all 129 comments

[–]Blake55 104 points105 points  (1 child)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"You're marriage material"

---translate---

You can be relied on to be there. You have limited options. You give no tingles. You might be a good provider one day. That special girl is currently on the carousel at the moment, and she will find you when her options dry up too.

[–]16 Endorsed Contributorss_camaro 10 points11 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The level 9 sting of: fembabble translator.

[–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 78 points79 points  (7 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If I was "marriage material," and marriage should include sex then why not "sex material" too?

Well you see, most marriages consist of dead bedrooms or once a week/month duty sex. That's the unspoken but implied caveat, that marriage material means you are sexually serviced beneath your actual requirements in return for providing and not because you are actually sexually desired by the woman who gives you trickle pussy.

Now a woman being marriage material on the other hand conveys a completely different meaning.

The irony in a woman telling you you're marriage material is that it's women who have to lock down men into marriage as it serves their need to attach themselves to a man and derive commitment/security from that man in the first place, so telling a man he's marriage material is kind of a way of saying "you'll be no challenge to shackle, and you'll be good enough to be useful whilst you're at it."

The ultimate under-the-radar insult in my opinion, one that often isn't even consciously meant as an insult. In a different era it was a compliment, but not in this one. Use it as an unintended barometer of your SMV. If women are calling you an asshole saying they would never want to take you home to meet their parents, you're on the right lines. Fucked up how counterintuitive dealing with women is but eh, women are where logic goes to die.

[–]1exit_sandman 15 points16 points  (1 child)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Use it as an unintended barometer of your SMV. If women are calling you an asshole saying they would never want to take you home to meet their parents, you're on the right lines. Fucked up how counterintuitive dealing with women is but eh, women are where logic goes to die.

The sad part is that I can't even say you're wrong.

Permission to quote you whenever I hear a woman asking "where have all the good men gone?"

[–]bringer_of_fight 5 points6 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would hesitate even discussing this with a woman. Whats the point?

[–]Turkeytom86 6 points7 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Amen. Every time a woman says something to me along the lines of "you're mean", yet continues to see me, I know I'm doing something right.

I don't think I've ever been called marriage material, and I'm glad for the same reasons OP hates the term as well.

[–]A_Mighty_Wyn 6 points7 points  (1 child)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So, is this the equivalent to telling a woman, "You're One Night Stand Material"?

[–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 7 points8 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In a manner of speaking, yes it is. As Patrice O'Neal said, a woman will go to the movies with any guy but then disappear afterwards to have sex with the other guy (we're just friends!), whilst a man will have sex with any chick but then go to the movies with people he actually wants to spend time with afterwards, not the lay.

[–]Nerd_Destroyer 19 points20 points  (1 child)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

»women are where logic goes to die

yep.

[–]sway_usa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"God put a hole in the middle of a woman, where logic and rationality leak out of constantly."

[–]trajanconquers89 60 points61 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In another time, this might have been a good thing for you, but with the break down of society here in the West, people like you unfortunately get passed up.

'gina tingles > stable, healthy society

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well done sir. Take it a little further and you will begin to realize that the male equivalent is calling a woman "a great cum dumpster."

[–]PragmaticD 32 points33 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The link in the side bar called "Michael's Story" goes into this.

[–][deleted] 109 points110 points  (12 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I used to get that a lot and my response was pretty weak.

Today I just agree and amplify:

"Thanks. You'll make a great housewife"

If it comes from a woman my age:

"I think you'll make a great husband as well"

[–]erqos 50 points51 points  (10 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In the trailer for the film Edge of Tomorrow (didn't watch it since I have no desire to indirectly benefit Scientologists via Tom Cruise), the Emily Blunt female protagonist says to Cruise's male protagonist: "You're not a soldier. You're a weapon." If the typical wife were as blunt as she was, the wife would tell her husband, "You're not a husband. You're a resource." To be consumed by her, until he has nothing left to give her; and then she'd discard him like an old pizza box.

[–]5 Endorsed Contributorgekkozorz 38 points39 points  (2 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That would be straight talk, something which women are not capable of doing. As I have noted before, any given female's sexual strategy requires Area 51 levels of secrecy about what they actually want from a partner (or partners) because men would see them as being completely undatable if they knew the truth. Thus the fact that they powertalk as easily as they breath - it's all about using words to get maximum results.

Off topic: Edge of Tomorrow was actually really good. I hate supporting that midget nut as much as any other red-blooded American, but you have to admit, he's picked some excellent roles.

[–]Hardparty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Love that 'noted before' from 4chan. Great post

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

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Groundhog Day meets Independence Day. Could see the plot twists a mile away.

Oblivion was much, MUCH better.

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar 20 points21 points  (4 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm going to hop on this train: Edge of Tomorrow was the best sci-fi movie I've seen in years. Brilliantly written, brilliantly directed, brilliantly acted. Yeah Tom Cruise is a fucking weirdo, but he's damn near single-handedly kept the sci-fi genre alive.

[–]Ormild 4 points5 points  (2 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree. Edge of Tomorrow was better than I expected. I usually like those types of movies (Source Code was another good one).

Movie had a quite a bit of humor added in too.

[–]lifeinred 4 points5 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Man, Source Code was great!

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar 3 points4 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One of my favorite bits: After the chick ignores him at the farmhouse, gets in the helicopter, and dies again, he decides to go it alone. This time, he's got that crazy warrior resolve (which Cruise really nailed.)

When he's in the drop-ship, the bandana guy comes over to him and says, like usual, "Know how to turn the safety off?"

Cruise turns the warrior glare onto him, and says: "I need four extra clips of 5.56, eight grenades, and an extra battery pack." (how's that for keeping frame?)

The guy just stands there, unable to process it.

Cruise barks, "Get it. Now."

Cowed by Cruise's authority and alphaness, the guy gets the gear.

Loved that scene.

[–]Ralt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That is very true. Gotta hand it to Vin Diesel as well on Riddick.

[–]kevjohn_forever 8 points9 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sort of off topic, but it's your loss for not seeing Edge of Tomorrow. That shit is epic! Best sci-fi movie since Inception.

[–]ProductivityMonster 5 points6 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I told the one or two women who actually said this to me that I didn't plan on getting married, but I like your responses as well. I usually get nasty looks from them as they realize that I wouldn't be around to pay for them after they had taken their ride on the cock carousel.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

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

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    "Nice personality" just seems like sugar coating for a break up.

    The majority of people don't want to hurt others, and they have many ways to soften the blow.

    If they would just come out and say "I don't think we are compatible, I don't want sex or a relationship with you, and that's that." it might make you really angry, but it would be honest.

    Hurting someone with honesty is really hard if you have a lot of empathy, which most women tend to have.

