1) It can be... well, problematic. The statistics on relationship stability correlating with low numbers of partners seem clear enough. Whether promiscuity causes a breakdown in the long term bonding process in women, or whether it is the result of a deficit in that process, either way it should be a red flag. I can't condone a man writing off a relationship based solely on this one red flag, because it's clear to me that while the correlation exists in a majority of cases, it likely will not in all cases. Just as smoking is correlated with lung cancer, and has been clearly identified as a causal factor, it's not 100% predictive.

Non-monogamy is a little more complicated. I've known quite a few polyamorous couples. In many cases, it leads to an eventual abandonment of the original relationship, and the majority of these cases that I've seen, it's been women who decide to leave. Oddly enough, they frequently leave the poly relationship in favor of a monogamous one--that is, they engage, at least subconsciously, in poly in order to "shop around for better offers". And again, I've seen men do this too. But it seems, at least from my observations, to be more common with women.

So again, a red flag, but by no means one that I think should be considered in isolation.

2) I couldn't even begin to give you an accurate count. Over 50 anyway. Mostly men, a few women. I've never kept a journal, or notched my bedposts. Oddly, perhaps, while I've always been open to casual sex when I'm not in a relationship, I've never felt any urge to cheat on anyone, or to open a relationship I'm in (at least in terms of potential sex with extracurricular male partners).

Slut shaming is mostly a female relational aggression thing, a form of intrasexual competition designed to drag higher status women down, or keep lower status women down.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/psychology-bitchiness-women-use-slut-shaming-defense-tactic-263531

Roy Baumeister coauthored a very interesting paper demonstrating that it's a predominantly female behavior, but he contended that it's a group strategy on the part of women to keep the market price of female sexuality inflated. He may be talking about a slightly different phenomenon, though There's the bitchy "OMG, what a slut!" that some women do to each other often for no reason other than "that girl's prettier than me", and sometimes perpetrated by sluts themselves. This type seems to be more targeted--"I feel threatened by that woman, so my girlfriends and I are going to talk about what a slut she is, even if we have no idea whether she's even had sex."

Then there's actual general social disapproval of promiscuity, which would be, in my mind, more of a female sexual cartel. Like yelling "SCAB!!" at strike-breakers. It's this general social disapproval that gives the above "bitchy slut shaming" a lot of its power. It's also led to all kinds of movements (anti-pornography, increasing the age of consent, maintaining legal bans on prostitution, etc) where women have been active politically through history.

The level of disapproval of promiscuity has been shown to be correlated to the perceptions of individuals as to the financial dependency of women on men. That makes perfect sense--if you're supporting a wife and her kids, you want to know they're your kids and not the milkman's, and when women are financially dependent on their men, they're more protective of the fidelity of their husbands.

I don't really place a moral judgment on slut shaming. It's an interesting phenomenon that I've never been on the receiving end of, for whatever reason. I was promiscuous and never bothered to hide it, but I never cheated on anyone I was with, and I never messed with anyone who was attached.

As far as what I'd think if a guy refused to marry me? I'd be disappointed, for sure. But there are rational reasons to consider promiscuous women an unsafe bet--they're more likely to cheat, more likely to go from one short term relationship to another, often have unstable personalities, etc. I'd hope that a guy could look at my entire character and not simply that one aspect of it. But if he couldn't, we wouldn't be a good fit together.

literally just saw that the comment posted before mine was about the same thing. I'd appreciate a response but I'll keep an eye on the other one too if you don't have enough time to answer this one. Thanks either way!

here's a video that that talks about a lot of points that I do agree with from if you OR anyone else wants to understand where I'm coming from and comment. This is one of the things i really disagree with TRP on and I'm looking for any input. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaRjwsOKEyQ

I'll almost certainly be in Houston for the next International Conference on Men's Issues at the end of October, where I'll be participating in a panel discussion on why women should give a shit about this stuff. Also in the works is a conference in Bermuda of all places, where there's been a men's rights/issues group for the last 15 or 20 years, though I can't provide more details as yet.

As far as topics go, I'm working with a friend/colleague on a response to the firing of the guy who dared to claim, on camera, that he thought FHRITP is funny. I mean, he didn't yell FHRITP into the reporter's mic--he just explained to her why he thought it was funny. And then lost his very lucrative job after his name was revealed to the public.

I've found that in the workplace, there tend to be way more women who are just plain rude than men (they're not the majority, i'm not saying that at all). I've met plenty of men who are dickheads at work, making offensive jokes/comments about other employees, getting riled up over small things etc, but rarely have I met a man who is rude and hostile all the time. Especially to women, in fact i've never seen a man be constantly rude or aggressive towards women in the workplace. Yet some women in the workplace act like this all the time, especially to men.

Rand Paul. Watch some of his recent videos. One of most impressive politicians I've seen in years. He speaks even better than obama did 9 years ago.

I would take male disposability as a fact of life. It's ingrained with us as a species. There are so many ways for us to die or get injured in our work. I'm enlisted infantry so I know that I am disposable. If I got ordered to take a machine gun bunker, I'd say where do you want me to put it. It's typically RP to not play the victim and just deal with problems as they arise.

