全 23 件のコメント

[–]Endorsed Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 23ポイント24ポイント  (4子コメント)

The White Knight's definition of women comes from their mothers, as well as video games, television and movies. Cultural programming is definetly at play.

Save the princess in the video game. Cool girl on TV is one of the bros. Nerdy guy moves heaven and earth and gets the girl in the end.

If you are an introvert nerd you understanding of women is heavily influenced by the media narrative.

If you are an attractive guy, women with boyfriends and husbands will be clawing at you trying to catch your alpha sperm. Watching a girl call her boyfriend give him an excuse and then suck your dick is a powerful experience that bloopers dont have.

You should make Teespring shirts of Roosh Crying and link them to your blog.

[–]3 Endorsed ContributorBurgundyCarpet[S] 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

Good point about cultural programming, I should have mentioned that's the other main BP indoctrination mechanism.

Dude I think the first like 5 girls I fucked all had boyfriends. It is simply impossible to keep the pussy on a pedestal after seeing, AND BENEFITING FROM, the fact that women are whores.

[–]occupythekitchen 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

women always have a boyfriend. a girl without one doesn't have social standing with the other hens.

[–]iamokwithviolence -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Media is not "programming" guys to be BP. It's just that they're already BP and media gives them what they want - stories and movies about other BP's, so they could relate.

[–]3 Endorsed ContributorBurgundyCarpet[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I believe it is more of a yin/yang thing. The oligarchs sell shit to the proles because the proles want it... But do they only want it because the oligarchs have gotten them addicted to it? Which came first – the chicken? The egg? Or the retarded idea that men and women are equal?

[–]Kyuzo_ 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think you're wrong on this. Being BP involves ignoring the objective realities of dealing with women and replacing them with an idealized fantasy.

It might corelate that people with low partner counts fall into this category, but its a sweeping generalization.

That said, the metaphor at the beginning is a solid way of separating BP and RP views of women

[–]3 Endorsed ContributorBurgundyCarpet[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I feel you, let's agree to disagree.

If you meet a diehard BPer who has ALSO fucked a lot of bitches I'd be interested in that

[–]Kyuzo_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I wouldn't say diehard, but I know a few people with fairly high N counts, a lot of alpha characteristics, etc... That keep getting burned because they cling to that BP programming.

Thinking it through a bit further though, in a sense you're right. The real diehard white knight male feminist BPers.... Those guys aren't getting laid a lot. No fucking way.

Matter of degree of BP-ness, I suppose?

[–]BonzeFonze 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I really like this analogy: it really puts things into perspective. The blog is a good idea, gonna make sure to follow it.

[–]johnnywahd 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Along these same lines of defining Woman, there is a great book by Sam Keen called Fire in the Belly: On Being a Man. It's a good read.

http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Belly-Being-Sam-Keen/dp/0553351370/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433709578&sr=8-1&keywords=Sam+Keen+Fire+in+the+belly

[–]1cover20 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I had hoped this thread would be about tongue technique.

[–]Metalaggeddon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you op. Semantics is my favorite subject, linguistics a close second.

You've boiled down freges issue of sense and reference very succinctly, and you couldn't gave chosen a better label than "woman" to discuss.

This is a serious issue rampant in language, and especially trp, even now disagreement about what a "plate " is, what a "10" is, what a "unicorn" embodies, and for God sakes what stoicism is, "though I suspect this is more based on philosophical ignorance most often" constantly obfuscates the legitimate advice so many here have to give.

Everyone should read this for the message behind it. It's very important.

Also, don't talk about trp outside of trp.

[–]jimjackjoe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't understand what linguistics or the meaning of the word "woman" has to do with anything. This post boils down to: "our past experiences inform our views." It's just expressed through way fancier means. The apple comparison seems random. Why would anyone debate the meaning of the word "apple"? The equivalent is debating the meaning of the word "woman" with a blue-piller. That's not what you are debating with the bp; you're actually debating the general theme of the nature of women.