    [–]1exit_sandman 8 points9 points  (2 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Actually, try to make a woman empathize with something she can't relate to because she has never experienced it (or, even worse, is unable to experience) and you see how awesome the female capacity of empathizing is.

    [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    With what though? Give me an example here, as I've seen that women can empathize far better then men can, for the most part.

    [–]1exit_sandman 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    With problems that are were male-specific.

    • women can't properly relate to how important it is for a man to be sure that he's the father of the children he raises ("irrationally important", like one female journalist wrote). Neither can they relate if a man who has been a doting and loving father may be willing to cut contact with a child he learns was never his in the first place.
    • the impact involuntary celibacy and the nigh-total or even total absence of any meaningful positive feedback from the opposite gender may have on a guy.
    • why men don't feel flattered if they're told that they're "marriage material" when it's clear that this means he'll be ignored as long as she's in her "exploring phase"; and why they don't feel flattered that they have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get less than what she has given to others for free ("but these guys were not special, but you are!!!111")
    • that men don't actually have the same options as women do (like just dropping her job and taking the emergency exit by marrying off to a provider)
    • etc.

    [–]Overkillengine 16 points17 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Just smile and say: "I'm sure I'll be busy making some young lady very happy!"

    [–]Ormild 16 points17 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I've never been told I'm marriage material, but a coworker once said, "You're the type of guy girls date after they are done dating the assholes." I'm sure she meant it as a compliment, but even before I discovered TRP I knew that the comment fucking sucked. It messed with my head for a few weeks after I heard that.

    [–]Mintaka7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    at least she was honest and direct about it

    [–]popthatpill 42 points43 points  (41 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Probably the greatest public service redpillers can perform is hammering this explanation of what "marriage material" really means into the public consciousness (in particular, men under 40).

    (This would have the side benefit of getting the rest of society to hate us even more than they already do, lol)

    [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 61 points62 points  (40 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    If TRP ever became a mainstream intellectual framework then society would either a: collapse or b: a sizeable number of redpillers would evolve into neoreactionaries as they begin to analyze the entire system and implement change at the political and legal levels. Essentially it would be all out war with sex-positive feminism on an ideological scale which is the prevailing hegemonic ideology in the west as it stands, the shadowy figure of doublespeak and doublethink which stands defiant and omnipotent in what is a post-religious collection of societies.

    All of this leads to increased amorality/immorality (rather than a moral/honorbound culture) it increases apathy, isolation, desensitization, distrust, sociopathy among other dysfunctional and inhospitable human behaviours. The decline is not sustainable and neither is trp's "playing the system" as "the system" will eventually change/evolve/de-evolve/crash. This is not a criticism of TRP as much as it is a reality of it, we are in a constant state of flux, by the time you have your own grandkids (assuming you chose to continue your line) the things you learnt here would need to be adjusted for the environment that your grandkids find themselves in when you distill RP knowledge to them, the most basic and rudimentary maxims will hold (like Schopenhauer's 19th century german philosophy or hypergamy, however the political climate and technology will change how people interact, eg: your grandad would think "text game" is beta, would have no concept of tinder, feminism was weaker so marriage wasn't out of the window - things like that) TRP is essentially pragmatic and contemporary, if the system changes then TRP will cease to be or will change with it (proving itself as an intellectual framework that is adaptive rather than maladaptive), having its history archived on the internet in relation to the-then contemporary issues of the time.

    PUA evolved into TRP through self-awareness, basically, guys "woke up" (to a limited extent) and learnt society was fucked up in ways that were previously inconceivable to them because they couldn't get laid, women seemed weird to them, they felt out of place and they seemed to get a harder time than their female counterparts, unable to place their finger on what was off. The next step from TRP is to become a neoreactionary, that is, to understand the entire culture you live in and why it is how it is, not just the behaviours people in your culture exhibit. This is to dispel all of the leftist (note I say leftist, not liberal, leftism is not liberal in the truest sense of the word.)

    Unfortunately, not everyone will make the complete journey. Along the road of PUA > TRP > NEOREACTION there is an intellectual incline, that is to say the further you go along the more brain power you need to comprehend what is going on.

    Pua is easier to follow than TRP, you see that with people in this sub, some of the people that come here only give a fuck about game, approaching, building comfort, building attraction, escalating, getting laid, running a harem, going on a tinder rampage. That's literally all they give a damn about and all that shit falls within the realm of PUA, although relevant, PUA ALONE is the simplest form of neoreaction and it doesn't address the problems or acknowledge them, it merely circumvents the system so you can get laid. You don't need to be on TRP to do any of that, a PUA forum will cover all of that just fine.

    TRP encompasses the latter (PUA) but within a different frame, it's more individualistic and begins to look at gender politics, it's essentially a mesh of Men's Rights, PUA and Self-Improvement, although the men's rights violations or lack thereof are merely identified, not campaigned for.

    Neoreaction does not encompass TRP or PUA, it is more macro in nature (looks at society as a whole) whilst TRP and PUA are more micro in nature (PUA is more micro in nature than TRP as TRP at least looks at feminism and men's rights.)

    Neoreaction is more about the analysis of prevailing ideology, the development of civilization into the future (transhumanism), how civilization got to where it is, how to save civilization, what happens if we don't save it, it's an analysis of "the collapse", attempts to predict the future, looks at recent history to explain the present, etc, etc it is a thorough dispellation of leftist myths and no doubt there are some individuals who have shared conspiratorial ideas in the vein of neoreaction. EG: Banking families. Whether those conspiracies are true or not? Who knows without actual evidence, you can't generalize banking families like you can generalize a gender you interact with on a daily basis, it's different.

    TRP does not venture in its discourse outside gender differences, neoreaction looks at race differences, sexual orientation, everything. Things that will not go down well on TRP when it comes to race or sexual orientation, eg: IQ difference between races, human biological diversity etc etc are things neoreaction looks at. I've read neoreaction stuff that talks about the indoctrination and normalisation of homosexuality taking it out of the DSM and making it "a lifestyle" via glamorization, how the absence of religious adherence makes such lifestyles easier to adopt and circulate, the rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than TRP. A lot of people have neither the intellect, patience or even mental will to go beyond PUA, in essence it is the need to reproduce and the failure to do that which begins to wake men up, how far they go on their journey is down to their intellectual curiosity and capacity.

    If PUA is a country, then TRP is a continent and neoreaction is the planet. Although I must add that TRP evolved out of PUA, neoreaction formed independently of TRP but like TRP is highly critical of the prevailing leftist rhetoric that is being indoctrinated into students via schools via the myth of egalitarianism (of which feminism is a sub-ideology), it is far more intellectualised and far less pragmatic than TRP, however combined they cohese quite well to form a more complete understanding. Ultimately it is TRP that will give you the power to act and behave and instigate change physically whilst neoreaction will further amplify your understanding of the world, in essence, neoreaction in the metaphorical sense is a "second red pill" not everyone needs it, and if you don't care about your genetic line but simply living well whilst you have your time on this Earth then TRP is more than enough. Neoreaction isn't for everyone, not everyone is revolutionary or an intellectual and that's fine but for those that are, there are definitely dots to be connected between TRP and neoreaction.