The problem is when your own government has it out for you with things like false rape accusations and lack of support for injuries, mental and physical, in the line of duty. I've got enough things to worry about, I don't want my own government out for me.

IMO the only way MRAs will achieve their goals is when enough women join their ranks. When men complain about the status quo disadvantaging other men they're seen as whiners, but when women complain about the same things they're listened to because of the group bias mentioned above and because of their political might.

It may also help to couch the arguments as women's concern for their boys rather than adult men because then they can corner politicians with "think of the children". Yes we're stealing political tactics from the traditional left, but if the tactics work then who cares. Besides, as I've stated before, we are the new liberals.

Turn it into an actual contract, like an employment or publishing contract. Right now, it's a legally binding blank piece of paper whose terms will be decided by the state upon dissolution.

I do think that men's interests are gaining ground. There are plenty of mainstream articles that point to a growing awareness of the problem, and when I talk to random people about what I do (whether I say I'm an anti-feminist or a men's issues advocate) I tend to get a lot of, "yeah, you're right! I always thought that was messed up."

The main obstacle to going fully mainstream (particularly with the issues of boys, since male children still command some small degree of compassion from the wider culture), is feminism (political feminism, and casual gynocentrism).

We often get accused of derailing, but I've never been involved in a conversation about the harms of infant male circumcision without multiple people barging in and saying that it's not comparable to FGM and that making a fuss about it is minimalizing or trivializing ACTUAL genital mutilation blah blah blah.

You talk about male victims of DV, and you'll get lots of people jumping in to inform everyone that while men are a tiny minority of victims, it's women who are the majority of victims, and blah blah blah.

When Obama unveiled "My Brother's Keeper" (I think that's what it was called), an initiative to assist minority boys achieve in school and stay out of gangs, there were women's groups demanding to know why the initiative excluded minority girls, despite a multitude of initiatives already in existence prioritizing all girls' achievement and success.

Destroying gender roles is, IMO, unrealistic. Particularly because feminism has managed to convince most of society that they're trying to destroy gender roles by exploiting gender roles. We're just not rational about this, and I don't expect we can convince society to become rational about it. It would require a constant, conscious effort on the part of all members of society to make it work, and that isn't feasible.

This is why, as much as I'd love to talk about how excluding fathers from families hurts men (men are human), it's more effective to emphasize how it hurts children (men are useful).

It's not all about men needing to act like men to attract women. It's the sad reality that the very concept of equal compassion for men is teflon-coated. You can literally convince someone that men deserve compassion as human beings every bit as much as women do, and fifteen seconds later, the idea just kind of slid off of their brains and you're starting from scratch.

Which is why women are very important in the MRM. It's women who can get sympathy--as mothers or daughters or sisters who are themselves hurt by the harm done to the men in their lives. No one's going to give two shits if my oldest never finds a woman worth his time and effort. But they'll care if my daughter finds herself at age 30, unmarried and wanting a child, and simply unable to find a man who can help provide a stable home.

If men's interests are gaining ground, it's because ignoring their interests is having a negative impact on women and children. Well, there's also that anger thing. Paul Elam has repeatedly said, "if society won't hear men's pain, it will hear their anger." So there's that, too.

All in all, though, I can't even realistically hope for actual equality before the law. There will always be informal biases that play into things like the sentencing gap. But statutory equality before the law--that might be achievable. There's some hope that "men" or "male" (and "straight", and "cis" and maybe even "white") might one day become a legally recognized category under human rights legislation.

TL;DR: IMO, there's room for improvement and it will happen, but we're never going to have real equality.

Her bf here. She's not a unicorn. She's like most women except more talkative and lazier at picking up around the house. But good company. She's more self aware so she can filter a lot of stuff but all the same drives are still there, if that makes sense.

My sons are red pill in the sense that they see what's going on. My oldest came by it naturally (natural MGTOW). He managed to go through his entire school career without being bullied or hassled by anyone, I think because he gave off a vibe that he just didn't care about anyone else's opinion of him.

My youngest is a little more interested in a robust social life, fitting in and the rest, but he's still quite aware of how things actually work. Sometimes I have to explain it, sometimes I don't. Because he values being liked, he's more likely than his brother to end up on the wrong side of a bully. I remember when he came home late one day in grade 3, and announced, all excited, that he had detention. "I got into a brawl!" A friend was being bullied by a group of older boys, and he jumped in and started swinging. We had to fill out an incident report together, "what did you do wrong, why was it wrong, what will you differently in the future, etc?" I told him the answers he needed to give, then told him I was proud of him for defending his friend and that if he ever got detention over something like that again, he wouldn't be in trouble with me.

Mostly, I'm about "figure out what's important to you, and then figure out a way to do it on your own." Helicopter parenting is not my thing.

