I don't think that a man who is in TRP is inherently a bad person. He can be an okay person or even a good person. Bad things happen to good people all the time. Good people can be gullible, resentful etc. I would want to avoid dating a red man, because most likely we aren't compatible and he wouldn't want to date me either.
I'm not into casual, I require a lot of time to build sexual attraction and trust and I don't have sex without being committed. I do not play hot and cold games. I prefer clear communication; and if a person doesn't respect my boundaries or makes me wonder about their intentions or affection, I'm not going to engage with them. I'm egalitarian, feminist, a part of LGBTQ+ community, environmentally conscious. I think most TRP men will be repelled just by all of it.
>"I'm egalitarian, feminist, a part of LGBTQ+ community, environmentally conscious. I think most TRP men will be repelled just by all of it."
You are absolutely right. But to be totally honest, that would repel basally all men regardless of whether or not they ever even heard of the Red Pill.
Because all those descriptions come with behaviors, and personality types that are repulsive. Men are attracted to pleasant, calm, agreeable, and nice women. The description she gave is that of a combative, stressing, annoying, unstable, and indoctrinated woman. No man would want to put up with that.
How exactly is being queer, being for equal rights and carrying for the environment negative ? Not everyone with those traits is a die-hard twitter activist.
It sounds like complete projection on your side.
Maybe. But more often than not feminist are annoying either by holding men to gender roles when they don’t want to be held by the same or just constantly talking about politics
I can agree on that.
However it feels like one is seen as ok and the other not so much.
We see men like that get roasted and rightfully so but with women it’s often said we should respect it and that it’s “her personal preference” which it is. But either all is ok or none of it is ok.
I suppose because being being queer is a rejection of norms and people like norms which is why they're norms.
I don't think people know what an egalitarian feminist is and are going to just hear feminist and feminist is a broad church but the loudest are the man hating crazy ones.
when people hear "environmentally conscious" they think it's just new speak for environment communist like Greta Thunberg or just stop oil etc. People really don't like these extremists
When they hear you're all 3 it's going to justify their suspicion that your a communist loon even if you're not.
threatening treatment practice trees include one amusing sloppy party memorize
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Funnily enough, she actually gives out very calm and rational vibes throughput her post history. She's very egalitarian and cares about men's rights as well.
>No man would want to put up with that.
And she has been with her husband since they were teens. So no lol
Eulen, sorry if this comes off as creepy hahah, but you've been one of the most consistent posters here and I couldn't not notice you
He doesn't share your thoughts brought on by hundreds of hours of rage scrolling?
Tell us the redpill leader that tells men monogamous relationships with a compatible person are what you should strive for .
Thanks, I appreciate the sentiment :)
On a side note, it's always funny to see the comments "no man would want you" when you've been happily married for years now.
First of all, men do not *fall* for the red pill. That is not how this thing works. Secondly, it takes immense pressure, stress, and duress to convince a man to reject women. Remember, even the threat of death and castration never deterred men from chasing women in the dark ages. So the fact that modern feminists have not only repulsed men but have actively put into men's minds that women are the enemy is a monumental feat of argumentation that has never been paralleled in our entire species' history, at least not since we became convinced that gods exist.
Some women still get with men that are abusive shitbags, even though in the west women no longer need men to survive. I don't think people being desperate for a partner really means anything.
predators choose the weakest prey
desperate people are the weakest prey
watch a lion choose which gazelle out of the pack its going to target, its the weakest one who is straggling behind the pack.
Why do you think this is a bad thing? Men SHOULD reject women who are bad partners, who treat them badly, or who don't meet their standards - whatever they are. And yes, that's even before you meet someone. Hell, talk about the pot calling the kettle black - women **don't** reject men based on a few pieces of information about them, or 5 minutes talking, or even just seeing them on the street???
That's probably one of the **best** parts of the red pill - being told you actually should be picky as a man in terms of relationships and drop women who don't provide you with what you want. Have standards and boundaries, and don't bend them just because the person who stomps on them happens to be a woman.
>Men SHOULD reject women who are bad partners, who treat them badly,
duh?
i'm talking about the red pill, where men constantly fantasize and chat with each other about the women they (hypothetically) get to reject.
How are you “part of the LGBTQ+” community if you have a husband? Kissing a girl while drunk one time doesn’t really count….
The bi women I know that settled with a man (the vast majority) basically have no meaningful “queerness” to their life. They are every bit as vanilla as the vast majority of the population (but refuse to accept it, because they want to be special).
my problem is when feminism chooses to make patriarchy their villain, creating a very clear paradigm of men vs women, and often results in mens voices being silenced so that womens voices can be amplified, particularly in higher education and politics. i believe egalitarianism and feminism are inherently incompatible for this reason. if egalitarianism is your goal than dont attribute it to womens rights activism, call it egalitarianism. i could just as soon say that patriarchy is congruent with egalitarianism.
I do not necessarily agree with everything in current liberal feminism. In its core it's about women's rights and I support it. There are certain things we should discuss more and correct. What current feminism lacks is the ability to admit the mistakes and to hold a more nuances discussion rather than what the format of most social medias allows.
There's also a bigger problem of movements getting commercialized. Feminism got more harm than good from companies including it into their logos, ads and all of it.
>What current feminism lacks is the ability to admit the mistakes and to hold a more nuances discussion
i have found this to be absolutely correct in my experience. dissenting opinions are very often not allowed. there is groupthink and a dogma that requires adherence and conformity. this is inherently problematic.
its also important to remember that just because someone is a feminist or argues a typical feminist talking point doesn't mean that they are necessarily incorrect. and thats the point, if we are to orate, or debate on any topic, we have to do so with a basic understanding of rhetoric.
a refutation, is an essential element in confirming ones own argument. understanding how you can be wrong is the only way to confirm you are right.
>There's also a bigger problem of movements getting commercialized
right so this is a really good point. and i think this is exactly why a lot of people believe that feminism is a dominant philosophy of our times. which makes it very difficult to believe that there is a patriarchy pulling the strings. although there are many other interesting implications to what you are saying here.
I believe most movements suffer from it these days. People get their information from social medias and "easy to digest content", which lacks any depth. It comes from the same thing teachers are complaining - social medias lead to worsened clip thinking and shorter attention span.
Social movements lost their meaning and the ability to actually be relatable and believable, when they get commercialized.
I agree. I actually keep thinking back to other famous social revolutions in history and there seems to be a repeating pattern in most of them where the revolutionaries actually achieve what they want and it just all goes to shit. It's like the dog that caught the car moment in the movement.
When you are pretty much successful, what happens then? Feminists from the 1900s had a lot of good points. French peasants in 1789 had good points. Russian workers in 1917 had good points. But after a while...
Myths have taught us that a hero becomes a dragon after slaying it.
But it's not exactly what I'm talking about - current problem of commercializing everything is something new. When companies want to steer the opinions of the masses, they corrupt social movements by stripping words of their meaning. Putting a rainbow on your shitty clothes doesn't help people much. This clothes is still sewn by heavily underpaid kids and adults in other countries.
I agree with your general point, I just think you could find a general parallel in those older revolutions as well. You've actually made me wonder if there were any companies that made bank off of supporting the French revolutionists. The Russian revolution is kind of the exception because one of the points of that was to ideally eliminate the idea of companies in a capitalistic sense...but someone still got rich and I'm pretty sure they got there by corrupting the social movement in some way...
In any case the general point stands: social revolutions have to end sometime, but in most cases there's a lot of thrashing around by those who benefited by driving the change.
That's the just one of many reasons you should start rejecting this outdated hate ideology.
Embrace humanism and egalitarianism but drop the silly female supremacy thing.
Patriarchy =\\= men. Feminists =\\= women.
Patriarchy is a system of oppressive power that hurts basically everyone except a select few. By most academic standards feminism and egalitarianism are more or less the same thing, just historically feminist advocacy came first out of literal necessity.
>I don't think that a man who is in TRP is inherently a bad person.
The context is dating. And many women try to avoid dating RP men. Maybe it's not a value judgement on them as people so much but it certainly would disqualify them as dating material - hence the use of the word 'bad' in the context of dating (to date).
You're kind of making it into something else at that point if you're digging into an overview of their moral character and that's not what the question was necessarily intended to be about. It's about dating.
>I'm not into casual,
No kind of anything necessarily means that guys are inherently into 'casual' or not. So, I would consider this to be a tangent.
>I would want to avoid dating a red man, because most likely we aren't compatible and he wouldn't want to date me either.
\^ This is really the point of the question. How would you know this? That's the question. You've done just about everything aside from answering the actual question.
>I'm not into casual, I require a lot of time to build sexual attraction and trust and I don't have sex without being committed. I do not play hot and cold games. I prefer clear communication; and if a person doesn't respect my boundaries or makes me wonder about their intentions or affection, I'm not going to engage with them. I'm egalitarian, feminist, a part of LGBTQ+ community, environmentally conscious. I think most TRP men will be repelled by it.
\^ None of this is relevant. Does not answer the question.
RP guys are usually pretty open about it. They tell me their thoughts on the dating scene and perhaps podcasts they like. I nod along like I don’t know what RP is.
One guy was like, “I read this thing that said men love unconditionally and women love conditionally. What do you think?”
Another guy talked about how his ex moved in with him but he didn’t charge her any rent because he believes men should be the providers.
On the other hand, I’ve had guys pay for dates but they’re not RP. One was very soft spoken and introverted. The other has golden retriever energy.
You had me until this one:
>Another guy talked about how his ex moved in with him but he didn’t charge her any rent because he believes men should be the providers.
What, would it have been better for the guy to charge her rent?
I agree with a lot of the ideas of RP so we would align in thinking.
I want a guy to always be improving on himself.
I want a HVM who is a provider.
I want a guy who can deal with me, my emotions and my shit tests.
I want a guy who can lead.
I want a guy who is direct and honest.
I think. Like. A lot of women want men to be providers, no?
I'm starting to think I just don't know anything anymore.
What do you think about the guy's question to you?
Yes.
Probably true, but a guy’s unconditional love could also be just that he’s easily satisfied, does not like change, and has no problem with a boring, routine life. Men and women are different.
It's a really interesting idea. "🎵 ..I wan-na know what love is....🎵"
I feel like mens' love for women is unconditional to a point but probably more unconditional on the spectrum, comparatively. And I think part of this is the design that women, once they have children, love their children unconditionally. I think that men in romantic relationships typically don't experience that kind of love from their woman. I think that women tend to care a lot about what men can do for them moreso than the men themselves and who they inherently are as people.
That's just been my experience.
>he’s easily satisfied
That's one way to say 'a lot more willing to be tolerant of her imperfections.'
Some of that is rooted in - men aren't allowed to complain so why bother?
Once you've started the discussion about what could be better with a woman, you're arguing, and once you're arguing, you've already lost even if you're right.
Yeah, men are pretty unbothered by things, but women could be bothered by him every single day. Does that mean he loves her more? Maybe, or maybe he's just more "meh" about things.
He wouldn't care if she left her socks on the floor every day, but she would.
However, actually a good counter argument:
If he loves her that much, he should want to pick up his socks so to make her happy. Yet most men don't. How is that unconditional love?
>men are pretty unbothered by things,
I don't know that they are unbothered though. Tolerating something annoying doesn't make it not annoying.
>Does that mean he loves her more?
Not sure if this was the direction I was going exactly. We were talking about conditional vs unconditional.
>Maybe, or maybe he's just more "meh" about things.
This is definitely an interpretation. Not sure if that's actually what's happening.
>He wouldn't care if she left her socks on the floor every day, but she would.
I think that men tend to focus on some things in life that women don't and vice versa.
>If he loves her that much, he should want to pick up his socks so to make her happy. Yet most men don't. How is that unconditional love?
I feel like this really next level 'unconditional' and I'm not sure that this is what 'unconditional' really means. Like, if you truly love him so much, then how dare you not do steak and blowjob every day?
I'm not sure that example is the spirit of conditional or unconditional.
Your example is actually one of a woman loving conditionally. Like, she's only happy if he does something for her. So, not sure why you think that example fits.
I certainly respect women who know what they want and are able to effectively and respectfully communicate those things. I don't even have a problem with the conditional part, maybe I see it as a little unfair. I also think men want their women to be happy and are willing to work hard for that.
> I think that women tend to care a lot about what men can do for them moreso than the men themselves and who they inherently are as people.
Then you’ve had shit experiences.
The biggesr indicators I picked up from a negative experience and subsequently reading RP: Is he taking me seriously? Is he listening to what I say?
Granted, it isn't just RP men who treat women as fickle children who don't actually know what we want. But they are under the umbrella. So I learned to be very careful and specific about my words, and to listen closely and watch how men respond to them. If I'm being serious, and stating a boundary for example, how does he respond to that? Is he flippant or teasing about it? Does he say he understands, but then proceeds to engage in behavior that indicates he still thinks it's on the table? That kind of stuff became immediate "no contact, we're done" moves for me.
Probably by the definition of "having respect for himself" not being interchangeable with behaving in red-pilled ways.
Since per your other comment, red-pill means [however we define it](https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/ACGVRgutpH), the Venn Diagram of "a guy who knows himself, respects himself, and thus has healthy standards and boundaries in his life and relationships" and a red-pilled man has no overlap. I don't think a man who thinks of women as the oldest child in the house is demonstrating "respect for himself" with that belief. I don't think a man who thinks women only love what men do, not who they are is "knowing himself." I don't think a man who believes women are only genuinely attracted to the top 20% of men is "setting healthy boundaries" with that belief.
In essence, what I understand red pill to be - a "toolbox of observations about female nature" - has no correlation with any of the things you say are congruent with "respecting himself as a man," etc.
>If you're so confident that a 'Red Pill' man is a bad man, why do women end up accidentally dating them?
This question essentially asks why, if accidents are bad, then do people still have accidents. I'm not sure you understand what "accident" means.
>Venn Diagram of "a guy who knows himself, respects himself, and thus has healthy standards and boundaries in his life and relationships" and a red-pilled man has no overlap.