    [–]OsoFeo 10 points11 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    When I think of RP I think more of neo-reaction than I do of game.

    It may interest you to know that I found my way to RP by a very circuitous route from collapse circles (where I arrived by another very circuitous route from left-leaning environmentalist circles). I was a collapsnik before taking TRP.

    Very weird journey it has been.

    [–]AchillesOtherLeg 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    TRP was actually the LAST piece of the puzzle for me. I'm not sure if people are going to naturally awake to all these truths. There's a combination of IQ and exposures that you need and it's not common.

    Only a successful hijack of public morality such as that orchestrated by the left could reverse what's happened. The leftist movement serves the elite though whereas TRP would not.

    Another model for revolution is when more resource and elite thinking is concentrated in a class outside of the elite than inside. Currently its not the case and the elite are better than they used to be about inducting new elites as one of them.

    [–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 5 points6 points  (3 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I think TRP and MGTOW will be the forces that shape our culture in the next century far more than feminism ever will.

    You see for every man that gets exposed to these ideas and has a violently negative reaction and becomes full blown white knight mangina. There are going to be at least a dozen other guys who agree with the philosophies taught by those movements to varying degrees.

    Personally most guys in TRP would be considered at Level 1 or 2 of MGTOW spectrum. So there is a significant amount of overlap between the two ideologies.

    As more and more men opt-out of the marriage game and decide that women are not worth the effort (due to the quality of women or lack thereof that society is mass producing). The less men that are there ready to catch women as they come flying off the carousel eventually the numbers of women landing hard on their ass will greatly increase and perhaps society will move back to a healthy center/middle of the road approach to everything rather than having radical feminists or radical MRAs deciding they should be in a perpetual gender war.

    [–]tsotha 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I think TRP and MGTOW will be the forces that shape our culture in the next century far more than feminism ever will.

    I hope that's true, but I think it's unlikely. Women still control the culture and the government, so what's more likely to happen is as men refuse to get married women and the (relatively) small number of men who benefit from the status quo will use the state to simply take what they want. I can envision women reacting to a generation of men turning into slackers by instituting some sort of public service draft to make sure there are enough resources the government can dole out to single women.

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

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Actually read the sidebar's Misandry bubble. I think we're starting to see the first stages of that and I hope by the time my life ends I'll get to see the end of it.

    As for a 'public service draft'... You cant force people to work. Look at the draft in Vietnam, there were no shortage of men who were willing to go to jail rather than go to war. What are you going to do to men who refuse to work? Throw them in jail? Where they'll get meals every day and exercise?

    Or are you saying they'll implement some failure of a bachelor tax... it didn't work for the Roman Empire or any other country that implemented it. Men are simply happy to pay the tax and avoid women if women become so desperate for men they would tax any man that isn't attached to some pussy.

    Also in terms of economy it will be a spectacular failure. When men see more and more of their paychecks going to the government and less and less that they can spend on themselves they will become unhappy and disillusioned. You see men are only capable of producing a surplus when they are happy and healthy. Remove either of those conditions and men will rarely produce more than it takes to survive (Effectively MGTOW level 3-4 or 5 depending on what scale you use).

    [–]tsotha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I think they'll start with a bachelor tax, though not officially. We already sort of have that - people with dependents pay less in taxes because they get extra deductions. I agree that doesn't work in the long run, though, since guys who aren't incentivized to create and support a family will be perfectly happy working part time at Starbucks as long as it covers the rent and leaves a little bit extra for beer money.

    But there's no reason to hold themselves to a bachelor tax. Like the Romans, they'll tax everything. Everything. We're pretty much there already. It'll just require rate adjustment.

    But I think you're being optimistic about the end game. Women will be perfectly happy to effectively enslave you (though they'll never think of it in those terms) if that's necessary to keep the gravy train rolling.

    [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    If TRP ever became a mainstream intellectual framework then society would either a: collapse or b: a sizeable number of redpillers would evolve into neoreactionaries as they begin to analyze the entire system and implement change at the political and legal levels.

    These ideas are more memetic than you think. Don't write this off.

    [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 16 points17 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    As maudlin as some of my writings are and as melancholic as some of my revelations have been both personal and societal, I have great hope for humanity. Evil will always have more power than good because its very nature is destructive, but evil cannot prevail without good, because evil is parasitic (it feeds on good), in the absence of good evil would be forced to feed on other evil which would lead to the volatile high octane eradication of evil, meaning there would be nothing left. Think WW3. Whilst good/altruism on the other hand provides the infrastructure we need to thrive and survive, the systems which facilitate growth. I theorise there is a kind of esoteric limit on how much evil a society can function under before completely collapsing in on itself. There is only so much sociopathy a culture can sustain before that culture is so distrustful of itself that it becomes an isolated police state that leads to mass depression (something I think the anglosphere is already experiencing, very sociopathic cultures.)

    Good-Evil, Masculine-Feminine, Day-Night, there is a recurring theme throughout nature, opposites need each other. If daybreak never came then how would crops grow? Likewise if the sun never went down, how would the planet retain it's water supplies? These are fundamental mechanisms of equilibrium, that is to say, elements that take part in a balancing act. Equilibrium doesn't mean equality as much as it means complementation.

    Example of equilibrium (efficiency model) - A is good at X so does X whilst B is good at Y so does Y.

    Example of equality (subjectively perceived fairness model) - Posits the question why A almost always gets to do X? Insists that B should get to do X too so it's "fair", campaigns for change citing that excluding B from X is inequitable, acts as if "exposing" the lack of B doing X is some profound philosophical messiah-esque insight that has been covered up for eternity, then gets all hysterical and says there was a conspiracy for A to systematically undermine B, convinces B it's a victim of A and then makes B hate A, whilst punishing A for hating B (whether as a response to B's hatred after believing lies about A or not, it matters not for it doesn't discriminate.)

    Such is the fallacy of ideology like feminism, it's destructive because it vilifies complementation in the name of diversity and "progressiveness."

    This is why we've always had religion as a kind of natural law to make people moral (YES it was abused by the DT elite, just like capitalism is, but the MASSES were made to behave morally and religion was effective in making this possible) without goodness everything falls apart, even though goodness is weaker in terms of power dynamics than evil is. You can't have one without the other. They complement each other just fine, it is all a part of the natural balance. He who strives to be eternally good is a naive fool, he who strives to be eternally evil is a heartbroken naive fool. Balance is key to functionalism.

