            That was part of my point, and I never thought that specifically for you. This post is a lot less personal then you have been led to believe. I tend to keep personal enquiries/disagreements private, eg: over PM.

            [–]MonkahBoy 8 points9 points  (2 children)

            There are no victims in cheating; the only "victim" you can possibly have in that situation is the cuckolded guy. And even then, he's not a real victim...because no one has the "right" to fidelity/honest marriage. It's not an inherent right like physical safety you are taking away from someone.

            How about the kids involved? I mean, and that's if you think the husband's emotions are automatically irrelevant because he's not a part of your 'special bro club'-- I've witnessed lives ruined because of cheating, and to state that such actions wouldn't harm anyone are poor attempts of justifying immoral behavior.

            [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            IM brought up the kids point. It has merit and I wouldn't ever get involved in that type of situation when I can pass it up for a less dramatic one easily.

            But then again, IM's point isn't just "cuckolding is immoral only when there's kids involved", which I would definitely agree with.

            His OP is referring to cuckolding as a whole as being immoral (even though he admits he's slept with an attached woman and then proudly claimed in bold text and all caps that he would do the same to me if I left my girlfriend with him alone...so I'm still confused just how "immoral" it is).

            [–]moodymela 4 points5 points  (6 children)

            I think the error in how you're trying to define morality is that you assume no wrong doing if your motivations are simply not sadistic.

            I want a piece of cake. In the room with me is a button that if I push it I receive a piece of cake however everybody in the world's pet gets run over. I push the button for delicious cake.

            I didn't want everyone's pet to die. And I didn't know any of those people so I didn't owe them anything. I just wanted cake. I am morally spotless under your model.

            [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Do you own a smartphone? Have you ever worn Nikes? Of course you do.

            Guess who made that smartphone and Nikes. Guess what age those workers were.

            I'm not the one going around desperately trying to establish a "moral center" in TRP. But since you are, how do you reconcile your smartphone/nikes made by children in a sweatshop? The fact that kids have gotten sick/died making that phone?

            So what are you? Immoral or moral bro? You brought this up, so you better answer.

            My answer: Neither. Amoral.

            Because all actions in life are based on acquiring "resources" (sexual, physical, material) and thus those resources must be taken from someone else down the line, no matter how far down the line it is.

            In your example, cake is taking life away from puppies. In the real world, the status you gain from wearing the latest Nikes had costs involving perpetuating poverty in a third world country and making kids sick. The convenience you gain from shopping at Wal-mart perpetuates non-living wages for poor people...

            That's why I don't bring up morality here. If you do, then you have to reconcile the points I just brought up.


            Further, since when did morally spotless become even considered?

            No one is morally spotless. The only reason you even bring up that possibility is because some people in this sub are obsessed with maintaining some "morality" in TRP. As if that will assuage the hurt of swallowing TRP by maintaining a RP morality or something.

            My point isn't to argue about moral positions, which is what you are interested. My point is: There ARE no morally superior positions insofar as there are no victims involved in the direct consenting parties

            That's why citing kids/family is not a good reason to call cuckolding immoral. Because I can say "hey consider the poor business competitor who went out of business because of what you did!"

            He also is a third "victim" here. So is that immoral too?

            No, because it's "resources" that you took fairly from a business competitor. Likewise, cuckolding is simply temporarily taking a sexual resource away from a sexual competitor. Just because that business or sexual competitor doesn't like what you did and thinks it's wrong in his mind, doesn't mean it's immoral intrinsically.

            [–]moodymela 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            First of all I do not own, nor have I ever owned, a smart phone are a pair of nikes. I live in a third world country. Obviously I understand you're point though and I recognize the same could be said for the computer I am using and the clothes I do wear.

            I am simply going to address your bolded phrase since it seems to be the core of your argument.

            "There ARE no morally superior positions insofar as there are no victims involved in the direct consenting parties"

            Okay so again I disagree. Here's why. YOU as the end consumer are responsible for the conditions of those sweat shop children when you purchase your iphones and enjoy your high standard of living. We are all guilty of this. Just because we are all guilty doesn't mean suddenly we are all not guilty. Morality isn't a chemistry test being graded on a curve. If you wanted to be a truly moral human than go into the woods build a cabin and live off the land as that's the only option are society gives us to be morally just. Do I expect you, or me, or anyone to do this? Not really.

            Here is my key point. Just because you are not directly involved in consciously and sadistically harming someone does not mean you are free from blame. Take responsibility for your life and your actions. Own up to the things that are wrong. I mean this seems like a pretty TRP concept. We all have choices and just because a choice may not be desirable or convenient does not mean that choice does not exist.