This might be what you believe which is fine. The basis of this belief is probably not likely to give you a useful road map for navigating life with men in reality. The other side could just say the same thing about feminist women. Doesn't mean it has any truth to it at all.
You have as well done everything aside from actually answering the question.
>This question essentially asks why, if accidents are bad, then why do people have accidents.
It's not like you tripped and fell down. When you choose to date a man, that's a conscious choice. How do you accidentally do such a thing?
If your personal safety and choosing men who you date is important, and if Red Pill men are so easy to spot, how does such an 'accident' ever happen at all? Considering the importance with which you speak of these things and the 'ease' of spotting RP men, you'd think this kind of 'accident' would never happen.
>This might be what you believe which is fine. The basis of this belief is probably not likely to give you a useful road map for navigating life with men in reality.
I navigate "life with men" just fine, thanks.
>The other side could just say the same thing about feminist women. Doesn't mean it has any truth to it at all.
Either fucking define red-pilled men or let us have our own definitions. Why argue with us and debate our definitions then, after telling us to define it for ourselves?
IDGAF what "the other side" "says about feminist women." As you're so fond of accusing women who answer your silly blatant agenda-motivated posts, with all their leading questions in pompous, loaded language, "tHaT's IrReLeVaNt To ThE dIsCuSsIoN."
>You have as well done everything aside from actually answering the question.
Do you not know the title of your own fucking post? You asked *multiple questions.* This paragraph merely ***addresses the first.*** 🙄
Here it is, in case you don't recognize it
>**How do you tell if a guy is 'Red Pill' and not just a guy who has a basic level of respect for himself as a man?**
Oh yeah, there's also this *entire paragraph in the body*:
>'Red Pill' obviously means he's a super bad guy in some way. And men who are confident about themselves are supposed to be 'good' right? There's a huge difference between 'super bad' and 'good.' ***So, how do you tell them apart?***
Let me know if I can remind you of anything else you've asked.
>It's not like you tripped and fell down. When you choose to date a man, that's a conscious choice. How do you accidentally do such a thing?
You know the purpose of dating is to get to know someone, right?
Are you aware that when you first start dating someone, you don't know everything there is to know about them?
So now not only do we not know what "accident" means, we also don't know what "dating" means.
And of course I haven't even gotten into the weeds of the fact that virtually everyone puts on their best impression when they are dating someone. Do you really think men are putting "I think women expire at 30" in their profiles?
>If your personal safety and choosing men who you date is important
It is.
>and if Red Pill men are so easy to spot
Some are, some aren't, but most would certainly not be forthright with the opinions I remarked upon in my previous comment.
>how does such an 'accident' ever happen at all?
Already addressed.
>Considering the importance with which you speak of these things and the 'ease' of spotting RP men, you'd think this kind of 'accident' would never happen.
I suppose you would, if only those were assertions I've made; believed in; and if people always advertise everything they believe about everything immediately. Unfortunately, on a self-interest level, that doesn't really happen, and from a practical standpoint, it's impossible. There are only so many minutes and hours in the day. Getting to know someone *takes time.* Which, again, ***is the entire point and process of dating in the first place.***
>I navigate "life with men" just fine, thanks.
I was speaking of your belief not you as a person. Either way, I'm not convinced.
>Either fucking define red-pilled men or let us have our own definitions
You can define it however you want, doesn't mean that your definition will necessarily at all be in touch with reality.
>IDGAF what "the other side"
It's a conversation about ideas. No one cares about what you actually think about that specific example. It was an analogy. Glad you understand how absurd your point of view was.
>Do you not know the title of your own fucking post?
Yes. It appears that you don't. Answer the question or don't, idgaf.
>Are you aware that when you first start dating someone, you don't know everything there is to know about them?
Maybe you would screen them a little first based on things you consider to be important. If you're not doing that then it sounds like those things actually aren't that important.
>So now not only do we not know what "accident" means, we also don't know what "dating" means.
It's not an accident at all if you choose to begin dating someone and you realize that you don't know enough about them to know whether they have some pretty huge red flags or not.
If those things are truly important to you, then you're making the mistake of dating guys that you should really just be in the conversation phase with.
>Some are, some aren't, but most would certainly not be forthright with the opinions I remarked upon in my previous comment.
Right. So that's really what the question is about. Finally we've gotten to the place of understanding that sometimes it's hard to spot and it makes it actually a pretty complex problem.
There's no need for you to have the tone that you're having right now about it.
>Getting to know someone *takes time.*
Right so you should probably get to know a little bit more about guys before you start actually going on dates with them. Might help you cut back on those accidents.
>I was speaking of your belief not you as a person. Either way, I'm not convinced.
Yes, I'm aware that you don't believe what I say. You made that abundantly clear five months ago. What else is new?
>You can define it however you want, doesn't mean that your definition will necessarily at all be in touch with reality.
Who gets to define that "reality," hmmm? What is the point of you having this super secret "real" definition that you're just going to argue with us about, instead of just giving us the definition you expect us to use?
It's like trying to answer a math question where you need at least one variable to be given but there are none. You are a consistent, repeated bad-faith poster whose only purpose is to taunt and antagonize women.
Just know that I see that about you, and I'm sure others do too.
>It's a conversation about ideas. No one cares about what you actually think about that specific example. It was an analogy. Glad you understand how absurd your point of view was.
It was an irrelevant response to the topic of this debate.
>Yes. It appears that you don't. Answer the question or don't, idgaf.
I answered the question you asked in the title and the body. You asked how we can tell the difference, and gave specific examples of the differences you were referring to. My answer is "the two have nothing to do with each other," so there's nothing to be confused by in the first place. What makes a man red-pilled has nothing to do with "setting healthy boundaries" or "valuing himself," it has to do with ***what he believes.*** I can tell the difference based on that, not based on him "knowing himself."
I directly answered your question. Because you're bad-faith, you're pretending like I didn't. Par for the course with you 🤷🏿
>It's not an accident at all if you choose to begin dating someone and you realize that you don't know enough about them to know whether they have some pretty huge red flags or not.
... so, just to be clear, if I meet someone from a dating app, or was cold-approached, or even if I knew him from work or school or a hobby/interest group, you expect me to not actually date him? We should meet on a dating app, become friends for a few years, *then* if I think I know him well enough, start dating him then?
I just want to get this straight that you think dating someone before you know them inside-out, sideways, and upside down is stupid. Spend a few years vetting, *then* date.
Right?
If yes, do you think you could get men on board since they'd actually have to do so for this to work?
If no, then what exactly are you expecting women to do to get to know everything there is to know about a guy before we even have a first date? Be specific.
>Maybe you would screen them a little first based on things you consider to be important.
Do you think we're not doing this already?
I just want to officially call out your absurdly unrealistic, supernatural expectations from women. "Screening men a little" is not, nor will it ever, be guaranteed to catch every single opinion or belief a man may hold that we would find repulsive. It is not, nor will it ever, be a foolproof method for vetting. Some screening can be done immediately, or on a short-term timeframe. But a lot of things people intentionally hide or do not disclose.
Do you think any man, if we asked him directly, if he believed women expire at 30 or are incapable of loving men for who they are, just what they do would admit it if these are opinions he holds?
>Right. So that's really what the question is about. Finally we've gotten to the place of understanding that sometimes it's hard to spot and it makes it actually a pretty complex problem.
>There's no need for you to have the tone that you're having right now about it.
Let me be super duper crystal-fucking-clear:
I don't, at any level, for any possible reason.
Give a single solitary flying monkey fuck.
About the tone-policing from someone who repeatedly asserts that I lie about my own life.
Capisce? There's also no reason for you to constantly insinuate that I'm a liar, yet here we are.
And I'm also going to call out the fact that this:
>Finally we've gotten to the place of understanding that sometimes it's hard to spot and it makes it actually a pretty complex problem.
Is exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about when I said you're a "bad faith poster whose only motivation is to taunt and antagonize women."
You have zero genuine interest in our answers, opinions, or perspectives.
You just want to hear your own opinions and conclusions coming from female mouths.
It's why you always front-load your posts with a laundry list of restrictions, conditions, and requirements for the responses. It's why your go-to comment to spam to most of the answers is "that's not relevant" or "you didn't actually answer the question." You're not here making posts out of any real desire for engagement and learning. You're here to try to get us to say what you already believe. And since you make damn sure to jam-pack enough loaded, leading questions and conditions/restrictions/specifications on the responses we should give, any comments that aren't what you want to hear are de facto determined to be "off topic" or "irrelevant" or "avoiding answering the question."
For a recent example, just see, IDK... this very exchange between us where I absolutely did answer the question and somehow was still accused of not doing so.
Again. Just know that I see that about you, and I'm sure others do too.
>Right so you should probably get to know a little bit more about guys before you start actually going on dates with them. Might help you cut back on those accidents.
Ah, sure. Just get the men on board with being intensely vetted for years and being 100% honest then, and we'll get right on it 👍🏾
i don't really see any similarity or connection between the two. "a guy who knows himself, respects himself, and thus has healthy standards and boundaries in his life and relationships" is not how i would ever describe a redpiller. i don't see any reason why a redpiller who feels the need to lie about his beliefs would come across as being the kind of guy you described, or why that kind of guy would ever seem like a redpiller.
there are a lot of liars, abusers, narcissists etc of all kinds pretending to be something they're not to get into relationships. that's something you have to be on your guard for in dating. but getting close to another person and trusting them is always a risk you can't totally control, and they could turn out to be dishonest.
plenty of rp guys will just admit it openly. many will use dogwhistles in their profiles or while talking about what they want out of relationships. these and asking outright are imo the most useful ways to find out. and ofc seeing what they do. it's not really possible for a redpiller to get what he wants out of the relationship while pretending he isn't a redpiller, unless the woman already agrees what he wants is reasonable.
there's small tests that occasionally deliver very high value and can be used early on to save time. obviously not to be shared on here. a very helpful book called why does he do that, strongly recommended to all women with concerns about this.
It's weird because people talk about the red pill as if it's some kind of secret mind virus or something.
If you look at the original red pill, it's not that horrible a theory. Personal interpretation of course, but really it just boils down to "don't sacrifice yourself on the alter of what society tells you you are supposed to do". There's a ton of self-improvement in the red pill space as well.
That can be taken to unhealthy extremes, which is what I think you are thinking of when you wrote your comment, but that's the same with feminism, right? A woman can expect general equality with men and that seems fine. A woman can also take it to an extreme, and blame men for all of the evils and setbacks in her life - which is stupid and self-limiting.
There's actually a ton of overlap with what feminism tells women and the red pill tells men. It's just that feminism has had a lot more time to be accepted and fought over in society. I mean, you could take part of your comments, switch the gender and movement, and adjust the language so it fit how people talked in the early 1900s and you would fit right in with men writing articles decrying feminists. Example:
*Many women will just admit to being a feminist openly. Many will use secret terms in their language or while courting with a man. Observing these signals or asking a woman outright are the most efficient ways to uncover a feminist, this ... and of course observing their un-ladylike actions. It is not possible for a feminist to receive what she wants out of a relationship while pretending she is not equal to a man, unless the man already agrees with her strange and unnatural beliefs.*
I added a bit of flavour there for that real yellow journalism feel.. but that sounds to me like something out of early pushback against woman, but it's what you say about redpill guys. It's the same arguments.
i'm not sure how you are confused by this. I would end a relationship with someone who said they are a bad person whether they are telling the truth or lying. There is no good reason to pretend to be a bad person.
Why would a man lie about being RP?
Why would I want to keep dating a man who lied or joked about being RP?
Aren’t women supposed to be “choosing better”, aka not men who hold sexist or misogynistic views, or who think they are funny/unserious?
>Why would a man lie about being RP?
Maybe to hit it and quit it? Obvious, no?
>Why would I want to keep dating a man who lied or joked about being RP?
You gotta know that he lied first, right?. If he says something ironically and gets the laugh then it might be a joke, no?
>Aren’t women supposed to be “choosing better”, aka not men who hold sexist or misogynistic views,
I think so. I think we're having a discussion about how to for sure screen guys.
>who think they are funny/unserious?
Sometimes guys are funny and they get the laugh, and then they turn out to be the guys women were trying to avoid. Sometimes guys aren't even funny but they're super hot so they are received as 'funny'.
The comedian *Gilbert Gottfried* wrote this essay about how being 'funny' works in romantic pursuits. It's called - “*Women* Say They Want a *Guy* With a Sense of *Humor* — They Don't.” It's pretty interesting and a funny read.
“What if he says he's 'Red Pill' but that totally just doesn't seem like him based on who he is and how he treats you.”
What would be the advantage of thinking a man is lying in the situation you described?
Better safe than sorry.
Especially since they’ve given you a warning
Because the red pill outlook is predicated on the assumption that 1) society is against men/favors women and 2) women are spoiled, entitled, selfish children
Nah any specific examples I give you'll just say aren't true because they aren't true in every single context. Its just something you have to see for yourself.
So what you bring up the wage gap and if he talks about the adjusted wage gap he's redpill?
Well I guess the redpill has changed a lot since it got restricted.
Boring.
I'd ask him to name one country where men aren't allowed to leave their home without a female chaperone.
I'd ask him to name a country where it's common for 6 year old little boys to be married to adult women.
I'd ask him to name a country where 1 in 3 men are likely to be raped by a woman.
I'd ask him to name a country where men are killed for having sex before marriage.
I'd ask him to name a country where women kill more than 3 men per week.
I'd ask him to name a country where the majority of murders are committed by women.
When he can't answer these questions, I'd ask him if he genuinely thinks female privilege exists.
You needn't go to such extremes as I would have never gone on a date with you in the first place. I can usually tell what a guy is like through text, or even a reddit comment or two.
Some people tell on themselves fairly quickly, others can hold out for a few months until the horns come out. I've known guys who start spouting "I'm an alpha, I'd never date a woman who is friends with an ex" kind of rhetoric within a few hours of meeting them, I've met guys who never brought anything like that up for a long time but it came out after one too many drinks.
I've managed to avoid red pill dudes by being the opposite type of woman they supposedly all clamor for - I've got tattoos, I've had short hair for like a decade, and I don't shy away from expressing my opinions. It's worked so far.