    [–]harkrank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Evil will always have more power than good because its very nature is destructive, but evil cannot prevail without good, because evil is parasitic (it feeds on good), in the absence of good evil would be forced to feed on other evil which would lead to the volatile high octane eradication of evil, meaning there would be nothing left. Think WW3.

    Yesterday I realized what this quote means: "Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken."

    It is what you are talking about. Humanity needs a constant influx of uncorrupted, pure members, ie children. That's why eternal life is not possible (or even a very long lifespan). We would reach entropy in our evil and stagnate, deeply dug in our trenches.

    [–]IamAwaken 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I believe that in our modern era there may be a chance for adaptation and progress without either of these two. As long as no aggressive countries gain substantial power the world is quite a peaceful place than ever before. This is a large contribution to the rise of feminism. It's a leisure to think these idealistic thoughts and suffer the consequences more gently than if we were in primitive times of raw man power being strength.

    Extreme movements abound like the tea party and honestly we always move closer to the middle. It is a curious thought though how all men would react if given red pill thought. Some imagine riots, but honestly I foresee something sickly more sinister. If the theory holds that men lead the way and all men were changed by this it would be women that are most influenced since their meaning if found through us. If all the beta orbiters vanished for all girls in one day. If a large group of men decided to also MGTOW and not help or interact with women. The sudden shock of that would definitely have some sort of impact but it's hard to say what and if it the stars would ever align into that situation.

    In a more gradual and long term setting respect for men would rise if men held more respect for themselves. The transition should occur somewhat steadily and maybe faster than it declined based on if this message could ever be easily enough disgusted so that the layman can smoothly adapt.

    [–]elevul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Many men WILL go MGTOW, TRP or not, once we get fully immersive virtual reality and/or androids that are convincing enough.

    [–]project2501a 6 points7 points  (23 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    TRP has some awful good truths. I cannot abide a demagogue, though.

    This is to dispel all of the leftist

    The Left has performed quite some feats in enabling a better future for all humankind. The fact that you are sitting on a chair in front of the computer instead of slaving away, is because someone died to give you free personal time.

    All of this leads to increased amorality/immorality (rather than a moral/honorbound culture) it increases apathy, isolation, desensitization, distrust, sociopathy among other dysfunctional and inhospitable human behaviours

    You yourself are using Marxist ideas (Worker alienation) in the above example - minus the moralistic, monochromatic judgement; morals which were handed down from the bourgeoisie to keep the plebes in check.

    Seriously, who wants to be a surf? To pick cotton from a field for his master? Who in their right mind is fond of renting out his skills for more than the agreed upon social contract of 8 hours?

    Was there no honor in the deaths of thousands of workers fell, trying to improve themselves?

    it is a thorough dispellation of leftist myths

    What is a Leftist myth, please? Is it a myth that the owners of the means of production are always going to fuck those working? Is it a myth that the accumulation of capital extracts the overvalue of the product from those who made the product and into the hands of those who exploit the workers?

    TRP when it comes to race or sexual orientation, eg: IQ difference between race

    I was not aware there is currently more than one human race on this planet. Or are there any surviving Cro-Magnon among us? No? Or do you mean the Jews and the blacks?

    Neoreaction isn't for everyone, not everyone is revolutionary or an intellectual and that's fine but for those that are, there are definitely dots to be connected between TRP and neoreaction

    Neoreaction is not for everyone, because nobody wants to backpedal into an era of disease, early death, malnutrition, lack of basic hygiene and oppression for 99.999% of the population, ruled by theocracies and subjected to the whims of humans with absolute power over other humans, because it was degreed so by some watery tart holding a sword.

    Here lies the difference between the Left and the Right/Neoreaction:

    • The Left is inclusive: wants to make ALL mankind better. Let everybody reap the benefits of labor
    • The Right (and apparently Neoreaction) is exclusive: You must be good enough; but they never define "good enough". It is always a shifting goalpost.

    Let's stop pretending that "Neoreactionism" is a civilization-saving ideology, shall we?

    What you are proposing is Fascism or Oligarchy, plain and simple, painted over the ugly parts with nostalgia. The Rule of the All Knowing Fearless Leader, or the rule of the Few Wise Men.

    The fallacy with the above is that no Dear Leader, no Few Good Men historically ever had the interest of those the rule over, in their hearts. It always devolves into a pure grab for power and a mania of securing their position as Leaders: leadership for leadership's sake. Self-serving or idiot, in the original meaning of the word. Nothing for the society here.

    Revolutions are fundamental changes in power that take place in relatively short periods of time. What knee-jerk, status-quo Reactionary can be a Revolutionary?

    [–]theozoph 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    The Left has performed quite some feats in enabling a better future for all humankind. The fact that you are sitting on a chair in front of the computer instead of slaving away, is because someone died to give you free personal time.

    We have personal time because a society of leisure can produce and consume more than a spartan one. And the reasons why I'm in front of a computer have nothing to do with Marx or Trotsky, and everything to do with Babbage, Turing, and Von Neumann.

    I was not aware there is currently more than one human race on this planet. Or are there any surviving Cro-Magnon among us?

    You're mixing race and species. And if you wanted an example of a Leftist Myth, that's one right there.

    What you are proposing is Fascism or Oligarchy, plain and simple, painted over the ugly parts with nostalgia. The Rule of the All Knowing Fearless Leader, or the rule of the Few Wise Men.

    If you're not an elitist, then you're not truly Red Pill. Everyone here acknowledges that TRP isn't for everyone, and that alone should teach you how stupid it is to hold to egalitarian beliefs.

    It always devolves into a pure grab for power and a mania of securing their position as Leaders

    And Leftism always devolves into political witch trials and terror. I'll take the political stability of tyranny over that any day.

    What knee-jerk, status-quo Reactionary can be a Revolutionary?

    None, because that's not the end goal. Read some more, you're woefully ignorant of neo-reaction.

    [–]1Gavlan_Wheel 8 points9 points  (12 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Is it a myth that the owners of the means of production are always going to fuck those working?

    Yup. Exploiting workers can only happen when there is a surplus of workers or a shortage of other jobs. This is why corporations want off shoring, no tariffs and open borders.

    Is it a myth that the accumulation of capital extracts the overvalue of the product from those who made the product and into the hands of those who exploit the workers?

    Well, I don't speak communist so I don't really quite understand what you are saying here.

    After doing some Google searching, you seem to be just saying that profit and people having more money than others is bad. So yeah, it is a myth. People being rich isn't a bad thing in and of itself, neither is giving someone a paycheck to create a product since you are the one taking all of the risk. But the rich manipulating the government is bad and we call that crony capitalism.