            [–]killego 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I was surprised to see IM write this OP.. great response and thanks for re-articulating what I believe to be a fundamental part of TRP

            [–]WarmApfelPi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            But all you're trying to do is play to the crowd here.

            That's exactly what OP is. Right at the end IM mentions the irony of being a DT appealing to morality thought while still saying the same shit you have. People are just programmed to be way too invested in message delivery that they extrapolate the message from the delivery instead of the message itself. It's a power play and most people aren't seeing it.

            [–]through_a_ways 1 point2 points  (5 children)

            Just as people don't consent to being killed and stolen from, the betabucks didn't consent to having his wife fuck another guy.

            You're right that personal relationships are not the realm of law, though.

            But, if we want, we can find a way to transcribe the time/effort spent on a significant other into monetary value, and when we do that, we can begin to look at personal relationships in objective value terms. If you do that, you have a way to make it a legal matter, and cheating would be equivalent to a form of theft.

            [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter 2 points3 points  (4 children)

            Yes, but people have the right not to be killed or be stolen from (right to life; right to possessions).

            Betabucks doesn't have the right to exclusive access to his woman's sexuality. That is determined by the woman.

            He has predisposed/easier access because he has a pre-established relationship with her, but he doesn't have exclusive access. Thus, while he may not like what you did, it doesn't mean he can label what you did as immoral.

            The only legitimate issue I've seem people bring up is it's immoral by association. I've already addressed that in another comment reply to IM and challenged people to then reconcile other "guilt by association" situations.

            In short, guilt by association becomes absurd because you can apply it to any situation. Then when the response is "but come on, you can't hold me responsible for all of that stuff!", then my response is EXACTLY right. You can't hold people responsible for the actions of others.

            [–]through_a_ways 2 points3 points  (2 children)

            Betabucks doesn't have the right to exclusive access to his woman's sexuality. That is determined by the woman.

            If he has a prenup with her, he actually does.

            [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Legality ≠ morality. Further, pre-nups are civil agreements (which can be literally anything like don't eat a banana on Friday), not criminal statutes and have no bearing on what society believes is moral (criminal law).

            And that's besides the point anyway. It's a bit disingenuous if you're trying to use a prenup as a reason why women must always be attracted to their husbands and no one else.

            So what I mean is an implied "right" to everything about her relating to attraction and "sex" (physical attraction towards others, reciprocation, behavior). Husbands don't have the "right" to sit back and do nothing and expect attraction/sex back. Women and men earn each others' attraction. You don't demand it as a right.

            We know that attraction cannot be negotiated. That's why I keep saying it's a privilege and not a right. Privileges are earned and can be lost, whereas rights are inherent and self-evident.

            At any time, you can lose exclusive access to your gf/wife if you don't hold up your alpha side of the bargain. That's why breakups and divorces exist. Because husbands don't have the right to control that either (other than being a fucking awesome and attractive dude).

            [–]JACKDOGBOB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Thats right. Divorces and break ups exist when a woman wants to leave. Then you can go fuck her. Just not when she is with another guy.

            [–]JACKDOGBOB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Oh come off it. How the hell can you justify banging some other guy's woman? Every civilization since the dawn of man and every religion condemns it. Perhaps that could be a guide for morality.

            [–]throvvvvavvvvay 4 points5 points  (3 children)

            You used way too many words to say, "I think it's morally wrong to fuck married broads."

            You also made a ton of assertions without anything really backing it up. For example "an enemy will wait years and then smite you" Are we supposed to just take your word on that? That's really what usually happens when some wimpy dude's wife gets turned out?

            I'm neutral on your actual point because it's a complex question, but reading this all I got was a bunch of pseudo-moral masturbation in long form.

            [–]Glenbert 2 points3 points  (2 children)

            N of one here, but i still take joy in causing problems for the man who fucked my ex years ago. Yes he did me a huge favor ultimately. But I like to think that causing him to get fired twice, losing custody of his children and being set up on several gay "blind dates" will do him a huge favor ultimately.

            It's fun to think of new favors that i can do for him.

            [–]sir_wankalot_here 1 point2 points  (3 children)

            Machiavellian only when necessary, to preserve one's interests. When you are non-defensively violent with your manipulations, you benefit nothing but your own sadistic lust.

            Morality to some degree differs among social groups and cultures. Machiavellian reason why you should be "moral" when possible is because if you are caught you will lose "reputation".

            Sexual example of a moral code. Between the Army and Navy is a lot of rivalry. If you where army and fucked another army guy's wife, you are playing with fire. On the other hand if an Army guy fucked a Navy guy's wife it would build your reputation among your Army peers. The reasoning is all Navy guys are closet homos and wimps. So it is ok to poach their women.