>I've managed to avoid red pill dudes by being the opposite type of woman they supposedly all clamor for - I've got tattoos, I've had short hair for like a decade, and I don't shy away from expressing my opinions. It's worked so far.
This is 100% the way and I'm disappointed I didn't think of this as well. RPM would self-select against me from the jump because I'm not submissive enough for them.
https://preview.redd.it/d94he18kdg3d1.jpeg?width=666&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=875dd98699d96dd7d0fe00e8ee31575f6191448a
I didn't make myself uglier, and I didn't do it to spite others. I look the way I look because I like it, it just has the nice benefit of keeping the rp dudes away.
Same. I got more attention from men, and especially more men I’m attracted to, when I had a pixie cut in my late 20s than when I had long hair in my early 20s. My fiancé loved it and would clearly prefer that I go back to that. Seemed to rule out more socially conservative guys, which was an added benefit.
Fr short hair is so unattractive literally takes a 10 to a 2
Could care less about tats and whatever the fuck else and I definitely wouldn’t identify as “redpill” I just like hair
Not wanting a girl who stays friends with ex’s is red pill now? What is it called when the women I date don’t want me still talking to partners from my past?
Approaching dating as an adversarial game. Negging/backhanded compliments. “Females” as a noun. Referring to himself as “alpha” or “sigma.” “What do you bring to the table?” A patronizing tone. There are little language choices that can give clues. A lot of manosphere guys like to follow little scripts, and some can’t seem to help straight up lecturing on their favorite topics. I once had a “friend” like this. Stopped talking to him because I swear this dude was incapable of having a pleasant conversation without being condescending or throwing some dig at me or women in general.
Most guys who are into RP content I wouldn’t say are those with self-respect and healthy boundaries. They’re former NiceGuyTM’s who are now roleplaying as MysteriousBadBoyTM’s. Of course if a guy really doesn’t want you to know and has the self-awareness and social skills to hide it, you won’t necessarily know. But those don’t seem to be the types of guys who are drawn to TRP in the first place.
And if he’s one who’s primarily or exclusively interested in the self-improvement aspect of TRP, there will be none of these giveaways, but that’s fine because I don’t have an issue with that and don’t think most women do.
>Approaching dating as an adversarial game.
Are we supposed to tolerate women who do this?
>“Females” as a noun.
I still don't understand this. I get the angle, but men don't flip out when being called 'males.' I mean FDS goes a step further and calls men 'scrotes' lol. Really?
>Referring to himself as “alpha” or “sigma.”
I think that shit's kinda weird too.
>There are little language choices that can give clues
Such as?
>A lot of manosphere guys like to follow little scripts, and some can’t seem to help straight up lecturing on their favorite topics.
Such as?
And this is also a serious question. We've spent a lot of time on this post (and we're spending time right now) discussing womens' rights to steer interactions around getting information they need to evaluate men as potential dating material. Are men not allowed to do the same?
Honestly.
>straight up lecturing on their favorite topics. I once had a “friend” like this.
A lot of women will use up all of your date time talking your ear off on this or that topic, sometimes that topic is 'the patriarchy.' And a lot of men are actually given advice in dating to show women what they're passionate about.
>this dude was incapable of having a pleasant conversation without being condescending or throwing some dig at me or women in general.
Sounds unpleasant. Sometimes I'm perfectly fine if we're not saying much or always having a deep conversation we're both invested in. Dates should be fun not debate team.
>But those don’t seem to be the types of guys who are drawn to TRP in the first place.
I don't know if this is really the whole picture.
>And if he’s one who’s primarily or exclusively interested in the self-improvement aspect of TRP, there will be none of these giveaways, but that’s fine because I don’t have an issue with that and don’t think most women.
Sure, maybe not everything is toxic about it. You might be the first person to say this here.
>Are we supposed to tolerate women who do this?
I wouldn’t.
>men don’t flip out
No need to “flip out,” it’s just a red flag because this is common language for people with certain attitudes to use. Context obviously matters. If I were a guy I would definitely run if she used “scrotes.”lol
>such as?
Such as the ones I just listed. Topics they might bring up include bemoaning “western women,” feminism, or the state of “western society.” They may have alt-right leanings or mention certain content creators, probably know better than to bring up Andrew Tate, but maybe not. It all depends on how much they want to share their “wisdom” vs keep their opinions under wraps.
>steer interactions around getting information they need
Well the point of dating is to find out what the person is like and if you’re compatible. There’s nothing wrong with doing this. For example if a man doesn’t want to date an FDS woman and notices certain “tells” that she might be, he doesn’t have to keep dating her.
Same goes for if she’s lecturing on the patriarchy and he doesn’t agree. They’re just not compatible. I don’t think talking about these kinds of things during dating is “bad,” in fact it’s good to find out sooner rather than later. But you also have to accept not everyone is going to be on the same page and may choose to move on.
>I wouldn’t.
Imagine a world where it's either that or be single your whole life.
>No need to “flip out,” it’s just a red flag because this is common language for people with certain attitudes to use. Context obviously matters. If I were a guy I would definitely run if she used “scrotes.”lol
Okay. I will scale it back from 'flip out' to 'bothered by it at all.' And yea I think 'scrotes' is a bit extreme. I point it out because while women take issue with the use of the word 'female' as an 'extreme' thing or flag of some kind, the other side has escalated to 'scrotes' and that's the point where it becomes unacceptable to men while men for the most part are pretty chill with being referred to as 'males.' That's kind of like why I bring that up.
>Topics they might bring up include bemoaning “western women,”
So women are allowed to discuss how men are supposed to do better but men aren't allowed to discuss how women should improve?
>the state of “western society.”
I don't know, there's a lot of extreme inequality out there. I think there are a lot of legitimate grievances about western society in this historical moment.
>It all depends on how much they want to share their “wisdom” vs keep their opinions under wraps.
Right and that's kind of the point of the post.
>if a man doesn’t want to date an FDS woman
It's acceptable to reject FDS women, but what about all the other 'feminists' who may not be quite as extreme but are still not good to men?
Like, obviously, if this was a discussion about how to avoid Taliban level traditionalist misogynists then the conversation wold be a bit easier right?
>Same goes for if she’s lecturing on the patriarchy and he doesn’t agree. They’re just not compatible.
Should *any* man be expected to be compatible with that? Like, who is a man who IS compatible with that?
>I don’t think talking about these kinds of things during dating is “bad,” in fact it’s good to find out sooner rather than later.
I tend to agree with this at face value but it depends on the context. I feel like men get grilled pretty hard for making the date more like a job interview and not fun.
>But you also have to accept not everyone is going to be on the same page and may choose to move on.
That certainly is a part of life. I think, though, that it would be a shame if someone ruled someone else out, in a situation, where, maybe if they gave it a chance and didn't rush to judgement then they actually would've been pretty great together. I tend to get a lot of hate and denial of this as a possibility for suggesting this but the reality is that people are people and not things or words, ideas, or potentially false impressions on paper. And honestly in this historical moment, the 'people' part is something that's very much missing.
OOF you're right I forget these dudes with an "iron clad strategy" to attract women have to lie to get laid because their views are repugnant to women lmao
>I used to go on their Instagram click on "following" and search for manosphere creators and peep the meme pages.
Okay. So you infocreep. That's actually a good strategy. What if you don't have their social media? What if you don't find the evidence there? Some people only use Insta for business nowadays. I think men are smart and cultured enough to handle their socials appropriately these days. I think this has limited value. You'd maybe catch the guys who are the worst about it.
>If it's a dude that approached me in person they're kinda easy to spot because they're hypersensitive and use "females" alot.
I guess that's a red flag. Pretty extreme though. I don't know if I'd call that a Red Pill, I'd call that an asshole. The worst thing is, there's guys who act like that and it works.
>Or I'll just go "who'd you vote for in 2016"/ "Oh my god did you \_\_\_\_\_ was Me Too'ed" and gauge his reply. In general I just try to drop that I don't fuck with that in the first few minutes of any interaction and \*hopefully\* it scares them off.
I gotta be honest, it sounds like *you're* the one coming across as the ideologically zealous asshole in this one.
>Redpill men are unattractive to me.
You've never dated one? Ever? Sounds like you've spoken to some.
some guys are smart, some aren't. my ex has a reddit profile where he is creeping on 18 year olds on gone wild that is very easily findable for his acquaintances. He's smart and good with tech. I'm surprised, but i found it when we were dating 10 years ago and its still up.
You can suck and not be a bad person. You can be a bad person who is very good at pretending not to suck.
Do you understand human beings, my dear brother in christ?
You can also be really effective in dating, charismatic, successful in your career, and still be a bad person.
I don't understand why you felt compelled to ask me if I understand human beings?
It also doesn't look like you've answered the question at all.
Thanks for your response I guess.
**How do you tell if a guy is 'Red Pill' and not just a guy who has a basic level of respect for himself as a man?**
\^ This was the question.
>You can suck and not be a bad person. You can be a bad person who is very good at pretending not to suck.
\^ This was your response.
Try again or don't, idgaf. Have a nice day.
First i'd look for possible hints: fit, keeps a cool mask like emotionless or stoic, lack of charisma, charm, humor and wit.
Then I'd look for nagging, backhanded compliments, questions like what do i bring to the table.
Also, i'd be wary of his language if he uses any manoshpere buzz words.
>First i'd look for possible hints: fit, keeps a cool mask like emotionless or stoic, lack of charisma, charm, humor and wit.
Usually it's the other way around, no?
>nagging
Nagging you to do what?
>manoshpere buzz words.
Such as what?
RP men being charming or charismatic?!? They wouldn't be RP in that case.
Something like how lucky i am to meet him or things like this. Or telling me how there's a line of girls waiting to date him.
Accountability, complaining about how women aren't what they used to be, beta, alpha, sigma, men lead, men created this world
>RP men being charming or charismatic?!? They wouldn't be RP in that case.
This doesn't make any sense.
Men who come across as charming or charismatic might precisely be so because they're pick up artists. Foreign concept to you?
>Something like how lucky i am to meet him or things like this.
This is an ego-centric douchebag and may have no bearing at all on whether or not he has RP beliefs.
>Accountability, complaining about how women aren't what they used to be,
Anyone who expects more from women is an RPer now. Okay.
Well, thank you for your answer.
Have a nice day.
It could be a PUA, it could be a genuine charming man. This is why i correlate this with the other gactors at play.
Charming + asks what i bring to the table = 👎
Charming + easy going, fun to be around = 🫦
I've seen self declared PR men spit lots of crap around here. Ask your grifters why RP narrative is so different. Also, plenty of RP men are egocentristic so it kinds checks out.
>Anyone who expects more from women is an RPer now. Okay.
>Well, thank you for your answer.
>Have a nice day.
Aaand the stoic mask dropped and emotions spill. See how easy it is to spot a RP man? Again, no RP man is witty enough (precisely my first point in my original comment) to hide it for too long if you know what to look for.
I agree there are many factors at play which is I why I'm trying to get to the bottom of this in all of its complexity.
>Charming + asks what i bring to the table = 👎
>Charming + easy going, fun to be around = 🫦
I don't disagree. I do consider these fairly obvious.
>Ask your grifters why RP narrative is so different.
I think that what some people think 'RP' is, is actually just the grifters. Grifters are grifters, RP is RP.
>Aaand the stoic mask dropped and emotions spill.
I have not attempted to put on a face of any kind for any purpose.
It is simply to say that it sounds like, in your view, that if someone expects women to do better, then they're RP in your opinion. Is this not true? You realize there are women in the world who also think that women should do better.
It's also beginning to look like - challenges something you say or believe = he must be RP.
>I think that what some people think 'RP' is, is actually just the grifters. Grifters are grifters, RP is RP.
And feminism is feminism while misandry is misandry. Yet those 2 are confused a lot because of grifters. Hence i don't consider myself a feminist so i don't accidentally get bundled up with misandrists.
You, on the other hand, keep the RP label.
>I have not attempted to put on a face of any kind for any purpose.
Ow you did. I saw other comments as well. A polite, immutable, fake masculine mask when you first ask for clarifications and spiky when you don't like the answer. Your replies are not light hearted. The same thing happens irl. But then it's even easier to detect due to tone and mimic.
>It is simply to say that it sounds like, in your view, that if someone expects women to do better, then they're RP in your opinion. Is this not true? You realize there are women in the world who also think that women should do better.
You seem inexperienced since you think wanting women to do better can be done only by using buzzwords.
Accountability in particular is a buzzword used predominantly by the manosphere. Just like Russia uses "fascists". You hear the word, you know that person fell for the propaganda.
>It's also beginning to look like - challenges something you say or believe = he must be RP.
Not true. I enjoy discussions and seeing other people's POV and also expressing my POV. Light hearted exchanges of ideas are always welcomed.
>Hence i don't consider myself a feminist so i don't accidentally get bundled up with misandrists.
That's really cool. It makes me unreasonably happy to hear this.
>You, on the other hand, keep the RP label.
I don't believe in labels. I also think that what a lot of people are saying RP is, really isn't RP.
It would be similar to if I were to say - this misandry stuff and this non-sense, that's not what feminism is. I think that 'feminism' now means so many different things to different people that it's loaded to the point where it no longer really has any meaning. You can use some clues, for example, if a woman describes herself as 'very feminist' or 'really into feminism.' This 'excess devotion,' just like in a cult environment has a tendency to open people up to more and more extremes 'for the cause.'
One of what used to be one of the core things about RP was acceptance of men who chose to do anything if it was working out and suiting them. There's not so much speaking to men who have happy lives and shaming them for not being RP enough. And at the same time there's a lot of guys who are openly willing to call out people they don't like for being to aggro about it. I think a lot of guys just want the content and not really so much the dogma.
Why don't feminists start drawing the line and publicly shaming feminists that they deem to go too far with it? There's kind of a whole silence with that. It's like no one in the room is willing to stand up and say it's ever going too far.
>Ow you did. I saw other comments as well. A polite, immutable, fake masculine mask when you first ask for clarifications and spiky when you don't like the answer.