And how does one even get into a debate with a "blue-piller"? I have no idea. In what context is this happening?

[–]Primemale -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

The Red Pill Definition of 'Woman': Women are people, just like us. They have virtues AND flaws. They are very good at entertaining, having fun, child-rearing, etc… but they’re incredibly bad at living in accordance with ‘higher’ values – loyalty, honor, honesty, etc.(This definition is fucking OBVIOUS to anyone who has ever fucked a few women.)

Women can have 'higher values' if its been beaten into them, for the most part. Also are you insinuating that these higher values are DISTINCT differences between the sexes? Or are you just saying that in general they tend to lack that? The reason why I ask is I don't think these virtues are INHERENTLY masculine but again behaviours that are beneficial in a certain climate such as a relatively small tribe etc. Therefore I conclude that men are also not virtuous if it isn't required, to a relatively similar degree, I think

[–]CptDefB 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't think these virtues are INHERENTLY masculine

They are. Men made them up for masculine situations like war and dealing with bitches. Virtue isn't inherent, it's taught from the outside and chosen on the inside. Loyalty, honor, honesty... there are distinct motivational differences between the sexes. You can put it on a spectrum if you want, but those who follow some principled version thereof will be predominantly men. Guaranteed. The simplicity of categorizing things shouldn't be so muddled by mostly inconsequential variables/outliers.

[–]Primemale 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah I see where your coming from really, your saying these distinct motivational differences, (which of course, I accept) are responsible for men say, adopting these virtues and likewise women not valuing them. Its the way these virtues are touted often around here as the only way to be as man, like they inexplicably linked to masculinity, rather than as a tool born out of necessity or advantageous at the given time.

[–]CptDefB 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I wouldn't say the virtues are the only way to be, as their definitions/applications can get hazy. Is it "honorable" to fuck a married woman? As a rhetorical example. What I'm saying is that, as masculine concepts, they are inherently masculine things.

Even a little boy understands the concept of honor and loyalty, despite having almost 0 exposure to anything sexy, and only a cartoon's version of say, betrayal. Another thing that men know all too well.

[–]Primemale 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What I'm saying is that, as masculine concepts, they are inherently masculine things.

true, you got me there. Although with the example of the young boy, you said ' a little boy understands the concept of honour...' women can understand the concept of honour etc they just don't generally value it, much like the young boy in most likelihood. Again my point is more that CERTAIN virtues are held up as being innate to men,(forget about women) like a genetic disposition, rather than their particular circumstances, such as the time they were born in to determining their virtue or lack thereof. I spose a man has the potential because of his particular motivations to embrace virtue for his benefit or the groups benefit.

[–]3 Endorsed ContributorBurgundyCarpet[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I am speaking in generalizations. There are exceptions to every trend.

The OVERWHELMING TREND is that women do not value masculine traits like honor, honesty, etc nearly as much as men.

I hope you're not trying to NAWALT cuz I will AWALT you ten times harder :)

[–]Primemale 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think you are right there for sure, that most certainly is the overwhelming trend. My point really, is that I don't think the aforementioned traits are what is wholly masculine, just that men more had to adopt these traits in certain conditions, and women adopted these traits from the men and stuck to them, through shaming tactics, punishments or religion. Now with the fast cultural shift in the west, in the past say 80 years, (in more ways than just feminism) people In general don't tend to value these virtues. And certainly these virtues were created by men, but so was pretty much everything, cultural or otherwise. I'm really just hitting back from what I see often here about higher virtues and ideals being like an instinctual/genetic trait of males, whereas for the most part I don't think it's the case. I am potentially being pedantic, but hey I'm chillin.

[–]3 Endorsed ContributorBurgundyCarpet[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I feel u brah, I stay pedantic AF so I can relate.

Agreed... Most people of either gender DGAF about higher virtues. Its my personal belief that the ones who do are overwhelmingly male.