            Whether or not you agree with the code. That is the code. If you break it you are playing with fire so you better have a good reason to break it.

            Violence is a solution, but it is always best to find peaceful solutions first. It should only be used as a last resort.

            [–]brotherjustincrowe 1 point2 points  (2 children)

            If you fuck a friend's wife, they're not much of a friend, but neither are you.

            There's always easy pussy out there. Fucking another guy's wife to spite him seems like a petty move, and also just kinda - I dunno, gay?

            [–]1Dev_on 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            good job putting it more eloquantly than I have the past few days

            [–]Ralt 1 point2 points  (2 children)

            I can't respect men who bitch about shit in other people and then behave in the exact same way. If you don't have any personal system of morality or honour, you're not someone trustworthy. If you are not trustworthy, you are not worth doing business with, you will never be a patriarch who can build up, empower and sustain his own familial legacy in his own right.

            Which is why Law 38 exists, those people should shut their fucking mouths and play the game better.

            Regarding morality though, it should be formed around two things, rewards and punishment. At that point it is barely recognizable as what is generally referred to when using the word morality though. Always acting in your best self-interest will get you much farther than concerning yourself with whether something to you is immoral or moral. However, it is a special kind of idiot that takes this to mean that you don't need to factor in other people's morality, judgement, and (re)actions in the choices you make. Looking at your world through rewards/punishment will brace a man to properly calculate the idea of fucking another mans wife vs that man losing his shit and killing you. I would also trust a man who acts out of self-interest over someone who has proclaimed "morals". You can morally justify anything, and those people can act with randomness that might not be predicted. Someone who regards that as irrelevant and will act out of self-interest should be more reliable, especially over the long term.

            People stating things like /u/moodymela are just falling so short of rising above the bullshit of morality that has been defined by dead men and gods and instead just acting in their best self-interest.

            I hope when her man puts a shotgun to your face you don't feel he's morally obligated to not pull the trigger.

            I never see something like this a "moral" reaction, in fact, it's actually quite idiotic and most likely reap you quite poor long term rewards for immediate emotional satisfaction/release. It could even be quite clearly immoral, even to a moralists standards, and I'll explain how. Take a woman who could go out, fuck another guy who doesn't know she is married, and then get caught and lie and tell her Husband she was unfairly seduced by this drive-by-romeo and she just lost control of her actions and she's so HURT and CONFUSED, shifting the blame from herself. (RP Truths: Treat woman as children, in this she automatically assumes and promotes the role of the helpless child and will appeal to your male honor simultaneously) It's only a shade different from a woman making false rape accusations, which an example of seems to pop up every bloody day here. I'm sure you moralists would say that shotgunning some innocent fuck to the face that got caught in the crossfire of a lying harpy and a trigger happy fuckwad is "immoral", which is why the morality system is inherently flawed, not even mentioning the fact that it's all made up to control people.

            Going to prison over some woman that has proven to be disloyal to you? That's ultimate level beta shit and I will say that I am qualified to say that, having done time over/for a woman. Anyone who would be willing to do such a thing is plugged in hard, but examining life through a rewards/punishment paradigm will allow a person to figure out and understand that as you understand that there are an insane amount of beta men out there that very well might kill you over this. (RP Truths: 80/20 or 90/10 Rule)

            Who gives a fuck whether people want to label something as moral or immoral. Everything is amoral, and that's what lets people act out of educated and contemplative self-interest. Due to the fact that most people have morals, it is most often in your best interest to act as if you do have morals, because those with "morals" will reward you for doing so. Alternatively, you should at least let your actions be guided by the typically predictable behavior and actions of those that do have morality. Law 38, again, is a great tool when applied to daily life that will allow those of us that are amoral to exist in a world plagued by moralists.

            The only proper reaction to another man fucking your wife is one word: "Thanks". I however would not assume most men to act that way, and thus I would at least 90% of the time advise against doing so. Someone thoroughly plugged in (and even those swallowing the pill still, apparently) will react quite negatively to this. They're so caught up in their lives and how special they think they are that they see this as an attack against the personal empire they think they are building, and not a gift with some sharp edges.

            I was quite surprised to see this post from you of all people /u/IllimitableMan, but as you act with both what you call morality and immorality, I can barely see the difference between that and rational self interest, seems mostly an argument of semantics.