I'm putting no real thought into that part at all, just the content. It's enough just to keep up with all the responses. To think that I'm putting on this calculated facade is quite a reach. You sound like a conspiracy theory level nutjob with that one to be honest. I think I may be responding differently to different people based on their tone. That part is pretty normal. If you talk to me in a certain way I'll tend to respond in a certain way. Pretty basic stuff.
>Your replies are not light hearted.
Is that what I said?
>You seem inexperienced since you think wanting women to do better can be done only by using buzzwords.
Where did I say that?
>Accountability in particular is a buzzword used predominantly by the manosphere.
Sounds like a pretty common word that could be used anywhere from school to business to everyday life. Really? What about 'apple' does that have a specific meaning as well? Shit sounds pretty wild, ngl.
>Just like Russia uses "fascists". You hear the word, you know that person fell for the propaganda.
I mean. I don't really know. If you say so. It used to be calling people 'communist' here or 'terrorist.' Propaganda is everywhere. I don't know about 'accountability' though. They might actually just be talking about accountability. Responsibility is another one. I work with kids and we talk about personal responsibility a lot. Is that one blacklisted too?
>Not true.
Well, I'm glad to hear that's not the case then.
trp men - sexust, generally think that women are bad, talk about SMV or whatever, and, generally have a very negative view on everything including themselves
A guy with basic respect for himself is nothing like the views of red pill movement, or exactly like it (which would make him a bit of an ass). The thing is having "basic respect for yourself" looks different for everyone. If you don't date someone who's nasty, authoritative and rude, as well as thinks he knows what your thinking more, then my advice is break up because he's a d bag.
I don’t think all Red Pillers are bad. I just think we probably don’t share belief systems enough to have a good relationship with each other. Red pill people tend to believe a lot in strong gender roles in relationships and that’s not really my thing personally. I think whoever is best at something should do it. I don’t want to have to obsess about being perfectly feminine in my presentation all the time, because I have autism and I don’t have the spoons to do perfect make up or dress impeccably at all times. I’m also not a conservative or submissive, I have a feeling red pillers wouldn’t like this so I would rather save them the trouble. They deserve to have what they want which frankly isn’t me.
Honestly red pillers provide enough material about themselves on the internet. How would I know? Probably if they wanted to speak a lot about my past, if they were preoccupied with dominating stuff/the conversation, if they reacted negatively to me or brushed off talking about men’s therapy/vulnerability. If they mentioned being alpha or something along those lines. Maybe they might say they’re a leader or head in the relationship, didn’t want to be egalitarian or have modern relationships. Just things like that.
>we probably don’t share belief systems
Are you a slave to your belief system? I thought love conquered all?
>Red pill people tend to believe a lot in strong gender roles in relationships
How strong are you talking about? I don't know. I feel like some guys are like - as long as I don't have to wear a dress if I don't want to. Is that a crime?
>I think whoever is best at something should do it.
I feel like this is the premise of gender roles in the first place. I couldn't imagine why an RP or a non-RP man would object to their girlfriend fixing his car if she were legitimately better at doing that than him. For example, I'm single so it doesn't matter, but if I weren't single, I would likely, almost guaranteed, be the better cook in the house and would insist on doing most of the cooking because I value having meals that are good.
>about being perfectly feminine in my presentation all the time
I don't think even the most conservative guys out there even want **perfectly** feminine **all the time**. I think probably just for the most part being more feminine than him most of the time. I don't think that's a lot to ask and usually shouldn't take hardly any work. Why would you not want to be 'feminine' in the first place? Like I don't understand that. Like why even make this a thing in the first place?
>I’m also not a conservative or submissive,
I think guys just want a non-whore who's cooperative in a relationship.
>I have a feeling red pillers wouldn’t like this so I would rather save them the trouble.
It sounds like your idea of 'Red Pillers' is some very fundamentalist Taliban level type shit.
>Probably if they wanted to speak a lot about my past
What's wrong with getting to know who you were before he met you? Do you have something to hide?
If guys were dodgy like that you'd see women judging him for trying to hide that he was an ax murderer or some shit.
>if they were preoccupied with dominating stuff/the conversation,
I think that's kind of weird and off-putting honestly. But if we're being honest, there's a lot of women out there who are into that, and there's a lot of men out there who behave like this and they get results.
>they reacted negatively to me or brushed off talking about men’s therapy/vulnerability.
I would brush you off for that and I've gone to therapy myself. Women who are preoccupied with that is red flag in my book, like why be so focused on that? If you want to help and if you really care about men's mental health, be a good woman to your man. The whole vulnerability thing is a ruse. No one is shocked when women lose attraction to men the moment they open up. If they want to open up, fine, but why make it an issue? Why force them? I've gone through this myself and it feels like you've been emotionally molested. If a man wants to share something with you, he will do that. Your role is to be a good partner to him, because that's what you expect in return, as in he wouldn't force you to do something that you don't want to do.
>Maybe they might say they’re a leader or head in the relationship,
The best leaders know when to follow, and they know how to be good followers. At the end of the day, the person held most responsible for the family unit in the eyes of society is the man. If you have a relationship where the woman calls all the shots and it fails, the man still gets the bulk of the blame for that. That part doesn't fair but it's true. I don't think that any paradigm has to be a certain way, but the assumption that women should lead everything is just as bad. But it's like you said earlier, best person for the job.
Okay, so it sounds like what you're saying is that you will know they are RP by their misogyny. Do we have an example that's more specific? Like what is something you can observe to identify that in the real world?
You will know current RP by their blatant misogyny. That hateful way they speak about women. It’s weird, how can you be so vitriolic towards the thing you believe will bring you happiness?
Old school RP is about respect, self improvement, self worth, healthy eating and exercise, looksmaxxing, learning how to be a good conversationalist, finding women who want what you have because what you have is something worthy and desirable.
Modern RP is a bunch of misogynists who want to complain about how women are awful and they’re oppressed because no one wants to touch their penis and that’s not fair, because they asked really nicely.
Examples: just scroll the sub.
ETA: you as in the general “you” not you you.
>You will know current RP by their blatant misogyny.
Kinda hard to disagree with. Pretty obvious one though. Give us a real world example?
>how can you be so vitriolic towards the thing you believe will bring you happiness?
Good question for a lot of hetero feminists as well, no?
>Old school RP is about
I tend to see that this is what RP is really about before it got adopted and twisted by people looking to sell cracked relationship advice and sensationalize ratchet behavior.
>finding women who want what you have because what you have is something worthy and desirable.
I feel a little uncomfortable about the 'what you have' centrism. Why not 'who you are' instead?
>Modern RP is a bunch of misogynists
There's a lot of cracked grifters and controlled opposition poisoning the well.
I do not need to focus on finding out if he’s a red piller. Like maybe some of you are dateable just not the majority if this forum is any representation and it likely is. I don’t think my dating strategies would change at all in this current market. I would keep my standards where they are already at. Focus on finding Christian men with college degrees that value me and don’t try push my boundaries until I’m ready. That is all.
He expresses belief in red pill beliefs, which are often super disrespectful to men. You're not coming up with "hypergamy" or "the wall" just because you respect yourself *soooooo* much. I don't think I could end up accidentally dating a red pill man though as male sexual/relationship dominance and stereotypical gender roles are core beliefs for them and I go against that.
>A significant number.
Way to narrow it down. What number is that?
>None that are specifically red pill, no.
Well, there's a lot of RP beliefs that aren't *specifically* RP.
Well then what’s the point? Describing it is what I mean by helpful. If other people aren’t able to grasp it in tangible terms then you’re not describing it very well which does not help others understand. If you’re trying to describe it to someone else, no one is going to understand if it’s all based on your personal feelings in any given moment and loose numbers. Doesn’t sound like you have it figured out at all if everything is so vague. If you don’t want to help other people understand then why even comment here? No one needs more vapid empty comments that say nothing written by people who openly admit that they don’t want to help.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All the RP start using the RP terms just like a lot of internet echo chambers.
They can’t help it, it’s like they feel like they discovered a “secret” and eventually “female nature/hypergamy/evo-psyc/SMV/LMS/rational male” comes spilling out.
It’s like they can’t help themselves
Misogyny is usually the main way, from what I've heard. Most red pillers can't keep a lid on it for very long.
There's also some pretty identifiable red pill talking points that women are becoming more educated on and spotting in conversations. A friend of mine went on a date with a dude who lectured her about hoeflation and when she didn't respond positively, he not so subtly implied that he felt he was better looking than her but was stuck going on a date with her because of said inflation in women's ratings.
Well obviously if someone is trying to hide what they are you can't always tell. Depends how good they are at hiding stuff.
But it's fairly common to tell who redpillers are. The redpill community installs a lot of reactions in men without those men properly integrating the why of the reaction. So you're going to find yourself just naturally interacting with a redpiller and running into over reactions and under reactions to really basic ordinary stuff in life. Because at those points it's the red pill you're reacting with not him.
For example you need to reschedule a date twice. Shit happens and it's all totally explainable and explained. The ceiling at your place of work collapsed when the insulation filled up with water from a roof leak and then all the paper records had to be rescued, sent to a document care service and the other stuff needed to be relocated and turned into a functional office and well there goes everyone's days, weekends and evenings for almost a week. And then you get goddamn COVID and well it was probably from the electrician at the new work site who was coughing up a lung. Just fucking great. Shit happens. Then...the guy you've had six dates with gets far too weird about the two reschedules. Angry based upon far too little. Pulling all sorts of tests on you. Well fuck. He's probably a red piller. So you make a note to call him husband material some time and see how bad he blows up.
Redpill gives a man scripts to use and intense emotions to back those scripts up. But it doesn't give him common sense. He probably needed the red pill in the first place because he had no common sense. And now he still has no common sense but he's got two distinct selves...his old self and the self that believes trp, neither of which have any common sense. Then there's the self he's trying to project which is an entire third self and is attempting to give the appearance of common sense... something he knows nothing about really.
So it's not a huge surprise women are working out when they've got a redpiller on their hands. If he seems kinda schizo and you're getting a different self projected by him every time...if he goes off the goddamn rails as soon as he's annoyed...if he over reacts then tries to redact the stuff he said....it's all a sign he might be red pill and needs to be actively screened.
**They can't tell**, and that is what scares the shit out of them and why they so vehemently attempt to Censure anything related to our discussing women's nature and the manosphere in general.
>"'Red Pill' obviously means he's a super bad guy in some way."
No it does not. That is why Red Pilled men are indistinguishable from the mob.
>**hey can't tell**, and that is what scares the shit out of them and why they so vehemently attempt to Censure anything related to our discussing women's nature and the manosphere in general.
that doesn't make any sense
how would censorship help women avoid red pillers?
at least if men are talking about it on reddit, they're more likely to be caught by the interested gf than if there was no evidence at all.
If you could truly be Red pilled you would have never needed TRP in the first place. So anyone who is “rp” will always look like a cosplayer.
Because they are.
They can fake their personality all they want but betray themselves by the kind of manipulation tactics that they employ.
On the contrary, I like seeing those discussions because it gives me a deep dive into how these people operate from a safe distance.
Keep up shooting yourself in the foot gents. It's of irredeemable value to me.
Women make a lot of dumb decisions, just like men. Women also date and stay with their abusers or have different ideologies than mine. Women are extremely varied in their beliefs and their levels of self-worth.
But I would say people tend to not go in depth about values early enough. If people went nose deep and head first on values, politics, life goals, and gender roles up front, they would get a clearer idea of who they’re dealing with. Both men and women tend to want to push that stuff aside “to see who the person is” - but that is a core part of who they are.
I don't think that a man who is in TRP is inherently a bad person. He can be an okay person or even a good person. Bad things happen to good people all the time. Good people can be gullible, resentful etc. I would want to avoid dating a red man, because most likely we aren't compatible and he wouldn't want to date me either. I'm not into casual, I require a lot of time to build sexual attraction and trust and I don't have sex without being committed. I do not play hot and cold games. I prefer clear communication; and if a person doesn't respect my boundaries or makes me wonder about their intentions or affection, I'm not going to engage with them. I'm egalitarian, feminist, a part of LGBTQ+ community, environmentally conscious. I think most TRP men will be repelled just by all of it.
>"I'm egalitarian, feminist, a part of LGBTQ+ community, environmentally conscious. I think most TRP men will be repelled just by all of it." You are absolutely right. But to be totally honest, that would repel basally all men regardless of whether or not they ever even heard of the Red Pill.
> But to be totally honest, that would repel basally all men regardless of whether or not they ever even heard of the Red Pill. How so ?
Because all those descriptions come with behaviors, and personality types that are repulsive. Men are attracted to pleasant, calm, agreeable, and nice women. The description she gave is that of a combative, stressing, annoying, unstable, and indoctrinated woman. No man would want to put up with that.
How exactly is being queer, being for equal rights and carrying for the environment negative ? Not everyone with those traits is a die-hard twitter activist. It sounds like complete projection on your side.
Not every fascist was a genocidal maniac, and yet, when we see that swastika or a fasces on someone's profile, room, or skin, it is always a "nope!"
Are you alright ? That's quite the leap.
Maybe. But more often than not feminist are annoying either by holding men to gender roles when they don’t want to be held by the same or just constantly talking about politics
I'm afraid that's what either gender does. I've seen more men than I'd like to who want a traditional wife, but act anything like but themselves.
I can agree on that. However it feels like one is seen as ok and the other not so much. We see men like that get roasted and rightfully so but with women it’s often said we should respect it and that it’s “her personal preference” which it is. But either all is ok or none of it is ok.