    EDIT: Why are there so many communists? Communism has caused more deaths, destruction and genocide than any other kind of government, including the fucking Nazi's. The Nazi's came and went but communism is still around. "Hey guys, I'm a communist! We've only caused 100 million deaths so far. But those guys just weren't doing it right. We'll get it right someday! Maybe after another few million deaths!"

    [–]elevul 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    As said many times in the past, /r/basicincome will solve the issue from the ground up, by making working voluntary, rather than mandated.

    Please read the subreddit FAQ for more information.

    [–]2 Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I'm not trying to defend them, just pointing out that Stalin and Pol Pot were using communism to control people, but the reason they killed people was not because they were commies, its because they were paranoid and wanted to stay in power. Keeping people terrified prevents revolution, killing off people arbitrarily yet methodically does the same thing, keeps those in power safe. With those two, the fact they were commies is about the same as them being atheists, that isn't why they killed people.

    Communism and socialism are not my favorite ideology, they appear to me as being at the bottom looking up with a chip on their shoulder about why they can't have the big house and lots of money. I'm not a fan of current capitalism either, since that has been increasingly keeping others down to sustain profits. Its all fear and greed driven, someone might have more than I do, so I can't let anyone succeed. It flies in the face of 'the one who wants it most and puts in the effort gets it' and its just like Stalin, but without the deaths, because those people are needed to buy useless crap and work at a job that doesn't actually produce anything to keep the economy going, while keeping them down.

    If there was benefit in killing, you bet your ass capitalists would be doing it. Oh wait, the wars I fought in were to preserve profits, and to profit from increased production. Just can't kill too many of them.

    I'm sure as fuck not a commie, but I don't fit current capitalism either.

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

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    It flies in the face of 'the one who wants it most and puts in the effort gets it'

    I'm sure as fuck not a commie, but I don't fit current capitalism either.

    Sounds like you believe in meritocracy. Equality of opportunity, but not outcome. EG: We all get to go to university but only the smartest will graduate and get good jobs BASED ON THEIR SMARTS and not who's dad knows who and under the table nepotism.

    Social capital fucks with how well people do in life regardless of their abilities, unless their abilities are so rare and sought after that they innately generate social capital in and of themselves. Eg: you can invent a working time machine.

    [–]2 Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I'm more of an anarchist, working for those guberment bastards does that to you. That does fit though, and who your daddy is makes a huge difference. My family had zero social capital, which is how I ended up in two wars. That being said, I never wanted to be rich, just live comfortably, and do something impressive with my life. I did plenty, but I wanted to do more before I couldn't work anymore. I was cheated out of so much because of where I grew up, and where I was forced to attend school.

    [–]RPL23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I'm really glad you wrote this. I'm getting sick of the liberal-bashing here on TRP. A lot of RPs have either forgotten the victories that liberals have won for the rest of mankind, or have fully swallowed the conservative frame and rewriting of history.

    I'll even venture to guess that there are a lot of liberal guys here who might not comment but definitely read a lot of posts & agree with basic tenants of RP.

    [–]1exit_sandman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Because the Nazis were pretty upfront about wanting to annihilate and/or enslave everyone who didn't conform to a specific set of standards in the long run. The Communists managed to convince not too few gullible people that they were actually in it for the betterment of mankind regardless of gender or ethnicity. Heck, they probably even believed it themselves. What are bunch of dead people (who were all reactionaries who had it coming anyway) if utopia is around the corner?

    [–]project2501a -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Yup. Exploiting workers can only happen when there is a surplus of workers or a shortage of other jobs. This is why corporations want off shoring, no tariffs and open borders.

    Shortage of jobs is intrinsic in Capitalism. You have to have a threat dangling over a worker, to make him believe he should be thankful of of having the privilege of slaving for someone else. Otherwise, people would bugger off.

    After doing some Google searching, you seem to be just saying that profit and people having more money than others is bad.

    Overvalue of profit. The difference between ( the cost of making a product and making a -legitimate- profit from it ) and (charging an arm and a leg for it, much like Oracle does, "because market").

    The problem with "having money" is that money has power. One rich person can (and has) more than one vote or more power than any other human. That is definitely not a good thing.

    In a Democracy, he can vote twice or thrice more. In an Oligarchy/Fascism he will be valued because of his money and his ability to influence his workers.

    EDIT: Why are there so many communists?

    Because the idea of a classless, leadership-less, egalitarian future, where everybody is given the chance of trying anything, fucking up and still be on their feet is better than any current political system.

    [–]steveob42 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    "Because the idea of a classless, leadership-less, egalitarian future, where everybody is given the chance of trying anything, fucking up and still be on their feet is better than any current political system."

    Um.. It is ok to be realistic about capitalism, but you have to be realistic about WHY this ideal doesn't work too. IF you define "fucking up" as doing absolutely squat, yet expect to be fed and clothed and have society pay for all your offspring, especially those who are working and trying to succeed, then that is arguably the worst form of government and does not instill any agency. There is no such thing as classless or leadership-less, just a spectrum, and the less lead ones can be much more inefficient (constant bickering, no goal).

    [–]trpsavvy 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    You realize communism's endgame is inherently regressive and not (technologically) progressive in the slightest? Communism is the antithesis to innovation.

    A non-hierarchical society could not work in the long run with hierarchical animals. It is an intellectual wetdream and nothing more. Hierarchy is going nowhere.

    [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    A non-hierarchical society could not work in the long run with hierarchical animals. It is an intellectual wetdream and nothing more. Hierarchy is going nowhere.

    Bang on the money.

    [–]1Gavlan_Wheel 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Overvalue of profit. The difference between ( the cost of making a product and making a -legitimate- profit from it ) and (charging an arm and a leg for it, much like Oracle does, "because market").

    No such thing as too much profit. If your companies price is too high, then your customers will go elsewhere.

    The problem with "having money" is that money has power. One rich person can (and has) more than one vote or more power than any other human. That is definitely not a good thing.

    Phew. Good thing Communism solves this. Oh wait, it doesn't. It just makes sure that no one except The Party can gain money and power.

    Because the idea of a classless, leadership-less, egalitarian future, where everybody is given the chance of trying anything, fucking up and still be on their feet is better than any current political system.

    None of those things represent what communism really is. You still have the proles and the party, the party is your leadership except you don't vote for them, egalitarian is a Marxist buzzword that is impossible since everyone is different and your last sentence is just straight nonsense.

    If I was given the choice between Hitler running my country or it becoming communist, I would be forced to side with Hitler. I would literally have less of a chance of being murdered. That is how bad communism is. Literally worse than Hitler.