            [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Regarding morality though, it should be formed around two things, rewards and punishment. At that point it is barely recognizable as what is generally referred to when using the word morality though. Always acting in your best self-interest will get you much farther than concerning yourself with whether something to you is immoral or moral. However, it is a special kind of idiot that takes this to mean that you don't need to factor in other people's morality, judgement, and (re)actions in the choices you make. Looking at your world through rewards/punishment will brace a man to properly calculate the idea of fucking another mans wife vs that man losing his shit and killing you. I would also trust a man who acts out of self-interest over someone who has proclaimed "morals". You can morally justify anything, and those people can act with randomness that might not be predicted. Someone who regards that as irrelevant and will act out of self-interest should be more reliable, especially over the long term.

            Completely agree with your logic and think this is especially well-written.

            Everything is amoral, and that's what lets people act out of educated and contemplative self-interest. Due to the fact that most people have morals, it is most often in your best interest to act as if you do have morals, because those with "morals" will reward you for doing so. Alternatively, you should at least let your actions be guided by the typically predictable behavior and actions of those that do have morality. Law 38, again, is a great tool when applied to daily life that will allow those of us that are amoral to exist in a world plagued by moralists.

            I believe one should be Machiavellian when necessary (unplagued by morals) but morally upstanding when Machiavellianism is not necessary. Some people are in bad situations and need to be Machiavellian all the time. Others do not need to be, but are sadistic so constantly indulge it. Others only need to defend themselves sparsely. Morality is actually more beneficial than Machiavellianism because you blend in and guilt where apparent for anything bad you do is easily assuaged/outweighed by the good you do. Obviously that last part does not apply to natural psychopaths. Of course when your interests are violated, you can switch at the drop of a hat and protect them. This is how one is both feared and loved. A good leader learns virtue and knows when to be compassionate, they are not unnecessarily tyrannical. You Machiavellians who fake your morality are limited, because you do not actually possess morality. You feign it, you fool some, but ultimately you cannot inspire love with the morally upstanding. You need a capacity to be moral to attain love and you need a capacity to be immoral to preserve love. Why is love relevant outside how it feels? Love is power.

            [–]Ralt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            I think we're both saying the same thing, but in a way that sounds best to us, as I think we would both act the same way. I'm undecided on who has the better way though.

            On my side, I think one would be more open and receptive for instances when acting "immorally" could benefit you but as none of us are perfect it leaves you open to failing when acting immoral and getting judged by those would would.

            On your side I think acting as a moral entity would definitely be the safer bet, but could lead to missed opportunities because you aren't always thinking from a core of amorality.

            I think it comes down to what kind of man are you? Do you take risks or only make sure bets?

            You feign it, you fool some, but ultimately you cannot inspire love with the morally upstanding.

            I don't know truly, but I do not think I agree with that. I really don't think that humans are that complicated of creatures. Love can also be power, but I think it's a lower form of power. To look at the current leaders of humanity, I truthfully do not know, but I cannot imagine most of them as "morally upstanding folk".

            If you do not concern yourself with humanity as a whole, by not being a shifter and shaper of culture and the masses, but more concerning yourself with the immediate and those closest to you, I think your way could yield more positive results. Like I said, I think it boils down to the type of man I am compared to you. I do not care for building a familial legacy, I can barely bring myself to be open to the option of children. In some ways I wonder if I am one of The Beautiful Ones, warped and twisted by society from the normal path of life, but my sociopathy doesn't really care either way. I probably am acting out from a sort of megalomania, thinking I am more than what I am, but I would always rather reach for more and fail then settle for mediocrity.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

            A lot of posters here seem to think that a woman has absolutely no say in cheating on their partner and that it's all the 3rd party's fault that the cheating happens.

            [–]Doctor_Mayhem 0 points1 point  (2 children)

            I'm just gonna copypaste the comment I put on the broknighting thread...

            While I still detest men who bang taken women for moral and practical reasons (well... I avoid taken women for practical reasons), there has always been one thing about bro-knighting that bothered me, even though I couldn't care less if one of you morons who can't seem to think past GYM AND TINDA 4 LYFE ends up facing the barrel of a shotgun from a jilted beta.

            But the thing that always bothered me, why do the bro-knighters condemn the player who's merely playing the game, and not the whore who made the conscious decision to cheat?

            Don't hate the player, don't hate the game, but you can damn sure hate the whore.

            And if circumstances were different, you'd be the same way.

            On that note, principles do suck. I've gone MGTOW due to a long dry spell because, goddamn, if I don't fuck taken women, seems I'm fucking nothing. They never seem interested until they got a boyfriend...

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            I'm not necessarily on the prowl for taken women, but if I'm vibing with a girl at a party or at a club or what have you.. I'm not going to say "no".