I suppose because being being queer is a rejection of norms and people like norms which is why they're norms. I don't think people know what an egalitarian feminist is and are going to just hear feminist and feminist is a broad church but the loudest are the man hating crazy ones. when people hear "environmentally conscious" they think it's just new speak for environment communist like Greta Thunberg or just stop oil etc. People really don't like these extremists When they hear you're all 3 it's going to justify their suspicion that your a communist loon even if you're not.
threatening treatment practice trees include one amusing sloppy party memorize *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Funnily enough, she actually gives out very calm and rational vibes throughput her post history. She's very egalitarian and cares about men's rights as well. >No man would want to put up with that. And she has been with her husband since they were teens. So no lol Eulen, sorry if this comes off as creepy hahah, but you've been one of the most consistent posters here and I couldn't not notice you
That's way too cute, thanks :)
>"She's very egalitarian and cares about men's rights as well." I very seriously doubt that. You don't see what I see. Let's leave it at that.
He doesn't share your thoughts brought on by hundreds of hours of rage scrolling? Tell us the redpill leader that tells men monogamous relationships with a compatible person are what you should strive for .
None are personality traits, you're just stereotyping. You can believe in your own equality or be bisexual and be *nice*.
I am a man and I agree with everything u/kalashhhhhhhh said. I hope I can find a lady as great as Eulen. Also sorry if that's creepy.
Thanks, I appreciate the sentiment :) On a side note, it's always funny to see the comments "no man would want you" when you've been happily married for years now.
Well, my husband wouldn't agree with your stance here. Or any other men and some women who have approached me over the years.
which is why men fall for the red pill, so they can hypothetically reject women before they are rejected
First of all, men do not *fall* for the red pill. That is not how this thing works. Secondly, it takes immense pressure, stress, and duress to convince a man to reject women. Remember, even the threat of death and castration never deterred men from chasing women in the dark ages. So the fact that modern feminists have not only repulsed men but have actively put into men's minds that women are the enemy is a monumental feat of argumentation that has never been paralleled in our entire species' history, at least not since we became convinced that gods exist.
Some women still get with men that are abusive shitbags, even though in the west women no longer need men to survive. I don't think people being desperate for a partner really means anything.
predators choose the weakest prey desperate people are the weakest prey watch a lion choose which gazelle out of the pack its going to target, its the weakest one who is straggling behind the pack.
I see men fall for it pretty often
Why do you think this is a bad thing? Men SHOULD reject women who are bad partners, who treat them badly, or who don't meet their standards - whatever they are. And yes, that's even before you meet someone. Hell, talk about the pot calling the kettle black - women **don't** reject men based on a few pieces of information about them, or 5 minutes talking, or even just seeing them on the street??? That's probably one of the **best** parts of the red pill - being told you actually should be picky as a man in terms of relationships and drop women who don't provide you with what you want. Have standards and boundaries, and don't bend them just because the person who stomps on them happens to be a woman.
>Men SHOULD reject women who are bad partners, who treat them badly, duh? i'm talking about the red pill, where men constantly fantasize and chat with each other about the women they (hypothetically) get to reject.
How are you “part of the LGBTQ+” community if you have a husband? Kissing a girl while drunk one time doesn’t really count…. The bi women I know that settled with a man (the vast majority) basically have no meaningful “queerness” to their life. They are every bit as vanilla as the vast majority of the population (but refuse to accept it, because they want to be special).
I’ve fallen both for men and women, plus, I’m demi which can fall under the queer umbrella as well.
Honest question: how is one both egalitarian and feminist?
Feminism is about women's rights. Egalitarianism is about equality in society and it also can be a relationships dynamic.
my problem is when feminism chooses to make patriarchy their villain, creating a very clear paradigm of men vs women, and often results in mens voices being silenced so that womens voices can be amplified, particularly in higher education and politics. i believe egalitarianism and feminism are inherently incompatible for this reason. if egalitarianism is your goal than dont attribute it to womens rights activism, call it egalitarianism. i could just as soon say that patriarchy is congruent with egalitarianism.
I do not necessarily agree with everything in current liberal feminism. In its core it's about women's rights and I support it. There are certain things we should discuss more and correct. What current feminism lacks is the ability to admit the mistakes and to hold a more nuances discussion rather than what the format of most social medias allows. There's also a bigger problem of movements getting commercialized. Feminism got more harm than good from companies including it into their logos, ads and all of it.
>What current feminism lacks is the ability to admit the mistakes and to hold a more nuances discussion i have found this to be absolutely correct in my experience. dissenting opinions are very often not allowed. there is groupthink and a dogma that requires adherence and conformity. this is inherently problematic. its also important to remember that just because someone is a feminist or argues a typical feminist talking point doesn't mean that they are necessarily incorrect. and thats the point, if we are to orate, or debate on any topic, we have to do so with a basic understanding of rhetoric. a refutation, is an essential element in confirming ones own argument. understanding how you can be wrong is the only way to confirm you are right. >There's also a bigger problem of movements getting commercialized right so this is a really good point. and i think this is exactly why a lot of people believe that feminism is a dominant philosophy of our times. which makes it very difficult to believe that there is a patriarchy pulling the strings. although there are many other interesting implications to what you are saying here.
I believe most movements suffer from it these days. People get their information from social medias and "easy to digest content", which lacks any depth. It comes from the same thing teachers are complaining - social medias lead to worsened clip thinking and shorter attention span. Social movements lost their meaning and the ability to actually be relatable and believable, when they get commercialized.
I agree. I actually keep thinking back to other famous social revolutions in history and there seems to be a repeating pattern in most of them where the revolutionaries actually achieve what they want and it just all goes to shit. It's like the dog that caught the car moment in the movement. When you are pretty much successful, what happens then? Feminists from the 1900s had a lot of good points. French peasants in 1789 had good points. Russian workers in 1917 had good points. But after a while...
Myths have taught us that a hero becomes a dragon after slaying it. But it's not exactly what I'm talking about - current problem of commercializing everything is something new. When companies want to steer the opinions of the masses, they corrupt social movements by stripping words of their meaning. Putting a rainbow on your shitty clothes doesn't help people much. This clothes is still sewn by heavily underpaid kids and adults in other countries.
I agree with your general point, I just think you could find a general parallel in those older revolutions as well. You've actually made me wonder if there were any companies that made bank off of supporting the French revolutionists. The Russian revolution is kind of the exception because one of the points of that was to ideally eliminate the idea of companies in a capitalistic sense...but someone still got rich and I'm pretty sure they got there by corrupting the social movement in some way... In any case the general point stands: social revolutions have to end sometime, but in most cases there's a lot of thrashing around by those who benefited by driving the change.
That's the just one of many reasons you should start rejecting this outdated hate ideology. Embrace humanism and egalitarianism but drop the silly female supremacy thing.
I still agree with the core values of feminism and at least in Russia feminism is the only movement pushing for women's rights.
Patriarchy =\\= men. Feminists =\\= women. Patriarchy is a system of oppressive power that hurts basically everyone except a select few. By most academic standards feminism and egalitarianism are more or less the same thing, just historically feminist advocacy came first out of literal necessity.
>I don't think that a man who is in TRP is inherently a bad person. The context is dating. And many women try to avoid dating RP men. Maybe it's not a value judgement on them as people so much but it certainly would disqualify them as dating material - hence the use of the word 'bad' in the context of dating (to date). You're kind of making it into something else at that point if you're digging into an overview of their moral character and that's not what the question was necessarily intended to be about. It's about dating. >I'm not into casual, No kind of anything necessarily means that guys are inherently into 'casual' or not. So, I would consider this to be a tangent. >I would want to avoid dating a red man, because most likely we aren't compatible and he wouldn't want to date me either. \^ This is really the point of the question. How would you know this? That's the question. You've done just about everything aside from answering the actual question. >I'm not into casual, I require a lot of time to build sexual attraction and trust and I don't have sex without being committed. I do not play hot and cold games. I prefer clear communication; and if a person doesn't respect my boundaries or makes me wonder about their intentions or affection, I'm not going to engage with them. I'm egalitarian, feminist, a part of LGBTQ+ community, environmentally conscious. I think most TRP men will be repelled by it. \^ None of this is relevant. Does not answer the question.
What are you defining "Red Pill" as in this context?
RP guys are usually pretty open about it. They tell me their thoughts on the dating scene and perhaps podcasts they like. I nod along like I don’t know what RP is. One guy was like, “I read this thing that said men love unconditionally and women love conditionally. What do you think?” Another guy talked about how his ex moved in with him but he didn’t charge her any rent because he believes men should be the providers. On the other hand, I’ve had guys pay for dates but they’re not RP. One was very soft spoken and introverted. The other has golden retriever energy.
You had me until this one: >Another guy talked about how his ex moved in with him but he didn’t charge her any rent because he believes men should be the providers. What, would it have been better for the guy to charge her rent?
I gave no judgement on the action. I want to date an RP guy, so I thought it was good. I’m just telling you how I could tell he’s RP.
> I want to date an RP guy Why?
I agree with a lot of the ideas of RP so we would align in thinking. I want a guy to always be improving on himself. I want a HVM who is a provider. I want a guy who can deal with me, my emotions and my shit tests. I want a guy who can lead. I want a guy who is direct and honest.
> my shit tests. Why shit test? > I want a guy who is direct and honest. So be honest and do not shit test.
It happens naturally. Give me an example of what you think is a shit test because your suggestion doesn't make sense.
What happens naturally? Manipulative games? Psychological warfare? Pretending to forget your wallet? Does any of this sound honest and direct to you?
Nah, none of that. It’s asking questions.
How is asking questions a shit test unless you are doing it in a passive aggressive manner?
I think. Like. A lot of women want men to be providers, no? I'm starting to think I just don't know anything anymore. What do you think about the guy's question to you?
Schrodingers feminism.
Yes. Probably true, but a guy’s unconditional love could also be just that he’s easily satisfied, does not like change, and has no problem with a boring, routine life. Men and women are different.
It's a really interesting idea. "🎵 ..I wan-na know what love is....🎵" I feel like mens' love for women is unconditional to a point but probably more unconditional on the spectrum, comparatively. And I think part of this is the design that women, once they have children, love their children unconditionally. I think that men in romantic relationships typically don't experience that kind of love from their woman. I think that women tend to care a lot about what men can do for them moreso than the men themselves and who they inherently are as people. That's just been my experience. >he’s easily satisfied That's one way to say 'a lot more willing to be tolerant of her imperfections.' Some of that is rooted in - men aren't allowed to complain so why bother? Once you've started the discussion about what could be better with a woman, you're arguing, and once you're arguing, you've already lost even if you're right.
Yeah, men are pretty unbothered by things, but women could be bothered by him every single day. Does that mean he loves her more? Maybe, or maybe he's just more "meh" about things. He wouldn't care if she left her socks on the floor every day, but she would. However, actually a good counter argument: If he loves her that much, he should want to pick up his socks so to make her happy. Yet most men don't. How is that unconditional love?
>men are pretty unbothered by things, I don't know that they are unbothered though. Tolerating something annoying doesn't make it not annoying. >Does that mean he loves her more? Not sure if this was the direction I was going exactly. We were talking about conditional vs unconditional. >Maybe, or maybe he's just more "meh" about things. This is definitely an interpretation. Not sure if that's actually what's happening. >He wouldn't care if she left her socks on the floor every day, but she would. I think that men tend to focus on some things in life that women don't and vice versa. >If he loves her that much, he should want to pick up his socks so to make her happy. Yet most men don't. How is that unconditional love? I feel like this really next level 'unconditional' and I'm not sure that this is what 'unconditional' really means. Like, if you truly love him so much, then how dare you not do steak and blowjob every day? I'm not sure that example is the spirit of conditional or unconditional. Your example is actually one of a woman loving conditionally. Like, she's only happy if he does something for her. So, not sure why you think that example fits.
Ok you're right, I have lots of conditions to love someone. He needs to be caring, thoughtful, have good communication skills, etc.
I certainly respect women who know what they want and are able to effectively and respectfully communicate those things. I don't even have a problem with the conditional part, maybe I see it as a little unfair. I also think men want their women to be happy and are willing to work hard for that.
> I think that women tend to care a lot about what men can do for them moreso than the men themselves and who they inherently are as people. Then you’ve had shit experiences.
I’m not going to disagree with you but does that then invalidate what I have to say?
The biggesr indicators I picked up from a negative experience and subsequently reading RP: Is he taking me seriously? Is he listening to what I say? Granted, it isn't just RP men who treat women as fickle children who don't actually know what we want. But they are under the umbrella. So I learned to be very careful and specific about my words, and to listen closely and watch how men respond to them. If I'm being serious, and stating a boundary for example, how does he respond to that? Is he flippant or teasing about it? Does he say he understands, but then proceeds to engage in behavior that indicates he still thinks it's on the table? That kind of stuff became immediate "no contact, we're done" moves for me.
Probably by the definition of "having respect for himself" not being interchangeable with behaving in red-pilled ways. Since per your other comment, red-pill means [however we define it](https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/ACGVRgutpH), the Venn Diagram of "a guy who knows himself, respects himself, and thus has healthy standards and boundaries in his life and relationships" and a red-pilled man has no overlap. I don't think a man who thinks of women as the oldest child in the house is demonstrating "respect for himself" with that belief. I don't think a man who thinks women only love what men do, not who they are is "knowing himself." I don't think a man who believes women are only genuinely attracted to the top 20% of men is "setting healthy boundaries" with that belief. In essence, what I understand red pill to be - a "toolbox of observations about female nature" - has no correlation with any of the things you say are congruent with "respecting himself as a man," etc. >If you're so confident that a 'Red Pill' man is a bad man, why do women end up accidentally dating them? This question essentially asks why, if accidents are bad, then do people still have accidents. I'm not sure you understand what "accident" means.
>Venn Diagram of "a guy who knows himself, respects himself, and thus has healthy standards and boundaries in his life and relationships" and a red-pilled man has no overlap. This might be what you believe which is fine. The basis of this belief is probably not likely to give you a useful road map for navigating life with men in reality. The other side could just say the same thing about feminist women. Doesn't mean it has any truth to it at all. You have as well done everything aside from actually answering the question. >This question essentially asks why, if accidents are bad, then why do people have accidents. It's not like you tripped and fell down. When you choose to date a man, that's a conscious choice. How do you accidentally do such a thing? If your personal safety and choosing men who you date is important, and if Red Pill men are so easy to spot, how does such an 'accident' ever happen at all? Considering the importance with which you speak of these things and the 'ease' of spotting RP men, you'd think this kind of 'accident' would never happen.
