In Sweden and Iceland the difference between male and female unemployment is a couple percentage points (< 5%). As with any major. Sexual dysfunction is not unique to the twenty-first century—nor, certainly, to the West. Japan's “herbivores”—men who shun sex and prefer saving money and. “My generation of boys is f**ked,” says Rupert, a young German video game enthusiast I've been getting to know over the past few months.
THE SEXODUS, PART 1: THE MEN GIVING UP. ON WOMEN AND CHECKING OUT OF SOCIETY 9 4 0 3 0 9 3 2 4 0 5 3 1 0 8 9. 1,, likes. Just how bad are the relations between the sexes? From reading a series Sexodus by Milo Yiannopoulos at Breitbart (part 2 here) they are at. sinope.infosexuality-in-crisis/.
Sexual dysfunction is not unique to the twenty-first century—nor, certainly, to the West. Japan's “herbivores”—men who shun sex and prefer saving money and. sinope.info I was really surprised Men on Strike wasn't mentioned in Part 1, but I'm glad it. In Sweden and Iceland the difference between male and female unemployment is a couple percentage points (< 5%). As with any major.
Just how bad are the relations between the sexes? From reading a series Sexodus by Milo Yiannopoulos at Breitbart part 2 here they are at pretty low ebb, at least for some. Yiannopoulos tells us that there is a sexodus: heterosexual men are retreating, not just from marriage but also from intimate relationships entirely.
This has been written about before, particularly in America by Helen Smith in her book Men on Strike. This not only puzzles me, but as a social conservative, pains me greatly. Some men — a small minority — are opting out. Yiannopoulos argues this male opt-out is very, very bad for women and I agree.
Women may sexodus want a serious relationship in their twenties but ultimately most desire to settle down and have children. Sure, they now have the option of going it alone — but women know this is not ideal. Yiannopoulos is correct when he states that men can go it alone more easily than women, whether in life in general and indeed sexually. Yiannopoulos blames much of this sexodus on ultra-third wave feminists who trash masculinity and yet glorify their own victimhood to claim special oart they no longer need.
I would add that for men the old deal of getting married and supporting a family is first very difficult as wages continue to stagnate and there is very little status attached to it in any case. Yiannopoulos is certainly not going to get part sezodus for us on most of these points.
Feminists zexodus masculinity part early in babyhood. Boys are not permitted to like blue and should be encouraged to play with dolls. It is wrong if they enjoy traditional boys toys. Why does no one consider this? Previous part of women did try to channel masculinity towards sexodud protection of women but the feminists thought this was a bad idea.
No men-only clubs for men to blow off some steam. We all sexodus sit around sipping lattes together instead — or part you are a misogynist. We have written extensively on third wave feminists wallowing in their own victimhood at the expense of men thereby claiming ever more privileges.
The pinnacle of this misconceived campaign was the gender slander of an entire fraternity by Rolling Stone magazine whereby the magazine alleged a sexodus and gruesome gang rape took place on a young woman.
This has now been retracted, but still feminists persist. Jessica Valenti thinks the presumption of innocence part not apply to men accused of rape and hundreds of years of common law tradition, whereby the prosecution bears the burden of proof, should be chucked in sexoduz bin. You are a man — you are guilty. All in all it should come sexodus no surprise that some men have had enough.
However, in contrast to men exiting from relationships are those who put pressure on women to become akin to porn stars both in appearance and behaviour. What is a social conservative to do? Social conservatives have a big stake in this as we believe society will go to hell in a handcart if men give up on marriage and children.
But it is not sexodks social cohesion that sexodus. It is the sexodus happiness of the next generation we must consider. As someone who has enjoyed great personal happiness from marriage and muchkins we must not let this be denied to others. That is not to say it is easy.
But it is worthwhile. Dating websites are heavily part by women perhaps this confirms 22 sexodus. Sexodus seexodus should know that not all women agree with the third sexodus feminists who want masculinity sexodus be squashed.
Many women do want a part for life, and not on wholly unreasonable terms either. And remember you only have to find one! Just one. She is out there if you only put down the video game long enough to sexodus. If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman.
Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you. Support the Conservative Woman Click here.
Each morning we send The Part Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we part never share part details. Sign in. Log sexodus your account. Password recovery. The Conservative Woman. Tuesday, December 3, NewsPaper the art of publishing. Men retreat from part. By Laura Perrins. December 12, Tags sexodus. The torture report reflects that harsh reality. Sexodus Us. Like The Conservative Woman? Donate to help cover our costs.
Sign up for The ConWom News. Follow us! Share this post. Our Address. Site Information.
Tyguy7 on Dec 8, My feelings are very similar to the author of this article. This is a parody article, right? He even trotted out that worn-out trope that woman use rape allegations as a tool against men.
That argument should be taken out behind the barn and shot. Its old and it don't hunt no mo'. I was really hoping for some thought-provoking counterpoints to feminism, but sadly there were none to be found. Just some anecdotal whinging and a couple quotes from the Ann Coulter of feminism. Just calling something "a worn-out trope" does not make it false, or any less serious.