            But according to bro-knighters I suppose it's better to reinforcing her and her man to stay in their shitty subpar relationship and continue the lie that they actually care about each other.

            [–]JACKDOGBOB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            So why do people even bother to enter a relationship/marriage if all they really want to do is follow their base instincts and fuck anything that walks? Seems to me then that you shouldnt even enter a relationship if this is the case.

            [–]Overkillengine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Society is basically a giant extension of the Prisoner's Dilemma. It works best when it is more productive over time for even the amoral to decline maximal short term gratification so that everyone has a reason to show up to the bargaining table.

            So when you deliberately choose a non cooperative strategy, don't bother to whine that others notice and act accordingly. "OMG I said TRP is amoral to justify doing whatever I want, why does no one trust me anymore?"

            That being said, don't let someone sucker you into giving up your cooperation benefits like modern society (cough feminism) tries to do to men either.

            [–]d1cey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            I agree that it is ultimately a balancing act. Although, I much prefer we air on the side of amoral. Rather a winning hypocrite than otherwise.

            [–]solaris1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            'I don't mind banging women with bfs but I won't bang women who are married'? It seems as if you're being victim of what you're complaining about.

            Let's be clear, morality doesn't endorse the institution of marriage or give it any privileges. People get married for a myriad of reasons. Why would you draw such an arbitrary line?

            As for children, actually taking your time to seduce or strategically target a woman with a family who is otherwise happy is sleazy. However, what if she comes on to you? Arguably she'd just find her adventure elsewhere if you turned her down... so I'm not sure you can condemn a man for simply 'going along with it'.

            Really agree with what you're saying about unbridled nihilism though. This sub is ripe with it. Life may be amoral but humans aren't. It takes rejecting a large part of what makes you human to act amorally in all aspects of life. I wouldn't want to be near a person who takes pride in this.

            [–]kennethlukens 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            I don't know. Morals are intensely personal. My morals are not your morals. Seems like you're thrusting your set of morals on everyone else? Do your morals say that is OK?

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            The only reason why morality exists is to keep the sheeple in line to keep building the elites' empires.. It's a lot easier to socially engineer the masses when you have this charade going on, makes them a lot more predictable too.

            EDIT: Also, you say that you can't stand men who say one thing and do the other. As a guy who has had multiple girlfriends cheat/leave for another guy, but have always refused to be that guy who coaxed the girl into leaving, why should I care anymore? I'm certainly not going to chase women who are specifically taken, but why should I care to ask if they have a boyfriend or husband? If a girl leaves her college boyfriend for you, that's one thing.. But if she leaves a husband and cheats with you? Why not treat her like the dirt she is? Just fuck her and send her home to the bucks.

            [–]Redpillc0re 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            I am not sure if the moral system you are defending is valid anymore. I mean, most people come here exactly because this system of morality (the "loyalty" system) has visibly diminished in their everyday life. People defend moral systems when they feel they are just (for everyone not just for themselves). I believe humans have an innate affinity for this "justice", yet most others (and certainly the 50% of the population) do not follow the system anymore.

            It seems to me the established moral system based on "loyalty" is much in doubt today, and i don't see a reversing trend. Therefore men are justified to defy it, imho.

            OTOH when they put the blame on "dumb betas who can't keep their girl into place" I cringe at the male hamstering. At some point beta-shaming should be viewed as an offense here.

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            As a Christian and a fan of Dalrock, I feel that this viewpoint only represents a section of red pill. I believe that there are objective morals, but red pill is and can be a part of those morals, and that the blue pill position is immoral.

            That being said, one can be immoral while also being redpill, but the TRP philosophy is not immoral per se.

            [–]semondemon24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            With great power comes great responsibility.

            [–]smokingmonkey420 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            I'm just going to leave this here as I find it relevant to the discussion.

            "When the devil wants to dance with you, you better say never, because a dance with the devil might last you forever."

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r-1ZaMe72ZU

            [–]Waldo00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            There is no right and wrong. Only karma. If you wrong a man by sleeping with the mother of his children, he may come and kill you. We just live in a time of law, fear and cowardess. So for the moment the bounty is free for te taking. But when the pressure builds so too will the karmic consequences.

            [–]infernalsatan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            After reading this and WatchTower's post, I think TRP may split into two or even more schools.

            I left TRP because I recently felt that redpillers are no longer human anymore. It broke my heart when I saw someone who question the true meaning of alpha vs being a good person got downvoted a lot. They made me wonder, what is a true redpiller? Should a redpiller be a human? Or be some humanoid that is "alpha" but without moral, decency and emotions? And what is alpha?

            And this post makes me think, how important is humanity in the redpill philosophy?