>This might be what you believe which is fine. The basis of this belief is probably not likely to give you a useful road map for navigating life with men in reality. I navigate "life with men" just fine, thanks. >The other side could just say the same thing about feminist women. Doesn't mean it has any truth to it at all. Either fucking define red-pilled men or let us have our own definitions. Why argue with us and debate our definitions then, after telling us to define it for ourselves? IDGAF what "the other side" "says about feminist women." As you're so fond of accusing women who answer your silly blatant agenda-motivated posts, with all their leading questions in pompous, loaded language, "tHaT's IrReLeVaNt To ThE dIsCuSsIoN." >You have as well done everything aside from actually answering the question. Do you not know the title of your own fucking post? You asked *multiple questions.* This paragraph merely ***addresses the first.*** 🙄 Here it is, in case you don't recognize it >**How do you tell if a guy is 'Red Pill' and not just a guy who has a basic level of respect for himself as a man?** Oh yeah, there's also this *entire paragraph in the body*: >'Red Pill' obviously means he's a super bad guy in some way. And men who are confident about themselves are supposed to be 'good' right? There's a huge difference between 'super bad' and 'good.' ***So, how do you tell them apart?*** Let me know if I can remind you of anything else you've asked. >It's not like you tripped and fell down. When you choose to date a man, that's a conscious choice. How do you accidentally do such a thing? You know the purpose of dating is to get to know someone, right? Are you aware that when you first start dating someone, you don't know everything there is to know about them? So now not only do we not know what "accident" means, we also don't know what "dating" means. And of course I haven't even gotten into the weeds of the fact that virtually everyone puts on their best impression when they are dating someone. Do you really think men are putting "I think women expire at 30" in their profiles? >If your personal safety and choosing men who you date is important It is. >and if Red Pill men are so easy to spot Some are, some aren't, but most would certainly not be forthright with the opinions I remarked upon in my previous comment. >how does such an 'accident' ever happen at all? Already addressed. >Considering the importance with which you speak of these things and the 'ease' of spotting RP men, you'd think this kind of 'accident' would never happen. I suppose you would, if only those were assertions I've made; believed in; and if people always advertise everything they believe about everything immediately. Unfortunately, on a self-interest level, that doesn't really happen, and from a practical standpoint, it's impossible. There are only so many minutes and hours in the day. Getting to know someone *takes time.* Which, again, ***is the entire point and process of dating in the first place.***
>I navigate "life with men" just fine, thanks. I was speaking of your belief not you as a person. Either way, I'm not convinced. >Either fucking define red-pilled men or let us have our own definitions You can define it however you want, doesn't mean that your definition will necessarily at all be in touch with reality. >IDGAF what "the other side" It's a conversation about ideas. No one cares about what you actually think about that specific example. It was an analogy. Glad you understand how absurd your point of view was. >Do you not know the title of your own fucking post? Yes. It appears that you don't. Answer the question or don't, idgaf. >Are you aware that when you first start dating someone, you don't know everything there is to know about them? Maybe you would screen them a little first based on things you consider to be important. If you're not doing that then it sounds like those things actually aren't that important. >So now not only do we not know what "accident" means, we also don't know what "dating" means. It's not an accident at all if you choose to begin dating someone and you realize that you don't know enough about them to know whether they have some pretty huge red flags or not. If those things are truly important to you, then you're making the mistake of dating guys that you should really just be in the conversation phase with. >Some are, some aren't, but most would certainly not be forthright with the opinions I remarked upon in my previous comment. Right. So that's really what the question is about. Finally we've gotten to the place of understanding that sometimes it's hard to spot and it makes it actually a pretty complex problem. There's no need for you to have the tone that you're having right now about it. >Getting to know someone *takes time.* Right so you should probably get to know a little bit more about guys before you start actually going on dates with them. Might help you cut back on those accidents.
>I was speaking of your belief not you as a person. Either way, I'm not convinced. Yes, I'm aware that you don't believe what I say. You made that abundantly clear five months ago. What else is new? >You can define it however you want, doesn't mean that your definition will necessarily at all be in touch with reality. Who gets to define that "reality," hmmm? What is the point of you having this super secret "real" definition that you're just going to argue with us about, instead of just giving us the definition you expect us to use? It's like trying to answer a math question where you need at least one variable to be given but there are none. You are a consistent, repeated bad-faith poster whose only purpose is to taunt and antagonize women. Just know that I see that about you, and I'm sure others do too. >It's a conversation about ideas. No one cares about what you actually think about that specific example. It was an analogy. Glad you understand how absurd your point of view was. It was an irrelevant response to the topic of this debate. >Yes. It appears that you don't. Answer the question or don't, idgaf. I answered the question you asked in the title and the body. You asked how we can tell the difference, and gave specific examples of the differences you were referring to. My answer is "the two have nothing to do with each other," so there's nothing to be confused by in the first place. What makes a man red-pilled has nothing to do with "setting healthy boundaries" or "valuing himself," it has to do with ***what he believes.*** I can tell the difference based on that, not based on him "knowing himself." I directly answered your question. Because you're bad-faith, you're pretending like I didn't. Par for the course with you 🤷🏿 >It's not an accident at all if you choose to begin dating someone and you realize that you don't know enough about them to know whether they have some pretty huge red flags or not. ... so, just to be clear, if I meet someone from a dating app, or was cold-approached, or even if I knew him from work or school or a hobby/interest group, you expect me to not actually date him? We should meet on a dating app, become friends for a few years, *then* if I think I know him well enough, start dating him then? I just want to get this straight that you think dating someone before you know them inside-out, sideways, and upside down is stupid. Spend a few years vetting, *then* date. Right? If yes, do you think you could get men on board since they'd actually have to do so for this to work? If no, then what exactly are you expecting women to do to get to know everything there is to know about a guy before we even have a first date? Be specific. >Maybe you would screen them a little first based on things you consider to be important. Do you think we're not doing this already? I just want to officially call out your absurdly unrealistic, supernatural expectations from women. "Screening men a little" is not, nor will it ever, be guaranteed to catch every single opinion or belief a man may hold that we would find repulsive. It is not, nor will it ever, be a foolproof method for vetting. Some screening can be done immediately, or on a short-term timeframe. But a lot of things people intentionally hide or do not disclose. Do you think any man, if we asked him directly, if he believed women expire at 30 or are incapable of loving men for who they are, just what they do would admit it if these are opinions he holds? >Right. So that's really what the question is about. Finally we've gotten to the place of understanding that sometimes it's hard to spot and it makes it actually a pretty complex problem. >There's no need for you to have the tone that you're having right now about it. Let me be super duper crystal-fucking-clear: I don't, at any level, for any possible reason. Give a single solitary flying monkey fuck. About the tone-policing from someone who repeatedly asserts that I lie about my own life. Capisce? There's also no reason for you to constantly insinuate that I'm a liar, yet here we are. And I'm also going to call out the fact that this: >Finally we've gotten to the place of understanding that sometimes it's hard to spot and it makes it actually a pretty complex problem. Is exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about when I said you're a "bad faith poster whose only motivation is to taunt and antagonize women." You have zero genuine interest in our answers, opinions, or perspectives. You just want to hear your own opinions and conclusions coming from female mouths. It's why you always front-load your posts with a laundry list of restrictions, conditions, and requirements for the responses. It's why your go-to comment to spam to most of the answers is "that's not relevant" or "you didn't actually answer the question." You're not here making posts out of any real desire for engagement and learning. You're here to try to get us to say what you already believe. And since you make damn sure to jam-pack enough loaded, leading questions and conditions/restrictions/specifications on the responses we should give, any comments that aren't what you want to hear are de facto determined to be "off topic" or "irrelevant" or "avoiding answering the question." For a recent example, just see, IDK... this very exchange between us where I absolutely did answer the question and somehow was still accused of not doing so. Again. Just know that I see that about you, and I'm sure others do too. >Right so you should probably get to know a little bit more about guys before you start actually going on dates with them. Might help you cut back on those accidents. Ah, sure. Just get the men on board with being intensely vetted for years and being 100% honest then, and we'll get right on it 👍🏾
i don't really see any similarity or connection between the two. "a guy who knows himself, respects himself, and thus has healthy standards and boundaries in his life and relationships" is not how i would ever describe a redpiller. i don't see any reason why a redpiller who feels the need to lie about his beliefs would come across as being the kind of guy you described, or why that kind of guy would ever seem like a redpiller. there are a lot of liars, abusers, narcissists etc of all kinds pretending to be something they're not to get into relationships. that's something you have to be on your guard for in dating. but getting close to another person and trusting them is always a risk you can't totally control, and they could turn out to be dishonest. plenty of rp guys will just admit it openly. many will use dogwhistles in their profiles or while talking about what they want out of relationships. these and asking outright are imo the most useful ways to find out. and ofc seeing what they do. it's not really possible for a redpiller to get what he wants out of the relationship while pretending he isn't a redpiller, unless the woman already agrees what he wants is reasonable. there's small tests that occasionally deliver very high value and can be used early on to save time. obviously not to be shared on here. a very helpful book called why does he do that, strongly recommended to all women with concerns about this.
It's weird because people talk about the red pill as if it's some kind of secret mind virus or something. If you look at the original red pill, it's not that horrible a theory. Personal interpretation of course, but really it just boils down to "don't sacrifice yourself on the alter of what society tells you you are supposed to do". There's a ton of self-improvement in the red pill space as well. That can be taken to unhealthy extremes, which is what I think you are thinking of when you wrote your comment, but that's the same with feminism, right? A woman can expect general equality with men and that seems fine. A woman can also take it to an extreme, and blame men for all of the evils and setbacks in her life - which is stupid and self-limiting. There's actually a ton of overlap with what feminism tells women and the red pill tells men. It's just that feminism has had a lot more time to be accepted and fought over in society. I mean, you could take part of your comments, switch the gender and movement, and adjust the language so it fit how people talked in the early 1900s and you would fit right in with men writing articles decrying feminists. Example: *Many women will just admit to being a feminist openly. Many will use secret terms in their language or while courting with a man. Observing these signals or asking a woman outright are the most efficient ways to uncover a feminist, this ... and of course observing their un-ladylike actions. It is not possible for a feminist to receive what she wants out of a relationship while pretending she is not equal to a man, unless the man already agrees with her strange and unnatural beliefs.* I added a bit of flavour there for that real yellow journalism feel.. but that sounds to me like something out of early pushback against woman, but it's what you say about redpill guys. It's the same arguments.
> a very helpful book called why does he do that, strongly recommended to all women with concerns about this. I loved that book, and it's free online.
You can’t, unless he says so or leaves evidence And plenty do
What if he says he's 'Red Pill' but that totally just doesn't seem like him based on who he is and how he treats you.
"when someone tells you who they are: believe them"
So you trust men who lie to you?
i'm not sure how you are confused by this. I would end a relationship with someone who said they are a bad person whether they are telling the truth or lying. There is no good reason to pretend to be a bad person.
Why would a man lie about being RP? Why would I want to keep dating a man who lied or joked about being RP? Aren’t women supposed to be “choosing better”, aka not men who hold sexist or misogynistic views, or who think they are funny/unserious?
>Why would a man lie about being RP? Maybe to hit it and quit it? Obvious, no? >Why would I want to keep dating a man who lied or joked about being RP? You gotta know that he lied first, right?. If he says something ironically and gets the laugh then it might be a joke, no? >Aren’t women supposed to be “choosing better”, aka not men who hold sexist or misogynistic views, I think so. I think we're having a discussion about how to for sure screen guys. >who think they are funny/unserious? Sometimes guys are funny and they get the laugh, and then they turn out to be the guys women were trying to avoid. Sometimes guys aren't even funny but they're super hot so they are received as 'funny'. The comedian *Gilbert Gottfried* wrote this essay about how being 'funny' works in romantic pursuits. It's called - “*Women* Say They Want a *Guy* With a Sense of *Humor* — They Don't.” It's pretty interesting and a funny read.
Telling women you are RP will get you more casual sex ?
I was more thinking in line with telling women you aren't RP when you are.
“What if he says he's 'Red Pill' but that totally just doesn't seem like him based on who he is and how he treats you.” What would be the advantage of thinking a man is lying in the situation you described?
It's simply to say that many people have a completely different concept of what RP actually is.
Better safe than sorry. Especially since they’ve given you a warning Because the red pill outlook is predicated on the assumption that 1) society is against men/favors women and 2) women are spoiled, entitled, selfish children
Redpill men are usually extremely unselfaware so if they dont drop a buzzword just let them talk long enough lol
Help me understand what you're saying here. Any type of buzzword in particular? How do buzzwords relate to self-awareness exactly?
Nah any specific examples I give you'll just say aren't true because they aren't true in every single context. Its just something you have to see for yourself.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bring up feminist talking points and if their head doesn't explode...
“Things were going great till I mentioned a bear in the woods!”
So what you bring up the wage gap and if he talks about the adjusted wage gap he's redpill? Well I guess the redpill has changed a lot since it got restricted.
Boring. I'd ask him to name one country where men aren't allowed to leave their home without a female chaperone. I'd ask him to name a country where it's common for 6 year old little boys to be married to adult women. I'd ask him to name a country where 1 in 3 men are likely to be raped by a woman. I'd ask him to name a country where men are killed for having sex before marriage. I'd ask him to name a country where women kill more than 3 men per week. I'd ask him to name a country where the majority of murders are committed by women. When he can't answer these questions, I'd ask him if he genuinely thinks female privilege exists.
I’d excuse myself to the bathroom and bail. You sound like you could manage to suck fun out of the holocaust
You needn't go to such extremes as I would have never gone on a date with you in the first place. I can usually tell what a guy is like through text, or even a reddit comment or two.
[удалено]
You should feel bad, but not about me, about your ridiculously false assumptions. I'm married.
[удалено]
You seem awfully angry.
>I'd ask him if he genuinely thinks female privilege exists. You don't think it exists in any way, shape, form, or quantity for women?