    [–]trpsavvy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    The end-game of communism is the dissolution of hierarchy and the state. In place there will be an erection of completely egalitarian & equitable communes. Of course, outside the family unit - which still has hierarchy, such fantasies amount to nonsense. Communism is called the end of history because it literally is - after communism, as imagined by communist literature and philosophy, there is no more progress/innovation/change. It is static. It is weak. It is a wetdream.

    [–]rporion 3 points4 points  (7 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    What is a Leftist myth, please? Is it a myth that the owners of the means of production are always going to fuck those working? Is it a myth that the accumulation of capital extracts the overvalue of the product from those who made the product and into the hands of those who exploit the workers?

    Yes this is a myth, just like all objective price theories are, because value is subjective and ordinal, always, otherwise trade would be pointless.

    What Marx overlooked is that entrepreneurs a) allocate factors of production and b) assume the risk of the enterprise failing and c) try to anticipate the needs of the market as best as they can.

    Yeah, they can kind of expect to get rewarded for that IF they do that well.

    Other fallacies and strawmen in your post are not limited to but include that WANTING to make life better for people is the same as DOING it which is usually not so, that improved medicine and working conditions were somehow the product of concerted actions of do gooders instead of the inevitable result of capital accumulation and inter company competition and so further and so on...

    [–]project2501a 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    assume the risk of the enterprise failing

    Goldman and Sachs says "Hi!"

    [–]trpsavvy 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    The state bailing out large banks is not capitalism. It was a strategy praised on the left and lauded on the the right as a necessary "evil." It is a leftist strategy. Fascism developed from syndicalism, a philosophy emphasizing the unity of state, worker, and corporation. Fascism takes the socialist philosophy of syndicalism to its logical extreme and intertwines it with populist notions of "nationalism."

    [–]tsotha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    There's nothing capitalist about banks in the US. They are de facto agents of the state.

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

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    That is actually fascism, which is and always was a leftist ideology.

    It is just, as Mussolini put it so succinctly, "why socialize companies if I can socialize people?"

    He also said of course that the most fitting name for fascism would be corporatism.

    The only difference between fascists and communists in the 20s and 30s was that the latter were taking orders from Moscow whereas the former did not.

    Plus, what trpsavvy said.

    [–]Blalubb 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Bullshit noone takes the risk of failing enterprises.

    [–]rporion -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Really?

    I have owned failing enterprises and I took the hit.

    Not that I had a choice, but still....

    You know, 99,9% of all companies are not multi billion, politically well connected and protected nightmares, most are anything but.

    But you know what, invest a few 100k in a business, let it tank and see who bails you out.

    [–]Blalubb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Totally disregard what i wrote there. I think i was dead drunk when typing that :D

    I think i meant it in regard to those "too big to fail" companies. Where even those guys who fuck up a company get lavish retirement funds.

    [–]zephyrprime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Excellent post. You should spin this off into it's own thread rather than being ignored in a rather prosaic thread about marriage.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    [deleted]

      [–]elevul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Could you link more resources on neoreaction, please? Perhaps the subreddit, if one exists.

      [–]Endorsed Contributor30303030303030 12 points13 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Very true, men need to remember that being a "marriage material" means kiss on the cheek after few wine and dines while "lover" or "asshole" gets his dick sucked after the first "date".

      I too once thought it was a good thing, to be called that. It isn't. Almost "you are such a nice guy". You get absolutely nothing for it but blue balls.

      [–]tallwheel 14 points15 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      marriage material = beta provider material

      [–]HeadingRed 42 points43 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I used to get that a lot. Didn't figure out until I was about 30 what that really meant.

      [–]1NV0K3R 10 points11 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I've had this said to me before. I usually respond with something along the lines of "Marriage material? Last time I checked, I was going to get married to [some age significantly lower than theirs]."

      This usually get's them pretty upset.

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

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Nothing's funnier than a bit of casual black knighting.

      [–]loin_fruit 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Was told by plate that I'm not long term relationship material after I fucked the shit out of her.

      I'm slowly swallowing the pill.

      [–]mrphilip11 10 points11 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I've never been called marriage material. Being a 22 year old unemployed college bum has its advantages.

      [–]Liftitrealgood 35 points36 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Marriage material is like the term for pawning you off on her poor sad barely functional friend. "ooohhhh you'll like him, he's marriage material!"

      [–]leodoestheopposite 8 points9 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Yup! Been there done that.

      In high school all the mothers wanted their daughters to date me, but their daughters wanted nothing to do with me except for Let's Just Be Friends and I love you like a brother and I like you, but not like that. Of course as the worst version of AFC I was proud of it.

      And then it continued into adulthood, I liked to be referred to as Marriage Material thinking that I could have my pick of the litter, but reality was quite different.

      PUA/Seduction saved my life, TRP is taking it to the next level.

      Take the Red Pill, life will never be the same.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      [deleted]

        [–]tsotha 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        What's bad is when a woman says "you're the type of guy that I could see myself with later in life" or something like that. Then it's really clear that she's not attracted to you and only likes that you make decent money and will put up with her shit.

        If a single woman tells you you're marriage material but doesn't want to date you, that's exactly what she's saying.

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

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        It's not like men don't have "sex material" and "dating material" at first glance.

        Usually it just depends on how hot a girl is though

        [–]CapitalG 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Can't tell you how many times I've been told this. This offers an incredible amount of perspective. Well done.

        [–]chairmobile 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        This is why I tend to be an asshole to the few girls I know. Maybe I won't get in their pants but I sure as hell won't be their shoulder to cry on.

        [–]Hayek_ 3 points4 points  (4 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Question for OP:

        Was it your career success, beta demeanor (no insult indented), or something else? I'm curious when and how this becomes a thing.

        [–]pjewa[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Do you mean how "marriage material" becomes a thing, or how RP becomes a thing? Not sure which you're asking for, though happy to answer!

        [–]Hayek_ 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Yes, the "marriage material" backhanded compliment.

        Thanks!

        [–]pjewa[S] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        I'll do my best to explain. Kinda turned into a ramble, but maybe you'll take something away.

        Nothing to do with my career choice or anything. I think it was my personality. I think in some cases I put women on a pedestal (beta behavior) growing up. Probably many cases.

        Growing up, middle school, high school, I was always the life of the party, girls had crushes on me, I was confident, bright future, etc. I've just been told my whole life I'm a "good guy," or "the full package."

        I got this one a lot "One day you're going to make some woman very happy."

        So looking back with a new lens, my confidence and talent for entertainment probably gave me some SMV, but once it was time to interact with the girls that were around, the things I had learned about "how to treat girls" probably had me acting like a total beta after having galavanted around like an alpha.

        I'd end up with a girl who was "finally talking to that guy everyone knew" and then I wouldn't make a move or wouldn't touch her certain ways for whatever reasons. I had always wanted to but something inside me convinced me not to. Like it was "not what a good guy like me would do." Sometimes we would make out one night and the next day just wanna be friends.