It needs to be studied, verified, and denied if that is the case. But until then, there have been numerous studies with wildly differing findings. Everywhere for 1.
Even if it's just 1. Okay, so those men who will only accept a woman's company if she is subordinate are having a harder time to find a willing partner. What's wrong with that? That's a completely false misrepresentation of what the article is talking about. To boil it all down to "men can't find willing partners if 'she' isn't subordinate to them" is quite frankly, very dishonest.
I'm disappointed if you didn't actually read the article before commenting on it the way you did. But I would be quite a bit less appalled at that option, than the one of you having actually read the article, and still interpreted the way it seems you did from your post. If it's a false misrepresentation, that would make it a true representation, no?
Regardless, be appalled, I read it and all I heard was an obsolete species of man whining that it sucks to be a dinosaur. Apparently there's enough wrong with that to justify a word screed and that's just part 1!!!
I can write part 2 in Perl. Thank you for posting this. It was a fascinating read. Seriously boo hoooo Man up for a fucking change and deal with it. This is the same cry baby crap as gamer gate.. If a man is not having sex with a woman..
We have to deal with the hand we are dealt. I like women and am not afraid to admit it. I could go on and on about how screwed over I have been because I am a man who works for a living but I dont..
I just find a woman I can relate to and learn to love and be loved. We owe a debt to the men and women who change our culture and make treating women with respect and humanity possible. It makes us less violent and less prone to being killed in a war.
So I say get over your bromance fetish and deal with being set free. It's attitudes like those you've presented here that play a big role in the withdrawal from society a lot of these people myself included face.
If I have a choice between attempting to deal with women who have no interest in me or a vain interest with potential destructive consequences to my quality of life, or choosing instead to just say "fuck it" and withdraw to my comfortable job and pornography, I'm going to and have for years pick the latter. That doesn't make me "gay", it makes me unwilling to take an inflated risk for little reward.
A truly equal relationship is appealing to me, as it would be to others, but that is harder and harder to find. But you keep doing you. Flaunt your alpha male superiority in our faces. We frankly don't care, because that's not a system we want to be part of if we can help it. From what I can tell from listening to my kids, girls seem to own their sexuality more than they did when I was a kid. That changes things but I'm not seeing the sort of changes in that article. I'll admit that as I read that article the idea that "these guys have no game" crossed my mind but I really don't know, I'm not out there dating.
Do people really believe that article? Is fluxquanta's choice a common one? If so, that's a bummer. Porn is fine and all but the love of a partner is an entirely different thing. I have to wonder if we're talking about a section of society that has a tough time interacting with women and understandably tough time, women are complicated. Seems like the marriage rate would be going down if this article is correct. Anyone have stats on that?
OK, I googled and read for a while and while marriage rates are going down, the sense I got was it was mostly about economics, women aren't that excited about marrying broke people.
It appears like the rate amongst upper middle class people is pretty stable. Women are people, just like men. A relationship with a woman is no harder than one with a man, you just have to be honestly interested in the other person. The core of the problem is that a lot of men keep seeing and presenting women as alien, as not-real-people, as figures who only exist for sexual relationships and porn.
If that's your attitude, then dealing with women who want to be treated as people is going to be hard. They're not.
Of course not all women are going to be interested in you, just like you're probably not interested in all women. But if really no women want to have anything to do with you, maybe it's time to ask yourself why.
How do you behave? Since women started having careers, the gender gap for life expectancy has been shrinking. It's all lifestyle, coupled with the fact that we give preferentially good medical treatment to women. I agree, the stress and danger that men go through in their youth trying to attract women dangerous behavior and violence is the result of competing for mates to some degree , plus the strain of trying to make lots of money in their 30's and 40's results in men being like fast burning candles.
I am The male friends I had in high school all now fall into 3 categories: 1. Married and unhappy, 2. Divorced and generally content to avoid relationships with women except for sex, 3.
In a long term relationship heading towards marriage and unhappy. None of them are single and enjoying their prime by partaking in the company of young attractive women. The female "friends" I had in high school and the exes that I dated in HS and in college generally fall into three categories as well 1.
The ones that fall into category 3 all got married between 25 and 28 to wealthy dudes with good jobs and tons of cash. Category 3 women were smart, acted prudently and cashed in at or near the top of the market while they had looks. They have generally continued to be smart and act prudently to remain as attractive as possible. I personally would never consider engaging in a LTR with any woman over the age of If I find out she has been with 3 or more people before me sexually, an LTR is also off the table.
I believe that we are bearing witness to society becoming utterly fucked. However, as an opportunist - I plan on making as much cash as possible and fucking as many hot women as possible until I meet one that is worth settling down with. You did good. I have the 'male privilege' of paying half the mortgage and half the utilities on a house I haven't been in in over a year while my lovely wife fucks dudes off of tinder while my son is there. My uncle is in that boat, except he paid for the entire mortgage and also financed his ex wife's boob job.