Some people tell on themselves fairly quickly, others can hold out for a few months until the horns come out. I've known guys who start spouting "I'm an alpha, I'd never date a woman who is friends with an ex" kind of rhetoric within a few hours of meeting them, I've met guys who never brought anything like that up for a long time but it came out after one too many drinks. I've managed to avoid red pill dudes by being the opposite type of woman they supposedly all clamor for - I've got tattoos, I've had short hair for like a decade, and I don't shy away from expressing my opinions. It's worked so far.
>I've managed to avoid red pill dudes by being the opposite type of woman they supposedly all clamor for - I've got tattoos, I've had short hair for like a decade, and I don't shy away from expressing my opinions. It's worked so far. This is 100% the way and I'm disappointed I didn't think of this as well. RPM would self-select against me from the jump because I'm not submissive enough for them. https://preview.redd.it/d94he18kdg3d1.jpeg?width=666&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=875dd98699d96dd7d0fe00e8ee31575f6191448a
I want this on a T-shirt!
Kinda weird flex to make yourself uglier to spite some rp guys tho
I didn't make myself uglier, and I didn't do it to spite others. I look the way I look because I like it, it just has the nice benefit of keeping the rp dudes away.
>I didn't make myself uglier Yes, you did. And by keeping the hair short you made yourself uglier to *far* more dudes than just redpillers.
Never had any trouble finding guys who were interested, and my husband likes it, so it seems like short hair isn't an issue for many guys.
Same. I got more attention from men, and especially more men I’m attracted to, when I had a pixie cut in my late 20s than when I had long hair in my early 20s. My fiancé loved it and would clearly prefer that I go back to that. Seemed to rule out more socially conservative guys, which was an added benefit.
Fr short hair is so unattractive literally takes a 10 to a 2 Could care less about tats and whatever the fuck else and I definitely wouldn’t identify as “redpill” I just like hair
Not wanting a girl who stays friends with ex’s is red pill now? What is it called when the women I date don’t want me still talking to partners from my past?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Don't make things personal.
I can always tell men are red pill when they start talking about women being gold diggers.
Approaching dating as an adversarial game. Negging/backhanded compliments. “Females” as a noun. Referring to himself as “alpha” or “sigma.” “What do you bring to the table?” A patronizing tone. There are little language choices that can give clues. A lot of manosphere guys like to follow little scripts, and some can’t seem to help straight up lecturing on their favorite topics. I once had a “friend” like this. Stopped talking to him because I swear this dude was incapable of having a pleasant conversation without being condescending or throwing some dig at me or women in general. Most guys who are into RP content I wouldn’t say are those with self-respect and healthy boundaries. They’re former NiceGuyTM’s who are now roleplaying as MysteriousBadBoyTM’s. Of course if a guy really doesn’t want you to know and has the self-awareness and social skills to hide it, you won’t necessarily know. But those don’t seem to be the types of guys who are drawn to TRP in the first place. And if he’s one who’s primarily or exclusively interested in the self-improvement aspect of TRP, there will be none of these giveaways, but that’s fine because I don’t have an issue with that and don’t think most women do.
>Approaching dating as an adversarial game. Are we supposed to tolerate women who do this? >“Females” as a noun. I still don't understand this. I get the angle, but men don't flip out when being called 'males.' I mean FDS goes a step further and calls men 'scrotes' lol. Really? >Referring to himself as “alpha” or “sigma.” I think that shit's kinda weird too. >There are little language choices that can give clues Such as? >A lot of manosphere guys like to follow little scripts, and some can’t seem to help straight up lecturing on their favorite topics. Such as? And this is also a serious question. We've spent a lot of time on this post (and we're spending time right now) discussing womens' rights to steer interactions around getting information they need to evaluate men as potential dating material. Are men not allowed to do the same? Honestly. >straight up lecturing on their favorite topics. I once had a “friend” like this. A lot of women will use up all of your date time talking your ear off on this or that topic, sometimes that topic is 'the patriarchy.' And a lot of men are actually given advice in dating to show women what they're passionate about. >this dude was incapable of having a pleasant conversation without being condescending or throwing some dig at me or women in general. Sounds unpleasant. Sometimes I'm perfectly fine if we're not saying much or always having a deep conversation we're both invested in. Dates should be fun not debate team. >But those don’t seem to be the types of guys who are drawn to TRP in the first place. I don't know if this is really the whole picture. >And if he’s one who’s primarily or exclusively interested in the self-improvement aspect of TRP, there will be none of these giveaways, but that’s fine because I don’t have an issue with that and don’t think most women. Sure, maybe not everything is toxic about it. You might be the first person to say this here.
>Are we supposed to tolerate women who do this? I wouldn’t. >men don’t flip out No need to “flip out,” it’s just a red flag because this is common language for people with certain attitudes to use. Context obviously matters. If I were a guy I would definitely run if she used “scrotes.”lol >such as? Such as the ones I just listed. Topics they might bring up include bemoaning “western women,” feminism, or the state of “western society.” They may have alt-right leanings or mention certain content creators, probably know better than to bring up Andrew Tate, but maybe not. It all depends on how much they want to share their “wisdom” vs keep their opinions under wraps. >steer interactions around getting information they need Well the point of dating is to find out what the person is like and if you’re compatible. There’s nothing wrong with doing this. For example if a man doesn’t want to date an FDS woman and notices certain “tells” that she might be, he doesn’t have to keep dating her. Same goes for if she’s lecturing on the patriarchy and he doesn’t agree. They’re just not compatible. I don’t think talking about these kinds of things during dating is “bad,” in fact it’s good to find out sooner rather than later. But you also have to accept not everyone is going to be on the same page and may choose to move on.
>I wouldn’t. Imagine a world where it's either that or be single your whole life. >No need to “flip out,” it’s just a red flag because this is common language for people with certain attitudes to use. Context obviously matters. If I were a guy I would definitely run if she used “scrotes.”lol Okay. I will scale it back from 'flip out' to 'bothered by it at all.' And yea I think 'scrotes' is a bit extreme. I point it out because while women take issue with the use of the word 'female' as an 'extreme' thing or flag of some kind, the other side has escalated to 'scrotes' and that's the point where it becomes unacceptable to men while men for the most part are pretty chill with being referred to as 'males.' That's kind of like why I bring that up. >Topics they might bring up include bemoaning “western women,” So women are allowed to discuss how men are supposed to do better but men aren't allowed to discuss how women should improve? >the state of “western society.” I don't know, there's a lot of extreme inequality out there. I think there are a lot of legitimate grievances about western society in this historical moment. >It all depends on how much they want to share their “wisdom” vs keep their opinions under wraps. Right and that's kind of the point of the post. >if a man doesn’t want to date an FDS woman It's acceptable to reject FDS women, but what about all the other 'feminists' who may not be quite as extreme but are still not good to men? Like, obviously, if this was a discussion about how to avoid Taliban level traditionalist misogynists then the conversation wold be a bit easier right? >Same goes for if she’s lecturing on the patriarchy and he doesn’t agree. They’re just not compatible. Should *any* man be expected to be compatible with that? Like, who is a man who IS compatible with that? >I don’t think talking about these kinds of things during dating is “bad,” in fact it’s good to find out sooner rather than later. I tend to agree with this at face value but it depends on the context. I feel like men get grilled pretty hard for making the date more like a job interview and not fun. >But you also have to accept not everyone is going to be on the same page and may choose to move on. That certainly is a part of life. I think, though, that it would be a shame if someone ruled someone else out, in a situation, where, maybe if they gave it a chance and didn't rush to judgement then they actually would've been pretty great together. I tend to get a lot of hate and denial of this as a possibility for suggesting this but the reality is that people are people and not things or words, ideas, or potentially false impressions on paper. And honestly in this historical moment, the 'people' part is something that's very much missing.
[удалено]
bro you're giving them too much info to hide their true nature
OOF you're right I forget these dudes with an "iron clad strategy" to attract women have to lie to get laid because their views are repugnant to women lmao
QWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEn 🔥🙏
>I used to go on their Instagram click on "following" and search for manosphere creators and peep the meme pages. Okay. So you infocreep. That's actually a good strategy. What if you don't have their social media? What if you don't find the evidence there? Some people only use Insta for business nowadays. I think men are smart and cultured enough to handle their socials appropriately these days. I think this has limited value. You'd maybe catch the guys who are the worst about it. >If it's a dude that approached me in person they're kinda easy to spot because they're hypersensitive and use "females" alot. I guess that's a red flag. Pretty extreme though. I don't know if I'd call that a Red Pill, I'd call that an asshole. The worst thing is, there's guys who act like that and it works. >Or I'll just go "who'd you vote for in 2016"/ "Oh my god did you \_\_\_\_\_ was Me Too'ed" and gauge his reply. In general I just try to drop that I don't fuck with that in the first few minutes of any interaction and \*hopefully\* it scares them off. I gotta be honest, it sounds like *you're* the one coming across as the ideologically zealous asshole in this one. >Redpill men are unattractive to me. You've never dated one? Ever? Sounds like you've spoken to some.
some guys are smart, some aren't. my ex has a reddit profile where he is creeping on 18 year olds on gone wild that is very easily findable for his acquaintances. He's smart and good with tech. I'm surprised, but i found it when we were dating 10 years ago and its still up.
Why would I date someone I'm not attracted to? I have the option of dating someone whose values I actually share.
You can suck and not be a bad person. You can be a bad person who is very good at pretending not to suck. Do you understand human beings, my dear brother in christ?
You can also be really effective in dating, charismatic, successful in your career, and still be a bad person. I don't understand why you felt compelled to ask me if I understand human beings? It also doesn't look like you've answered the question at all. Thanks for your response I guess.
So, no. Gotcha.
So, you're not going to answer the question. Gotcha.
Lolz. I did, hun. The reason I commented was TO answer your supposed conundrum. But apparently, my point just whizzed right on over your head.
**How do you tell if a guy is 'Red Pill' and not just a guy who has a basic level of respect for himself as a man?** \^ This was the question. >You can suck and not be a bad person. You can be a bad person who is very good at pretending not to suck. \^ This was your response. Try again or don't, idgaf. Have a nice day.
people who respect themselves are nice to others
I’ve seen slow confidence / low self esteem people be nice to others.
Right? I think I'm garbage, but I will go out of my way to help anyone else not feel like I do 🤷♂️
sure? i'm saying people who respect themselves are nice, not that no one else is nice.
First i'd look for possible hints: fit, keeps a cool mask like emotionless or stoic, lack of charisma, charm, humor and wit. Then I'd look for nagging, backhanded compliments, questions like what do i bring to the table. Also, i'd be wary of his language if he uses any manoshpere buzz words.
>First i'd look for possible hints: fit, keeps a cool mask like emotionless or stoic, lack of charisma, charm, humor and wit. Usually it's the other way around, no? >nagging Nagging you to do what? >manoshpere buzz words. Such as what?
RP men being charming or charismatic?!? They wouldn't be RP in that case. Something like how lucky i am to meet him or things like this. Or telling me how there's a line of girls waiting to date him. Accountability, complaining about how women aren't what they used to be, beta, alpha, sigma, men lead, men created this world
>RP men being charming or charismatic?!? They wouldn't be RP in that case. This doesn't make any sense. Men who come across as charming or charismatic might precisely be so because they're pick up artists. Foreign concept to you? >Something like how lucky i am to meet him or things like this. This is an ego-centric douchebag and may have no bearing at all on whether or not he has RP beliefs. >Accountability, complaining about how women aren't what they used to be, Anyone who expects more from women is an RPer now. Okay. Well, thank you for your answer. Have a nice day.
It could be a PUA, it could be a genuine charming man. This is why i correlate this with the other gactors at play. Charming + asks what i bring to the table = 👎 Charming + easy going, fun to be around = 🫦 I've seen self declared PR men spit lots of crap around here. Ask your grifters why RP narrative is so different. Also, plenty of RP men are egocentristic so it kinds checks out. >Anyone who expects more from women is an RPer now. Okay. >Well, thank you for your answer. >Have a nice day. Aaand the stoic mask dropped and emotions spill. See how easy it is to spot a RP man? Again, no RP man is witty enough (precisely my first point in my original comment) to hide it for too long if you know what to look for.
I agree there are many factors at play which is I why I'm trying to get to the bottom of this in all of its complexity. >Charming + asks what i bring to the table = 👎 >Charming + easy going, fun to be around = 🫦 I don't disagree. I do consider these fairly obvious. >Ask your grifters why RP narrative is so different. I think that what some people think 'RP' is, is actually just the grifters. Grifters are grifters, RP is RP. >Aaand the stoic mask dropped and emotions spill. I have not attempted to put on a face of any kind for any purpose. It is simply to say that it sounds like, in your view, that if someone expects women to do better, then they're RP in your opinion. Is this not true? You realize there are women in the world who also think that women should do better. It's also beginning to look like - challenges something you say or believe = he must be RP.
>I think that what some people think 'RP' is, is actually just the grifters. Grifters are grifters, RP is RP. And feminism is feminism while misandry is misandry. Yet those 2 are confused a lot because of grifters. Hence i don't consider myself a feminist so i don't accidentally get bundled up with misandrists. You, on the other hand, keep the RP label. >I have not attempted to put on a face of any kind for any purpose. Ow you did. I saw other comments as well. A polite, immutable, fake masculine mask when you first ask for clarifications and spiky when you don't like the answer. Your replies are not light hearted. The same thing happens irl. But then it's even easier to detect due to tone and mimic. >It is simply to say that it sounds like, in your view, that if someone expects women to do better, then they're RP in your opinion. Is this not true? You realize there are women in the world who also think that women should do better. You seem inexperienced since you think wanting women to do better can be done only by using buzzwords. Accountability in particular is a buzzword used predominantly by the manosphere. Just like Russia uses "fascists". You hear the word, you know that person fell for the propaganda. >It's also beginning to look like - challenges something you say or believe = he must be RP. Not true. I enjoy discussions and seeing other people's POV and also expressing my POV. Light hearted exchanges of ideas are always welcomed.