        Or maybe it wouldn't even get that far. I was the funny kid who was always in front of people, but couldn't escalate out of that into sexual excitement. So girls would say "he's such a good guy" or "I'd marry him" or whatever.

        I hope some of that made sense. Happy to answer more questions.

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

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Yup.... sounds like a textbook case of being a victim of the usual indoctrination of "good guys respect women (and their boundaries)".

        [–]ccoorryy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        I have had the same realization, but with if "we are a 30, and both single then we should get married".

        [–]2Occams_Shiv 11 points12 points  (1 child)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        The next time a girl tells you are mariage material, you can say:

        "Wow what a coincidence! I was just thinking you are really great whore material." It's so great we're such good friends that we can be honest.

        or

        "You're the type of guy girls look forward to marrying"

        A: "Wow! That's amazing. You're the type of girl guys look forward to fucking and never calling again."

        "I guess that's why we never got together."

        [–]elevul 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        That would break frame, though.

        [–]NOT_MEEHAN 2 points3 points  (7 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        I once had a girl stop seeing me because she said, "you're out of my league." I tried to tell her that status doesn't matter to me about you because I don't need you I just want you. She was looking for a guy who needed her. Plenty of blue pillers out there for her but, man is she missing out.

        It was sort of the same thing, I'll always be reliable and attracted but, I'm totally not.

        [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (6 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        This girl (in your example) may have just wanted out. I hate to say it, but women don't break up with the perfect guy if they actually want him.

        They are either so insecure that they sabotage their own relationships (a whole different ball game), or they might have been trying to let you down easy.

        "It's not you, it's me."

        [–]NOT_MEEHAN 2 points3 points  (5 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Originally I thought the same thing. When I asked about that, (we only went on 4 dates) she said you act like you're not ready to settle down in life but, on paper you should be. I'm into guys a little less put together so much.

        I didn't get mad or offended. She's just the fixer type and I'm not broken enough to fulfill her mom needs.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        She sounds a bit damaged to be honest. Good on you for getting out.

        I'm into guys a little less put together so much.

        This to me would be a massive red flag. Again, why would a girl not want a great guy? Unless there is something you are leaving out, you need to pack up and move on.

        [–]NOT_MEEHAN 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        She already left and we were hardly involved so that's fine. I've just never been told that by somebody who actually meant it. I just respect the fact she told the truth and didn't try to lead me on. We haven't talked since and that was last year.

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

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        This is much better then a girl who would pity fuck you for years before either cheating or moving on.

        Good on you, and also good for her. Worked out for the best.

        [–]3 Endorsed ContributorRedPope 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        If it was just this one chick, ignore it. She sounds broken. But if it happens again, remember this RP maxim:

        Perfection is boring.

        [–]tsotha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        When I asked about that, (we only went on 4 dates) she said you act like you're not ready to settle down in life but, on paper you should be. I'm into guys a little less put together so much.

        Translation: I'm into tatted outlaw biker types, and you're a bit beige.

        [–]TangoAlphaBravo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Very good reflexion, a big part of this game is figuring out semantics

        [–]emein 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        The carousel doesn't have to stop for either of you guys. Swinging bubba

        [–]CarlsPudding 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Yuuuuupppp.... Join the fucking club, man.

        [–]NaiveGoat 1 point2 points  (22 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        I am here as a girl who is curious to know what this sub is about. So here is why I dont understand why you are so disgruntled about your interpretation of being marriage material, and if you disagree please kindly explain. It has been shown that men like busty and blonde women more for having sex with, and they like more petite brunette women for getting married . I think in their mind busty and blonde signals 'fun loving but untrustworthy', and brunette and petite signals 'sophisticated and trustworthy'. So why cant women also have the same thing with men? What is wrong with that? A girl telling you that you are marriage material means that you are not only attractive, but also seem sophisticated and trustworthy. Also you say that women want you to be their provider. I dont think there are many women left in this day and age who think of men as providers. Women are rising fast in the workforce and actually unmarried women in their 20s are earning more than men.

        [–][deleted]  (16 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        [deleted]

          [–]NaiveGoat -3 points-2 points  (15 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          The idea here at theredpill is that women nowadays are encouraged by a lot of feminists to put off marriage and be more promiscuous. However, once a woman's looks diminish and she can't lock down good-looking, confident and marriage material men anymore, she settles for a provider

          The average age of marriage for women in the US now is 27. Sure this is older than it used to be some decades ago, but its still pretty fucking young. It also seems like the objectively right age for both men and women to get married is in their late twenties because thats when they have had an education, established a career etc. Does 27 seem extremely old to you?

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [deleted]

            [–]NaiveGoat -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            No but that's the average

            Its the average we care about, since it applies to the majority of people.

            here are still more women than ever that wait too long and can't get the guy they wanted

            So you are worried for women?

            [–]boscoist 2 points3 points  (10 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            For an average, yes it does. I'd like my kids to have graduated high school before I'm 50, so marrying much after 27 starts to push towards being old guy dad.

            [–]NaiveGoat -3 points-2 points  (9 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Even if women were not more promiscuous today the age of marriage would still go up simply because women are getting more education and are working full time jobs more often. I, for example, am going to finish my PhD when I am 28 and I am not going to get married before I do that. So are you also against more education and better jobs for women? More education and better jobs for women are not just good for women, they are good for men too. More education and better jobs for women mean a larger and more efficient economy which benefits everyone.

            [–]boscoist 1 point2 points  (8 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            More education and better jobs for women mean a larger and more efficient economy which benefits everyone.

            Does it? I only have correlation (which is a weak argument i know), but wages have flatlined since the 70s and inflation has horribly outpaced it. It looks almost like the influx of a new workforce has lead to an excess of labor. There are other factors sure but can you deny it out of hand?

            Am I against education and better jobs for EVERYONE? No, but better is becoming a relative term. I think an honest assessment of what you want out of life is more important as well as the freedom to choose (being/feeling compelled to get a college degree is dumb).

            [–]NaiveGoat -3 points-2 points  (7 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Does it?

            Dude having more people in the workforce equals a larger GDP. Thats why countries accept immigrants.

            [–]boscoist 1 point2 points  (6 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Dude having more people in the workforce equals a larger GDP. Thats why countries accept immigrants.

            Not in a largely post labor economy. Accepting immigrants hasn't been working so well in western europe.. Nor here in the US, where companies are importing cheap engineers through exploiting the h1b process and posting impossible job listings, where I see plenty of my former classmates going through hell to get a job. (engineering).

            [–]NaiveGoat -1 points0 points  (5 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            If the immigrants have a high human capital then this should expand the supply side of the market. I can see how letting in highly skilled immigrants who accept lower wages will lead to local labour having a harder time getting jobs even though it does lead to an expansion of production and lowering of prices. But this does not apply to women, because its not like women accept lower wages than men.