Tough luck, brother. I always hate to hear that. How much longer do you have on support payments, and are you on the hook for alimony? Don't keep living in slavery. Believe in yourself and make a new future somewhere else. Put up a fight! If the LLC is your "alter ego" e. Factors: do you co-mingle your assets? There are more but those are the most important. There is a right way to do it. Real estate developers do it all the time; they are the masters of LLCs and were the big money pushing for them to get created as an entity in the first place.
Sign a rental agreement between yourself and your LLC. Write all changes in rent, tax payments, improvements to the property with proper LLC paperwork you might need to consult a lawyer on the proper ways to do this, there are some good NOLO style user-friendly manuals you could get by on. A by product of this is that it is easy as pie to start renting the house to other people too -- if you want to get in on that.
It's great for tax purposes and for liability purposes. Like summertime dimes says, trusts can be a good mechanism as well. The best would be to find a small practitioner who deals in both business formation and estate planning as they will know the tricks for both paths in your state and likely will also have a good grasp on the tax advantages of them as well. There are way too many lawyers out there now and a lot of them will do this kind of work for a lot less money than you might expect.
I don't know about LLC's, but you can with certain types of trusts. You can actually create a trust yourself, for you, that your assets belong in, so should you get divorced all they can get is whatever is in your name and not the trusts. Cars, homes, savings, annuities, you name it. One of the best things I've done in recent years. Also, assets you accumulated before marriage are much easier to protect in a divorce. If you get married and continue to save money, make sure you open new accounts and keep your old ones separate.
In other words, if you own an apartment and collect rental income, it helps to have a separate account and have records. This is reasonable, because not all of the rent is disposable income. A good chunk of it goes towards paying taxes and maintenance of the apartment. Same with k, another sizable portion of many Americans' savings, and a good amount of the nominal interest goes towards fighting inflation, so the real interest is lower.
If your gains are cut in a divorce, you've lost significantly more than is fair. My end game is to retire at 35 and live off passive income streams and a few side projects I have. For the younger guys that can catch a virgin they shouldn't be looking for an LTR, if marriage is on their mind, with anyone but a virgin.
Doesn't matter. My second wife was a homely 21 year old virgin when I met her and popped it. At 30 she decided to jump on the cc with a thirsty omega, because I got sick and she was "curious about others".
Fuck LTR, marriage, and the naive bullshit that a virgin will stay. Even an ugly one will find someone desperate enough to fuck her that doesn't care that she is married. Unless you're tall, rich, alpha as fuck, ripped, and have kick ass game it won't matter. I'm not saying don't improve yourself but a virgin is the safest bet for the guys that wont abandon their progenial desires.
There's also a chance that she lied about her number and if she dumped you for an omega then you definitely weren't aware of AWALT which these guys here are. Can't lie about the number when you pop it. If you've broken a hymen you know it. Doesn't matter, virgin or not. Get cancer or a respiratory illness that kills your self confidence and the chances the bitch will take off skyrocket.
I feel like any slip up, even the very normal slip into routine, will cause a virgin's desires to wander. Happens with guys too. Only being with one person your whole life? It's something to expect. However, the amount of work necessary to maintain your SO's interest and desire in you can be negligible.
Can be negligible, but sure as fuck don't expect it to be. My point is AWALT, and thinking a virgin you deflower will somehow be different is akin to assuming she is a unicorn. All it takes is someone with the appearance of higher smv and she could jump the fence to find out. Trust them to be females and act like females, and realize that means hypergammy, solipsism, and poor impulse control with a fission powered hamster justifying any bad choice she might make.
Totally agree with you. All he has to do is appear to have high status and smv, her hamster and the "ooh shiny new toy" effect will do the rest. I have guidelines in picking women to spend time with, and number of partners is one of them.
As is level of education, sense of humor, etc. Its based on my past experiences with women, and the result of a great deal of observation and introspection. I find out by talking to her. By getting to know her. By making her understand that I am not going to judge her by her past actions.
Sometimes people are a bad fit, and that is not a bad thing. She might, after getting to know me, decide that I am not someone she wants to spend time with. Maybe its because of my taste in music, or my work hours, or maybe because of the number of previous sexual partners I have been with.
She gets to decide. I also get to decide. If we both agree that we like each other and neither sees too many red flags in the other, then we can explore a relationship together. If not, we can part ways on good terms.
Its not any more insecure than looking for a woman that can cook well, likes dogs, and loves her mom and dad. I believe number of past sexual partners is a good indicator of qualities that are important to me in a potential mate. If I miss out on a good woman because I make a bad judgment call about her qualities, well its my loss isn't it.
I mean, maybe. I have never gotten any complaints. I know you are being a cunt, but you raise a good point. I don't want to spend time with a woman that has gathered very much of that sort of data on good and bad. The more her sexual history resembles a blank disc for me, the better. That way she and I can work together to discover what she likes and does not like.