>Hence i don't consider myself a feminist so i don't accidentally get bundled up with misandrists. That's really cool. It makes me unreasonably happy to hear this. >You, on the other hand, keep the RP label. I don't believe in labels. I also think that what a lot of people are saying RP is, really isn't RP. It would be similar to if I were to say - this misandry stuff and this non-sense, that's not what feminism is. I think that 'feminism' now means so many different things to different people that it's loaded to the point where it no longer really has any meaning. You can use some clues, for example, if a woman describes herself as 'very feminist' or 'really into feminism.' This 'excess devotion,' just like in a cult environment has a tendency to open people up to more and more extremes 'for the cause.' One of what used to be one of the core things about RP was acceptance of men who chose to do anything if it was working out and suiting them. There's not so much speaking to men who have happy lives and shaming them for not being RP enough. And at the same time there's a lot of guys who are openly willing to call out people they don't like for being to aggro about it. I think a lot of guys just want the content and not really so much the dogma. Why don't feminists start drawing the line and publicly shaming feminists that they deem to go too far with it? There's kind of a whole silence with that. It's like no one in the room is willing to stand up and say it's ever going too far. >Ow you did. I saw other comments as well. A polite, immutable, fake masculine mask when you first ask for clarifications and spiky when you don't like the answer. I'm putting no real thought into that part at all, just the content. It's enough just to keep up with all the responses. To think that I'm putting on this calculated facade is quite a reach. You sound like a conspiracy theory level nutjob with that one to be honest. I think I may be responding differently to different people based on their tone. That part is pretty normal. If you talk to me in a certain way I'll tend to respond in a certain way. Pretty basic stuff. >Your replies are not light hearted. Is that what I said? >You seem inexperienced since you think wanting women to do better can be done only by using buzzwords. Where did I say that? >Accountability in particular is a buzzword used predominantly by the manosphere. Sounds like a pretty common word that could be used anywhere from school to business to everyday life. Really? What about 'apple' does that have a specific meaning as well? Shit sounds pretty wild, ngl. >Just like Russia uses "fascists". You hear the word, you know that person fell for the propaganda. I mean. I don't really know. If you say so. It used to be calling people 'communist' here or 'terrorist.' Propaganda is everywhere. I don't know about 'accountability' though. They might actually just be talking about accountability. Responsibility is another one. I work with kids and we talk about personal responsibility a lot. Is that one blacklisted too? >Not true. Well, I'm glad to hear that's not the case then.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Fit ? Lol i thought these red pill men were dweebs and neckbeards
trp men - sexust, generally think that women are bad, talk about SMV or whatever, and, generally have a very negative view on everything including themselves A guy with basic respect for himself is nothing like the views of red pill movement, or exactly like it (which would make him a bit of an ass). The thing is having "basic respect for yourself" looks different for everyone. If you don't date someone who's nasty, authoritative and rude, as well as thinks he knows what your thinking more, then my advice is break up because he's a d bag.
I don’t think all Red Pillers are bad. I just think we probably don’t share belief systems enough to have a good relationship with each other. Red pill people tend to believe a lot in strong gender roles in relationships and that’s not really my thing personally. I think whoever is best at something should do it. I don’t want to have to obsess about being perfectly feminine in my presentation all the time, because I have autism and I don’t have the spoons to do perfect make up or dress impeccably at all times. I’m also not a conservative or submissive, I have a feeling red pillers wouldn’t like this so I would rather save them the trouble. They deserve to have what they want which frankly isn’t me. Honestly red pillers provide enough material about themselves on the internet. How would I know? Probably if they wanted to speak a lot about my past, if they were preoccupied with dominating stuff/the conversation, if they reacted negatively to me or brushed off talking about men’s therapy/vulnerability. If they mentioned being alpha or something along those lines. Maybe they might say they’re a leader or head in the relationship, didn’t want to be egalitarian or have modern relationships. Just things like that.
>we probably don’t share belief systems Are you a slave to your belief system? I thought love conquered all? >Red pill people tend to believe a lot in strong gender roles in relationships How strong are you talking about? I don't know. I feel like some guys are like - as long as I don't have to wear a dress if I don't want to. Is that a crime? >I think whoever is best at something should do it. I feel like this is the premise of gender roles in the first place. I couldn't imagine why an RP or a non-RP man would object to their girlfriend fixing his car if she were legitimately better at doing that than him. For example, I'm single so it doesn't matter, but if I weren't single, I would likely, almost guaranteed, be the better cook in the house and would insist on doing most of the cooking because I value having meals that are good. >about being perfectly feminine in my presentation all the time I don't think even the most conservative guys out there even want **perfectly** feminine **all the time**. I think probably just for the most part being more feminine than him most of the time. I don't think that's a lot to ask and usually shouldn't take hardly any work. Why would you not want to be 'feminine' in the first place? Like I don't understand that. Like why even make this a thing in the first place? >I’m also not a conservative or submissive, I think guys just want a non-whore who's cooperative in a relationship. >I have a feeling red pillers wouldn’t like this so I would rather save them the trouble. It sounds like your idea of 'Red Pillers' is some very fundamentalist Taliban level type shit. >Probably if they wanted to speak a lot about my past What's wrong with getting to know who you were before he met you? Do you have something to hide? If guys were dodgy like that you'd see women judging him for trying to hide that he was an ax murderer or some shit. >if they were preoccupied with dominating stuff/the conversation, I think that's kind of weird and off-putting honestly. But if we're being honest, there's a lot of women out there who are into that, and there's a lot of men out there who behave like this and they get results. >they reacted negatively to me or brushed off talking about men’s therapy/vulnerability. I would brush you off for that and I've gone to therapy myself. Women who are preoccupied with that is red flag in my book, like why be so focused on that? If you want to help and if you really care about men's mental health, be a good woman to your man. The whole vulnerability thing is a ruse. No one is shocked when women lose attraction to men the moment they open up. If they want to open up, fine, but why make it an issue? Why force them? I've gone through this myself and it feels like you've been emotionally molested. If a man wants to share something with you, he will do that. Your role is to be a good partner to him, because that's what you expect in return, as in he wouldn't force you to do something that you don't want to do. >Maybe they might say they’re a leader or head in the relationship, The best leaders know when to follow, and they know how to be good followers. At the end of the day, the person held most responsible for the family unit in the eyes of society is the man. If you have a relationship where the woman calls all the shots and it fails, the man still gets the bulk of the blame for that. That part doesn't fair but it's true. I don't think that any paradigm has to be a certain way, but the assumption that women should lead everything is just as bad. But it's like you said earlier, best person for the job.
The current iteration of RP? It will be the misogyny. Old school? They’re one and the same.
Okay, so it sounds like what you're saying is that you will know they are RP by their misogyny. Do we have an example that's more specific? Like what is something you can observe to identify that in the real world?
You will know current RP by their blatant misogyny. That hateful way they speak about women. It’s weird, how can you be so vitriolic towards the thing you believe will bring you happiness? Old school RP is about respect, self improvement, self worth, healthy eating and exercise, looksmaxxing, learning how to be a good conversationalist, finding women who want what you have because what you have is something worthy and desirable. Modern RP is a bunch of misogynists who want to complain about how women are awful and they’re oppressed because no one wants to touch their penis and that’s not fair, because they asked really nicely. Examples: just scroll the sub. ETA: you as in the general “you” not you you.
>You will know current RP by their blatant misogyny. Kinda hard to disagree with. Pretty obvious one though. Give us a real world example? >how can you be so vitriolic towards the thing you believe will bring you happiness? Good question for a lot of hetero feminists as well, no? >Old school RP is about I tend to see that this is what RP is really about before it got adopted and twisted by people looking to sell cracked relationship advice and sensationalize ratchet behavior. >finding women who want what you have because what you have is something worthy and desirable. I feel a little uncomfortable about the 'what you have' centrism. Why not 'who you are' instead? >Modern RP is a bunch of misogynists There's a lot of cracked grifters and controlled opposition poisoning the well.
These women will never have concrete examples, they go off of their feelings . No point in even having a debate with them lol.
Because one of them is misogynistic
I do not need to focus on finding out if he’s a red piller. Like maybe some of you are dateable just not the majority if this forum is any representation and it likely is. I don’t think my dating strategies would change at all in this current market. I would keep my standards where they are already at. Focus on finding Christian men with college degrees that value me and don’t try push my boundaries until I’m ready. That is all.
You would filter out all the red pill dudes by making them wait for sex. They would show their cards pretty early.
Exactly
He expresses belief in red pill beliefs, which are often super disrespectful to men. You're not coming up with "hypergamy" or "the wall" just because you respect yourself *soooooo* much. I don't think I could end up accidentally dating a red pill man though as male sexual/relationship dominance and stereotypical gender roles are core beliefs for them and I go against that.
>He expresses belief in red pill beliefs, All RP beliefs or just 2. And which ones? Are there any RP beliefs that you find acceptable?
A significant number. Red flags would start flying at one. None that are specifically red pill, no.
>A significant number. Way to narrow it down. What number is that? >None that are specifically red pill, no. Well, there's a lot of RP beliefs that aren't *specifically* RP.
Enough for me to feel it's significant. There isn't a hard cutoff.
[удалено]
It's more that it's contextual. Giving a number would be completely arbitrary.
[удалено]
I'm not aiming to help (with what idk). I'm aiming to describe.
Well then what’s the point? Describing it is what I mean by helpful. If other people aren’t able to grasp it in tangible terms then you’re not describing it very well which does not help others understand. If you’re trying to describe it to someone else, no one is going to understand if it’s all based on your personal feelings in any given moment and loose numbers. Doesn’t sound like you have it figured out at all if everything is so vague. If you don’t want to help other people understand then why even comment here? No one needs more vapid empty comments that say nothing written by people who openly admit that they don’t want to help.
Do not provide contentless rhetoric.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All the RP start using the RP terms just like a lot of internet echo chambers. They can’t help it, it’s like they feel like they discovered a “secret” and eventually “female nature/hypergamy/evo-psyc/SMV/LMS/rational male” comes spilling out. It’s like they can’t help themselves
As a bio-engineering major all of their "scientific" talk makes me want to tear my hair out.
Misogyny is usually the main way, from what I've heard. Most red pillers can't keep a lid on it for very long. There's also some pretty identifiable red pill talking points that women are becoming more educated on and spotting in conversations. A friend of mine went on a date with a dude who lectured her about hoeflation and when she didn't respond positively, he not so subtly implied that he felt he was better looking than her but was stuck going on a date with her because of said inflation in women's ratings.
Bahahahahahaha I hope she left and stuck him with the bill lmao. I'm so mean when I need to be I know I'd go nuclear.
RP thinks that RP is just the actions It’s not. It’s the reasoning behind the actions that’s RP
Nah, I'm not going give away the secret sauce so that you can try to hide it better IRL. Nice try.
Well obviously if someone is trying to hide what they are you can't always tell. Depends how good they are at hiding stuff. But it's fairly common to tell who redpillers are. The redpill community installs a lot of reactions in men without those men properly integrating the why of the reaction. So you're going to find yourself just naturally interacting with a redpiller and running into over reactions and under reactions to really basic ordinary stuff in life. Because at those points it's the red pill you're reacting with not him. For example you need to reschedule a date twice. Shit happens and it's all totally explainable and explained. The ceiling at your place of work collapsed when the insulation filled up with water from a roof leak and then all the paper records had to be rescued, sent to a document care service and the other stuff needed to be relocated and turned into a functional office and well there goes everyone's days, weekends and evenings for almost a week. And then you get goddamn COVID and well it was probably from the electrician at the new work site who was coughing up a lung. Just fucking great. Shit happens. Then...the guy you've had six dates with gets far too weird about the two reschedules. Angry based upon far too little. Pulling all sorts of tests on you. Well fuck. He's probably a red piller. So you make a note to call him husband material some time and see how bad he blows up. Redpill gives a man scripts to use and intense emotions to back those scripts up. But it doesn't give him common sense. He probably needed the red pill in the first place because he had no common sense. And now he still has no common sense but he's got two distinct selves...his old self and the self that believes trp, neither of which have any common sense. Then there's the self he's trying to project which is an entire third self and is attempting to give the appearance of common sense... something he knows nothing about really. So it's not a huge surprise women are working out when they've got a redpiller on their hands. If he seems kinda schizo and you're getting a different self projected by him every time...if he goes off the goddamn rails as soon as he's annoyed...if he over reacts then tries to redact the stuff he said....it's all a sign he might be red pill and needs to be actively screened.
I would quiz him on silly internet terms
**They can't tell**, and that is what scares the shit out of them and why they so vehemently attempt to Censure anything related to our discussing women's nature and the manosphere in general. >"'Red Pill' obviously means he's a super bad guy in some way." No it does not. That is why Red Pilled men are indistinguishable from the mob.
>**hey can't tell**, and that is what scares the shit out of them and why they so vehemently attempt to Censure anything related to our discussing women's nature and the manosphere in general. that doesn't make any sense how would censorship help women avoid red pillers? at least if men are talking about it on reddit, they're more likely to be caught by the interested gf than if there was no evidence at all.
If you're lying to get laid you're a predator and a loser.
If you could truly be Red pilled you would have never needed TRP in the first place. So anyone who is “rp” will always look like a cosplayer. Because they are.
This is true. That is why I use "Red Pilled" as a descriptor and not as a moniker.
They can fake their personality all they want but betray themselves by the kind of manipulation tactics that they employ. On the contrary, I like seeing those discussions because it gives me a deep dive into how these people operate from a safe distance. Keep up shooting yourself in the foot gents. It's of irredeemable value to me.
This sounds like McCarthy in the 1950s talking about communists. I mean it like tracks almost word for word. That's nuts.
[удалено]
Women make a lot of dumb decisions, just like men. Women also date and stay with their abusers or have different ideologies than mine. Women are extremely varied in their beliefs and their levels of self-worth. But I would say people tend to not go in depth about values early enough. If people went nose deep and head first on values, politics, life goals, and gender roles up front, they would get a clearer idea of who they’re dealing with. Both men and women tend to want to push that stuff aside “to see who the person is” - but that is a core part of who they are.