            [–]boscoist 1 point2 points  (4 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            If we assume equal number of men and women are entering a given field (generic field, not a real world example), where before there were none, you just doubled your supply without an appreciable change in demand. Wages tank in response because people need jobs and eventually take what they can get, as well as put up with more because they are afraid to lose their jobs. Immigrants (who are trained/useful in our imaginary field) act as further supply, which reduces wages even further.

            In the US economy, where a large portion of production and development is aimed at consumerism, tanking wages are terrible for the economy because less people can afford to buy whatever you happen to be selling.

            [–]hohamocha 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Does 27 seem extremely old to you?

            27 is around the age where a woman starts to deteriorate in terms of looks. So in terms of the sexual dating game, yes it is old. If she chooses to marry me at that age, she thinks that I am the only option she's got. If she still retained her looks, she would push marriage to her 30s or 40s and would still be fucking "bad-boy" cock.

            It also seems like the objectively right age for both men and women to get married is in their late twenties because thats when they have had an education, established a career etc.

            While she's getting an education, she is repeatedly getting pounded by several "bad boy" cocks in a month or year. We men don't like to marry experienced women, it shows a lack of self control. Men have to work hard at attracting many women in terms of getting big, muscular, and shredded (which takes a LOT of effort and pain), learning to put value in themselves, and learning to be aggressive and dominant and how to talk to women. All a woman has to do is step on the treadmill, learn how to apply makeup, and drop the donuts, and just sit there and pick which man hitting on them that she wants to fuck. This is part of the reason why there are significantly more male adult involuntarily celibate virgins than female adult virgins. So if I married a 27 year old woman who has been around quite a lot (which most women these days have), then what would that teach my kids whom she would raise in terms of self-control?

            [–]rporion 7 points8 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Ok, the classic deal was sex and reproductive resources against protection and committment.

            So, women are the gate keepers for sex, men for committment.

            Women decide if and when sex takes place, men decide if and how much they invest in a relationship.

            What a woman basically say with that statement is that he is expected to pay a very, very high price in the future for something she gave away for free in her prime.

            This is not a compliment.

            The reverse situation would be if you knew that I had a girlfriend before we met and I listened to her problems, took her out to dinner, met all her friends and took her on vacation, but you, I only call you over when I wanted to fuck and kicked you out afterwards.

            I could top that off with "Hey, I dont want to waste any time, money or emotions on you, but hey, if I just want a piece of ass"....

            Well, would you not feel special?

            [–]Anderfail 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            It's because of the connotation and context. A woman who truly believes that statement will actually ACT on it and go after the guy because he'a a can't miss prospect for a husband. That this doesn't happen means you're just blowing smoke up his ass and that he's not really what you're looking for in a man.

            This is why it's insulting. It's a comment that is not remotely backed up by your actions. It's literally like telling someone they are perfect for some job and then hiring someone else. In reality you were lying your ass off because you have no intention of going after the guy now because you still want to have some fun.

            The fact is, actions speak FAR louder than words. In this situation, it's clear your words are utterly meaningless and your actions are all that matters.

            [–]1exit_sandman 3 points4 points  (2 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            It has been shown that men like busty and blonde women more for having sex with, and they like more petite brunette women for getting married .

            I would love a petite yet busty brunette for both.

            Where does this place me?

            [–]NaiveGoat 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Oh mann, you are on your own.

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

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Sadly.

            But to go back to your earlier question - I assume your question is less about the voluptous blonde or the petite brunette (because frankly, that's rather secondary), but more about why men seem to sort women into "relationship material" and "hookup material". Well, because men have lower standards for hookups than for relationships. A woman he wants to put a ring on has to bring more to the table in every regard than a woman he would "just" sleep with (for this, being somewhat attractive in his eyes and being willing to spread her legs is enough for most who are willing to hook up) - but this also includes a certain amount of exclusivity from the woman in question, therefore women who have been "hookup material" in the past for some are unlikely to become "relationship material" in the present for others (which explains why women are rather secretive about that).

            Woman, however, seem to operate under a totally different set of "hook up"-rules. A man who is "marriage material" isn't necessarily the one who makes her overflow with passion, otherwise she would have also hooked up with him - or, even better, tried to make him her partner. It's as Anderfail some posts below has written: A woman who has found the man of her dreams doesn't put him on hold because she wants to "explore" - if she still does it, then he isn't the man of her dreams but just someone who promises to be a good partner/provider after she has had her share of good lovers. And while men take pride in being the former, they are also hardwired take pride into being the latter, probably even moreso. A woman, however, who picks other guys to have sex with but suddenly remembers someone when her best years are gone is signaling that she isn't passionate about him, but rather needs someone who is dependable. And that's where it is insulting.

            If you complain about the double standard at work here, well... concerning that I've written this little precious in another post.

            • women aren't really judgemental when it comes to men sleeping around - at least not in the way it counts. In fact, a man's popularity with the fairer sex correlates with the number of sexual partners he's already had so far. However, the opposite applies to men with little to no experience in that regard: Even if a woman tries not to be condescending towards male virgins over a certain age, one can be pretty sure that knowledge of that fact drastically reduces her readyness to perceive that man as a potential mate. It's a perfect application of the Matthew Principle: "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."
            • men on the other hand don't really lose much by being judgemental towards promiscuous girls and gain even less by being tolerant. As long as they don't voice any disgust directly and omit the fact that they may very well perceive a promiscuous girl as a nice lay, but not as a long term-partner, said woman won't hold it against them; even if a little research would make it abundantly clear to her that her actions diminish her value in his eyes. And a man who is outwardly appreciative of sluttyness on the other hand still won't be considered a potential sex partner just because of this position if she wasn't at least somewhat attracted to him in the first place.

            Women are the gatekeepers to sex. So, if women want that particular double standard to disappear, they should either adapt the male perspective as their own, meaning they have to appreciate male virginity as a desirable sexual trait (and inversely stop rewarding promiscuous males by withholding sex from them the same way men punish promiscuous females by withholding commitment from them). Or they need to encourage males to move their sexual standards closer to their own, which means rewarding guys with romantic overtures who are rejecting and/or abandoning that double standard, while rejecting guys who are upholding it.

            But since they will neither do the first nor the second, they should stop f*ing complaining.

            [–]babybelly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            i hate to say it but marriage is probably outdated taking entitlement and male biology into account

            [–]VoyPerdiendo1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            a guy that could fuck any girl he wants but doesn't because he's chosen her

            Get rid of this romantic bullshit. No offence op, just a blindside you have. Stop thinking like that. BP remnants if I'm not in the wrong. If I am, disregard :)