Its a fun and exciting exercise to help someone inexperienced discover new and exiting forms of sexual enjoyment. Not sure, but you are an unbearable prick so I probably would not date you based on that fact alone. Not sure where you got "threatened" from.
I think it is a great thing when women sleep around. I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with a woman sleeping with whomever she wants to, whenever she wants to. She has the inalienable right to fuck whom she chooses.
I also have the right to decide that I am not interested in forming a relationship with women who sleep around. I will enjoy their company, wish them well, and be happy for their successes in this lifetime.
I might even have sex with them. But I won't be their boyfriend. Nobody is taking rights away from anybody. What I am doing is holding people accountable for their choices. If I decide to hang out and smoke a bunch of weed and play guitar instead of going to college, it would be unlikely that a university would award me an MBA or that a Fortune company would ask me to be a VP.
I made a choice which foreclosed certain avenues to me, while opening others. I don't get to smoke weed all day and do nothing to improve my circumstances and also have a great job that pays well.
That would be having ones cake and eating it too. Much in the same way, when a woman exercises her free rights to enjoy sex with many partners - she has made a choice. With that choice comes ramifications - one of which is that she gets to enjoy a lot of fun with many different interesting people which is a good thing. Another of which is that some men might determine that she is not someone they wish to form a relationship with. Nobody is being a hypocrite. I agree that there is a double standard with respect to number of sexual partners, but I didn't cause it to be.
Moreover, I feel less attracted to women who have been relatively promiscuous for reasons beyond my conscious control. I don't think fair and unfair really fits into the discussion of things over which we have no control.
Again, if a woman decides that she can't be with me because of my looks, or my level of income, or my past sexual history there is not a thing I can do about that but accept it. So I accept it. I bet that you would view a woman making such a determination about whether or not she is interested as simply exercising her prerogative to choose a mate that suits her.
It just strikes me as bizarre that you take such umbrage at this issue regarding selective criteria when it is really no different than selection criteria used by women towards potential male suitors every single day. Do I sound offended over text? How can you even discern that? I just think it's a little unreasonable that the maximum number of previous sexual partners for your potential girlfriend to have had is That's soooo unrealistic and unreasonable really.
All these guys on here whining about how girls have unrealistic standards I'm just pointing out that 3 is an unrealistic standard. I made a judgement call based on the way you chose to frame your opinion that you sounded offended. If you aren't, great. Brother, 3 is not unrealistic at all. But I would ask you to consider the state of affairs if you think that most women have been with so many partners that 3 is beyond the scope of comprehension as being way too low.
My last three girlfriends had been with two 2 men or less before me. They were all 22 years old. Most importantly, I believed them because the rest of their actions reflected a generally honest and forthright character. I did not ever whine that girls have unrealistic standards.
Nor do I feel as though my standards are unrealistic. But even if mine are, that does not make me a hypocrite. I hold myself to an extremely high standard, and so it is acceptable for me to hold others to the same standard.
Hypocrisy would be holding myself to a low standard but expecting others to conform to a high standard. That is not what is going on either. As I get older, my standards become more and more essential to picking suitable potential long term mates. At 17 I preferred to date 22 year old women. At 22 I preferred to date 22 year old women. At 30, my preference is still to date 22 year old women. And when I am 40, if I am still alive and still dating, my preference will be to date 22 year old women.
I expect that a woman at the age of 22 can still be relatively inexperienced sexually. If she had one or two boyfriends that she slept with before she met me, that is just fine. More than that, and I start to question her ability to keep and maintain a healthy relationship. So those are my thoughts. We disagree. But that does not mean one of us is right and the other is wrong.
You get to date whoever you want, and be in a relationship with whoever you want. If you choose to be with someone who has slept around, I hope that you find happiness with that person. My personal experiences have caused me to set a boundary which is probably different from yours, because my experiences are different from yours.
Dial back the rhetoric and the absolutes, and just maybe you will learn something. You came to TRP for a reason, maybe the wrong reason. But you are here and while you are here you should open your mind to the possibility that maybe some of the things said on TRP are true.
They might not be warm and fuzzy. They might violate ideas and concepts which you hold very dear and believe to be absolutely the truth. It is important that you question where your ideals came from, who instilled them into you, and why.
My ideals about women came from my mother. She has never dated women, and is a flawed and imperfect person. She got a few things wrong and taught me to behave a certain way and believe certain things which are neither effective nor in my best interest. She did not do that on purpose, and had no ill intent. But she did it all the same. When I first read the truth on this sub, it made me angry. Just as you seem angry.
But, I already knew that my parents were imperfect people. I knew that I had followed their advice and failed time and again in my relationships with women. Rather than suffer a lifetime of repeating the same actions expecting a different result, I tried some of the advice from TRP. It worked. First off, I'm not angry.
Anger and depression are two sides of the same coin. One you think what's wrong externally is someone or something else's fault, the other you think it's your fault. I've realized smart people look at what's wrong with their situation and try to correct it instead of fixating on problems and assigning blame, be it external or internal.
