"It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women, others with none. It’s what’s known as ” the law of the market”. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude"

Michel Houellebecq, Extension du domaine de la lutte

"It is interesting to note that the “sexual revolution” was sometimes portrayed as a communal utopia, whereas in fact it was simply another stage in the historical rise of individualism. As the lovely word “household” suggests, the couple and the family would be the last bastion of primitive communism in liberal society. The sexual revolution was to destroy these intermediary communities, the last to separate the individual from the market. The destruction continues to this day."

Michel Houellebecq, Les Particules élémentaires

---

The funny thing is that the same socialists who defend regulation in the economic market because of "muh inequality" defend the laissez-faire in the sexual market regardless of the inequality it generates.

---

*Oh, and before you go all "not all socialists like that", please see this image.We can argue that all masculine leftists like Che, Fidel, Stalin, Lenin (notice a pattern here?) were pretty much patriarchal and authoritative despite the beta-ish writings of Marx and Engels. But we don't have any masculinity in leftism anymore.

Now, one of the most important mistakes you can make while in a dialogue with a woman is take her own words/ideas out of context and apply them universally - or if you were to generalize the principle behind her ideas to make it more coherent. When a woman says "equality" chances are she's not saying it to protect actual "equality" but the woman herself - or her gender in general. (Strange that they have this hivemind when they themselves cannot cooperate in any meaningful way). Women use ideas to benefit themselves, and men use ideas to benefit those ideas - a crude approximation, certainly not absolute, but a useful heuristic in a man-woman confrontations. Say "women are not slots you put commitment in and get sex" and get lauded. Say "men are not slots you put in sex and get commitment" and you're only marginally better than Hitler. We even had that fucking thread on 2X to show us.

Female Imperative owes no obligation to anything but itself. It is the embodiment of Briffault's Law. It is something that permeates every ideology that is swayed or spearheaded by women and creatures who have characteristics of women. That is why GamerGate and Sad/RabidPuppies or what have you exist. It is much like a parasite which infects the host, and then devours it completely. A banal example - Videogames becomes Videogames (Female Friendly) becomes Female Friendly. I believe there was a good post on Female Imperative a while back. We at the Dork Enlightenment call it "Conquest's Second Law" - any organization not explicitly right wing will eventually become left wing. Apply this principle to feminism and you will see that any organization not explicitly anti-feminism will eventually become feminist. Lacking a cultural barrier for the Cultural AIDS, it becomes a suitable host. A common argument against TRP isn't the ideas, but the way these ideas are presented. The way our ideas are presented is the cultural barrier to SJW degenerates - people who make the "tone it down a bit" argument know exactly that once you police the tone you police the content.

So once you realize that, and I mean really realize that - not just say "okay, this is true" then go back to believing what they tell you much like a creationist who concedes to facts of evolution but just sheepishly goes back to creationism, you will be even more cynical of women in general. For a good measure.

Everything they do, and I do mean everything related to politics is only to the extent of that they themselves can benefit from - either materially or psychologically by masturbating over their altruism for poor and the oppressed - and altruism that is nothing more than talk, mind you.

Then the reason women support socialism because "muh inequality" and then proceed to support liberalisation of sexual market despite "muh inequality" is clear.

They're in it for themselves. They don't care for you.

TRP is amoral because it makes you see that. Logical conclusion - perhaps even my personal opinion, one which TRP does not explicitly share (as it is amoral), of any morally sane person is that you do not have moral obligation to the people who don't have moral obligation to you.

Take from that what you will.