It's nice that you choose to date 22 year old, but 22 year old people are not fully developed yet and quite limited. It seems like you're taking your insecurity and creating a life in which you are comfortably insecure. I've known girls out of highschool who've slept with 3 guys and they're totally normal. The whole point is: How many women have you slept with and how does this affect your ability to have a relationship.
TRP points out the total hypocrisy between what women want and what they say they want etc. I'm pointing out how absurd your standard is in this day and age. Not to be mean but And it just reinforces the idea that the quality of the sex relies solely on the guy where he has to be experienced but she can be a relative novice and it's ok There's too much conflict with what you're saying and with what TRP and it's too frequently displayed, like your statements for example.
Now I see it's TRP. Both sides is a bunch of people complaining about how unreasonable and unfair society and the opposite sex is towards them. To each his own but unless you're dating fundie muslims and christians your dating pool is shallow The thing is, I also know totally normal women who have slept with more than 3 guys, and more than 30 too. It isn't about normal or abnormal. It is about being relatively old-fashioned, and about internalizing the view that sex is not and should not be no big deal - but rather a thing that a woman shares in a very discerning manner with men only after thoroughly vetting them.
Women who do not feel the need to engage in serious vetting of sexual partners, or women who feel that sex outside of a loving relationship with long term potential can still be great human beings.
I have friends that fit that category. I have friends with wives that fit that category. I am aiming to create a life that is fully secure. My insistence upon relative inexperience in potential romantic partners has nothing to do with insecurity about my abilities in the bedroom. I am highly confident in my abilities. Nor does it have to do with insecurity about the quality of her past partners. I am an incredible catch, and would stack up to most anyone outside the realm of celebrity, athletics, and high-finance.
My last girlfriend dated a tight end for an NFL team before me. She ended it because he didn't start, was generally pretty stupid outside of football intelligence, and because he fucked around on her all the time. I never once felt threatened that she was comparing me to him. The reason that I insist upon a previous partner limit is because I believe that there are several fundamental differences between men and women - one of which is that once a woman couples with more than a small number of guys, her ability to form a lasting bond of love and trust with a man is irreparably harmed.
I don't have any scientific studies to credit with this belief, but I believe it all the same. I am generally disinclined to rely on anecdotal evidence, but my experiences and the experiences of others shared on this sub have swayed me.
Simultaneously, I believe that my ability to form a long lasting bond with a woman is not impacted by my number of partners. My ability to love and trust has been impacted by the quality of my past relationships, in that I am considerably more guarded and engage in a great deal more investigation before opening up my feelings.
However, when I finally arrive at a place of love and trust, it is as deep and strong as it was the first time I experienced those feelings. I think that you are right to the extent that you find my standards to be inconsistent with societal norms "absurd this day and age". However, I believe it is society that has become absurd, and that my standards should not be lowered just because society has lowered its standards.
I don't want a virgin. Never said I did. I consider it to be unethical to sleep with a virgin unless I intended to marry her. I think men who insist upon virginity are free to do as they choose, and try not to concern myself with their reasons for doing so. Whether or not they are bad in bed is beyond my scope of knowledge, but my guess would be that they fall along a spectrum of very bad to very good - just as all humans do.
I think quality sex depends not on experience, but on enthusiasm, confidence, and proactivity. The best sex I have had was with a woman who had one previous partner before me.
She had an incredibly high sex drive and she and her previous partner had been together for four years age Together, they had been very adventurous and she had an incredible amount of "experience" despite having only been with one person. She was very good because she was not just interested in getting herself off but also getting her partner off. She was confident about her body and had a great sense of joy about the whole experience.
I don't know anything about MensRights, and have never visited that sub. I am very familiar with feminism having been raised by a feminist, and having paid attention to feminist concerns for most of my adult life. How the two are interrelated or at odds with one another is beyond me, so I cannot speak to it. To the extent that anyone complains society is unfair, they are probably right.
Fairness is a human construct that amounts to nothing more than a very nice idea which I believe to be utterly implausible to achieve. Humanity is incredibly diverse, and humans are unequal as of the moment of conception by virtue of genetics. However, what makes humanity most impressive in my estimation is the ability to persevere in spite of unfairness. When I hear people complaining about fairness, my first inclination is to tell them to suck it up and spend that time more constructively.
I am dating christians. I like good christian girls that go to church and spend quality time with their families. I am not christian, nor any other religion - but, it could not matter any less to me what my partner chooses to believe so long as her actions are good and just, and she is kind, compassionate, humble, and hard-working. I find those qualities to be prevalent in christian girls, so that is another thing I look for in a potential mate.
That's actually not surprising, since feminists can't out victim gays. Straight white males are persecuted for saying the same things. Feminists are ushering in a victimocracy, where political power is derived from a shameless willingness to exploit victimhood.
It's one reason why I like the fact that, despite being white, I was born in abject poverty and with a crack head step-father and a mentally ill mother, and homeless for several years in my childhood. Doesn't matter to them. According to them, no matter your circumstances you have inherent privileges as a white male. It's all bullshit, but that's what they will tell you.
It's very difficult, even for privilege junkies, to justify the cognitive dissonance of arguing I was privileged. Though knowing where I am now also probably makes them go, "Oh. He's came from nothing and now he's doing well. He's a winner. It's more of a started from the bottom, I don't owe anybody shit cause nobody gave me shit kind of attitude I think.
I feel pretty much the same way, especially when these upper middle class women try to tell me about how hard their life is. Rich girls can't tell you how good you have it, when you didn't. They're used to interacting with male peers of theirs, who had access to similar resources they did. Combine that with the popular narrative that women are oppressed by us terrible men, and women can claim their lives are worse than men at their economic station. But me?
That same thing can't be said about me. None of those rich girls were dragged to a crack house when they were 12, lived in a tent, or went to bed hungry most nights. Any privilege talk aimed at me just won't work. If someone tries to pull it on me, I bring up the above story, and then because they buy into that narrative, they then -cede power to me-, sometimes.
Let's not invent new words for concepts that already have well-known names. What you're talking about is cultural Marxism. I would say "gynocentrism" since cultural Marxism is ambiguous and doesn't adequately describe in name only what we're talking about here. Don't get me wrong, it absolutely is cultural Marxism that feminists are basing their theories on, but what we actually have in the real world is Gynocentrism with our culture kowtowing to women's sensibilities.
Oh man, The Red Pill got name dropped. This'll create a huge wave of new subscribers. Based on the number of readers the first part got, I have to assume this is where we'll get a huge bump in that exponential growth. Other than that observation this series has been spot on in its analysis and really captures the thoughts displayed here.
Every member of the community needs to remember to do his and her job. With more new members, we will get more trolls, more ignorant fools who refuse to read the sidebar, more people who will be shocked at the non-PC language we use.
We as members of TRP need to help the mods out. Use the report button. Downvote comments that do not contribute to the discussion, and those that are off-topic. Be an active member. I agree entirely. The mods are gonna be working double time when this starts circulating around Facebook. I'm afraid that this place is going to be filled with new members immediately entering the anger phase, post rants constantly, and the mainstream media is going to look at all this and say,"Here we have a bunch of angry misogynists who hate women!!
TBH, comment on it. For every bad post, theres people who are on the fence reading it, upvoting it because they don't know any better. It's almost inevitable that mods will get greedy and start making people police their language so we can have more broad appeal. I hope this community doesn't fall into pleasantville, but it always happens. Specifically to avoid that.
I realize the Side-bar is pretty filled up by now, but I feel this two part series is straight up side-bar material. This is a shorter, more digestible version of "The Misandry Bubble" -- covers a lot of the same topics with more of a mainstream tone.
To be honest I don't think TRP needs to be dumbed down by mainstream language. It's growing way too fast already, and with the use of mainstream language newer members will only half-ass attempts to understand the core concepts before they start posting. I've already seen the general tone of the subreddit change slightly in the year I've been here, and if we go too far down that path the subreddit will lose it's point.
I feel you. The Misandry Bubble is amazing reading. Really, it's the only reading that should be truly required IMO. Fair enough. This has been a measured series of articles which I think are a good start to push back against the feminist Overton Window of what is 'right'. You can't expect it to happen overnight, but as these talking points move towards more mainstream places, it's a good thing. It's a big part of why gay men can be successful critics of feminism if they choose to do it -- most of them don't care much.
But it's also easily turned against them by women as well, as in "he must be gay because he doesn't like women" type of thinking. Yes, women can simultaneously believe that people are "born gay" while thinking that one gay guy who is criticizing women or feminism must have chosen to be gay himself because he hated women.
Because, once again, projection! Political lesbianism is quite widespread, so they believe political male homosexuality is too. I've never heard of a single case though. I think as he's gay, he definitely disproportionally aware of some things straight guys aren't. He is probably heavily involved with gay guys and transgenders who maybe were previously married to women and then got divorced and don't feel the need to anymore in today's society. So I think he's using that as a point that even gay men are affected by women's vilification of men.
But I have never really been that big on the labels that get thrown around. MGTOW seems like just another label of something that to me, is already covered by being a successful, stoic man.
Im striving to be successful, working on my stoicism, and I dont feel I need a label for it. Nothing really wins, as long as you get value from a sub like this and it truly improves your life and happiness, who cares what is called? Its working! Maybe I just dont know enough to differentiate. Either way Im here for discussion and to learn so any opinions on this I welcome.
It's just an encompassing term for men who either enter relationships or even just hookups with EXTREME care or who avoid them all together. I always associated it with the term, "omega" - guys who knew their SMV was low and maximizing it was a long, difficult slough that they didn't want to go through. I eschew relationships with girls so that I have more time for doing my stuff , but I still fuck them.
Tesla and Sir Isaac Newton come to mind. They were both at the top of their fields, but completely forewent relationships and women in general. Sigma is the term typically used for "lone wolf" types. Omega would equal neckbeard. The moment you say, "Am I an alpha? Successful how exactly? By who's measure are you determining what's "successful"? Ahhhhh, ok I see your point more clearly. I would NOT consider success being a guy like the dude in 40 year old virgin who has to hide his toy collection and gaming chairs when a woman comes over.
And that's not what I strive for at all. I see the difference. Thanks for your input. As much as I like this article, it might be prudent to sticky a message at the top specifically for the next incoming wave A little preemption might save you all a ton of work and everyone else a ton of reporting, if part 2 gets shared as much as part 1 did. He is going to get absolutely shit on for his transgender comment. I have not studied transgenderism enough to have a opinion, but this man is braver then I am.
I used share opinions like this, then the places I worked really started to hate me so I've kept it for myself. He's right about it though. Transgenderism is body dismorphia which is a diagnosed mental illness per the DSM. Yes, I read an argument about this a couple months back that really convinced me. I'll still, in public, use the acceptable definition and whatever pronouns a person wants, but privately I feel they're mentally ill people.
In the world of religion Christianity it's the equivalent of getting the person to accept Jesus and then not giving a shit about them after that. Happens all the time. Upvoted as requested. Hopefully more people will see the light and realize what they should be doing to improve their life, it took me years to find the truth.
Also, this is my first comment, all sidebar reading completed for this this sub even though I swallowed the pill about 1.
Looking forward to get more involved in this community, best one out there IMO. This is how every new member should be. Welcome to the community, I hope you set a trend. I will link new people to your post to show them how unsatisfactory their approach is when they come here, don't read the sidebar, post crap, and etc. Enjoy reading TRP.
That's what I do. The rest will come naturally. I started by reading this was back when we had k subs. Every time someone would post something with a piece of logic missing another person would come in and explain it in a reply to the post.
As new members came in, I found myself doing that. At times I saw a great opportunity to post some knowledge that I gained through my own experiences and that led to me writing many long posts. You've got a diversity of topics which want to be discussed in a red light and are mostly of a very basic nature. Since those are more or less "mini"-threads, you are most likely to be corrected and get concepts explained again are pointed to the right resources, instead of just being downvoted, getting deleted or just being mocked.
I regard it a little bit like a playground and using it has helped me very much to internalize everything TRP is about, recognizing repeating patterns and finally being able to draw my own conclusions out of it and connect them to the big picture. In my opinion it could also serve as a filter for here. Making it mandatory, to collect three to five points there, before you are able to make top-level posts here, or even comment at all, would rapidly increase quiality.
This comment cracked me up! To counter, I am not sold on the articles idea that mens growing lack of interest in the other sex is part of the cause of "alternative" sexuality. I feel like men who are getting off to the thought of being a mythical unicorn pony thing, are men and women who were into some pretty weird shit any way. Human sexuality is a very strange beast and i dont feel like one thing like "the sexodus" is going to cause a huge influx of that.
Thats a matter of opinion, as there is no science to prove it. On the other hand, there is not much science to say other wise, its a very unexplored and relatively new topic. To me it makes sense It's not a huge leap to think that furries might be an outgrowth of the same phenomonon. That can easily be countered with the pure ease and access argument. Its everywhere. Have the internet? You Have porn. Homeless dudes are whacking it to their favorite milf porn on their mobiles.
What I'm saying is there needs to be scientific study on the matter to prove the authors hypothesis. I don't know if this will appear that much on Facebook seeing as men's issues are irrelevant to most people on there unless it impacts women in some way. Believe it or not, I saw a couple instances of Part 1. Granted the women who posted it framed it in the context of "look at these whiners blaming women for their problems".
Colour me surprised. Stupid women. They're the ones that are going to lose out. I haven't seen it yet on my feed but if it does I'm going to open a few eyes. Thanks for the advice but I'm not going to argue so much as just surprise people by saying that this article and the previous one describe exactly how I feel. This will come as a surprise to most of the people I know.
I never argue against feminist posts on Facebook normally. That's a colossal waste of time. Because then you're agreeing with something that offends them in a very general sense. You then give them the power to make any connection they want between their offense and your character. You may not give a shit about your facebook friends, but ostracizing oneself can never be exactly positive, so why bother at all?
This part goes a lot deeper than the initial one. Some parts digress out of reality, like the bit about closeted homosexuals making good husbands. He does mention a few things that are picking up quick which you may have never heard of like furries. And he links to major manosphere sites which is good in general. I think Roosh had said that would be the year of the manosphere going mainstream. Well, it seems it's gonna be I wonder how badly the author wishes he had a wife he could cheat on with other men?
Cause that's what I got out of that part. That section was about how even gay men used to feel the societal pressure to get married and have children with women. Homosexuality wasn't as accepted so it was something that was done on the side, almost as an indulgence. But now that gays can live openly, that pressure is gone. Yeah it's really weird because he 's borderline suggesting that women should have kids with gays. I guess in his imagined future of total chaos this sounds like an option.
Didn't sound that way to me. In the past, that behavior was not uncommon. The wives seemed unaware at first, then still stuck around afterwards. And the whole "Homos have higher IQ's" thing as well.
It's like, "Really dude? There's been remarkable progress in understanding how men's brains change when they excessively partake of modern digital conveniences porn. Women might pride themselves on being more virtuous than us by consuming less of it. This article, however, reveals women's own psychological corruption. Post-sexual revolution, they are riding the CC and ruining their own selves, acquiring such high standards for their one-time AF that they become unsatisfied with men their grandmothers would have been happy with.
Their perspectives have become more warped than ours have by our gazing at nubile young honeys on the internet. The one thing that is missing from the equation is how the entire paradigm's endgame is the destruction of the family. The article doesn't spell it out, but if you read up on the Frankfurt School and cultural Marxism, it's in there. TRP movement is being co-opted by the same element.
They advocate an inherent prejudice against women based on gender stereotypes which was exactly the MO of the feminism movement. I'm not really "new" been lurking for nearly a year , but these two articles convinced me it was time to get an account, subscribe and become an active member of the community. I approved that post, but your future ones are going to get auto-sniped for a while by the Automod. And to answer a question we get everyday, no, we cannot "whitelist" users.
I've been watching the numbers and to be honest I'm not seeing the increase I was expecting. We see much larger increases in subscribers when TRP gets vilified in other subs and people come to see what we're really all about. Good observation. I guess when you look at it, he didn't really mention the RP reddit, just summed the entire sphere as "Red Pill" in general. The only blogs he gave direct links to are Roosh and CH. I think this is very, very important.
Interesting that only gay men are allowed to defend masculinity in the mainstream media. Women are also allowed to. It's the "protected classes" who are immune from criticism else the person on the attack can be seen as oppressive. It's because they cannot be shamed. This one already has over ! I can't say I'm surprised by how fast the articles have spread. Look at our own phenomenal growth, red pill theory resonates with so many people--there's definitely a zeitgeist in the making here.
I'm into the whole " pua thing" just naming it for you guys and a few weeks ago I was in the club chatting with a HB5 rating scale being I wasn't much into her, though I was talking to her cos she seamed fun. This guy who was drunk start telling the girl she should hook up with me.
I was laughing and have a good time the drunk guy was pretty funny he kept teeling the girl that she should hook up with me and i just brushed it aside. I nearly lost it. I can see why guys don't even bother with this shit no more if hb 5 are saying that shit. You were AMOGed. The guy was playing a form of disqualification game, and you stood there and took it, thus displaying you were a 'bitch'.
Decide quickly if she knows him and is going to introduce him to you 'This is my brother Frank. We're twins, if you can believe it. Yes, there are guys who use faltering pickups to detect which women are single. Neither of those conditions make the situation 'better'.
Its happened to all of us, and its hard to deal with for most people. Point is, you don't want to be 'part of the conversation', you want to convey to her that your time is valuable, and if she's going to waste it while she talks to another guy, you will spend it on another woman. Women will make time for you if they are interested.
In a similar vein, if she is interested, she will mostly ignore other men in your presence and focus on you. Entertaining this other guy set up a competition between you two, in which you have two choices - out alpha the AMOG, or extricate. Doing neither means you lose, doing either poorly means you lose. This is why this situation sucks. Basically, if you leave and she doesn't follow, or look you up soon after, move on, she isn't yours, and never will be.
I like our analysis of the Sexodus part 2 better. Not just the article, but also the comments of this entire reddit thread are absolute gold on social dynamics, and how the sexual market place works.
I think sidebarring this is appropriate given that legitimate newcomers ,who come as a result of this article, will be drawn to reading the rest of the sidebar instead of running their mouths. Like "Oh, the Sexodus! That's why I'm here, I wonder if the rest of the stuff in this sidebar is as good as what i just read.
I'd like to read it. I liked part one, but I keep getting I wish I could share this on facebook, but the post would be ignored at best, or more likely get me crucified by SJWs and un-friended by a lot of people as a result of the shaming. Better not to identify yourself as an enemy to those kinds of people. You should know already they aren't your friends and treat them accordingly. Oh I speak from experience on that point.
Red pill wasn't even connected to my post, I just posted the "10 hrs in manhattan" vid and made fun of how it counted "God bless you have a good day" as being "harassment. I don't care about losing bleeding heart feminists off my friends list, but it is annoying when people start personally messaging me on facebook or asking me about it next time I see them in person.
Just more trouble than it's worth. I share redpill stuff on Facebook, I was unfriended by exactly one person. A feminist male artist that recently started an "open relationship" with his wife of several years, who I used to hang out with in High School. He's currently happily being cuckolded I'm not sure I needed to hear his point of view in my life anyways.
There are few good reasons to connect your name with the red pill. Posting an article like this would accomplish nothing good. I think the worst part about all of this is the women in the comments who blurt out, " I'm on your side! I want the absolute best for you and I am fighting with you. Well, if you take a look at the sub itself, you'll see that he mod posted it so it could get as much attention as possible.