I also managed to raise kids who are not materialistic at all. None of them have ever wanted designer clothes or anything like that. On the other hand, they do like some high ticket items--my son spent his first earned $1000 on a Cintiq drawing tablet, and the next several hundred on a video card he wanted. The older two (son and daughter) work and live with us but pay rent, and are saving for post-secondary.

I suppose I've tried to instil in them the idea of valuing what's actually important, rather than flashy consumerism or getting a boyfriend/girlfriend, and being willing to do what's necessary to have a stable life.

I got interested in this stuff when I stumbled across the Spearhead years ago. I spent a lot of time discussing and learning initially, but then had to drop it all when I moved provinces and ended up working over 50 hours a week.

When I met the man I'm with now (we've been together for about 5 years), he introduced me to the MR subreddit. A lot of what attracted me to him was how he talked about his daughter, whom he has no rights or access to (she's not biologically his). That was probably what got me very involved--involved enough to dive right in, start a blog, etc. It struck me as a travesty that the only two people who gave a shit in the entire situation was my bf and his daughter, and they were the only two people who had no legal say in anything.

I started my channel mainly because I was sick of being accused of being a man. For whatever reason, the channel took off in a way the blog didn't, and it all just snowballed. And frankly, all you really need is to get a message every week from someone saying, "it was you that made me change my mind about suicide," or "it was you that made me stop hating women," or "it was you that made me cry for the first time in 20 years," to make you feel a responsibility to continue.

If you're interested, I did write about my bf's situation on AVFM: http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/fathers/at-christmas/

Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham are smart women that know how to bait the MRA/Feminist cunts into creating a shitstorm. They want to create controversy ahead of any major releases by means of baiting the mindless sheep. Some MRA idiots on TRP have once again gone on a whinging spree and made Amy Schumer the top post. Needless to say, on looking her up I found that she has a major release lined up. Well done, we all know about her now.

I've never been asked to tone things down. In fact, when I spoke at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, I suggested about 5 different titles for my talk, and they picked the most controversial one.

When I do speak for an audience, whether it's a men's issues audience or a more broad political audience, it's mostly men in the audience. One thing I've noticed too is that in cases where the audience isn't red pill or interested in gender issues, it's the men who kind of perk up and get all curious and enthusiastic and ask lots of good questions, and the women who get all annoyed.

I don't think it's temporary, nor do I think it's permanent.

That is, I think there will always be a red pill perspective. It will gorw and swell and effect things a bit, and then things will become livable to most people and it will wane (but not disappear), and then things will creep back and we'll see a resurgence.

Either that or society goes into the shitter, everything collapses, women start appreciating men again, and it all starts from the very beginning.

There's a difference, but it's in terms of degree, not criteria.

That is, I'm not that feminine, but that means I need a very masculine foil to bounce my identity off of in order to feel female. And I like feeling female. The guy I'm with is gigantic and hairy and demanding and when he flirts with me he's much more hard core than when he's flirting with other women. My biggest problem in relationships with men as been this kind of process by osmosis of me becoming the dominant partner, which I'm not interested in if I'm with a guy. I'm not happy if I can order a guy around, or make him dance to my tune.

When I'm with women, it's the exact opposite--I want to be the nominal head of the relationship, even if she's topping from the bottom. Of course, being topped from the bottom requires more mind-reading, so it's a lot of work and I've always preferred something more straightforward.

I'm not familiar with the situation in Hong Kong, though I'd guess there are going to be issues there. Wherever you are in the world, there are going to be problems particular to men.

That's a tough one, for me, as networking and organizing are probably my biggest weaknesses. You might put out a call on /r/MensRights or here on TRP to see if there are any other likeminded people in your area, then arrange a meet-up.

Men's Rights Edmonton started as one guy with a website. Might have been a year after starting his site, he happened to hear that I lived in Edmonton, so messaged me asking if we could meet for lunch, and from there we just kind of grew. Poster campaigns helped, and one of them even got us on national news media, which resulted in more exposure and more people contacting us, some of them who are actively involved in other, single-issue groups, such as child support and custody reform, or parental alienation, or libertarian (small government) politics, etc. Publicity stunts such as our founder running for city council on the "Patriarchy Party" ticket also got us some exposure.

We're still a small group, but we have a fairly large number of contacts in other groups now, and we sometimes coordinate our efforts. But the first step to getting things off the ground seems to be connecting with a few other people who are willing to put in some time and energy.

I sincerely miss the videos of just you addressing issues, with your own unique and valuable perspective, and personally I find HBB to be too many voices all at once

Agreed! The HBB is a neat show, but they've got way too many people on that it just turns into a hot mess at times.

Sexual dominance is big. Outside the bedroom, I like a partnership with shifting leadership, even if it's more often him than me. That is, if I'm the one with competence in something, I'm not going to accept someone with less competence calling all the shots. In areas where we're equal or he has more competence, I'm happy to hand the reins to him, and I want him to be willing to pick them up.

I like to feel necessary, and to feel my partner is necessary, in the sense that we make each other's lives better. A sense of humor is important--and not a gentle one.

My current guy says things to me that, if removed from context (facial expression and tone) people would call abuse. But it just makes me laugh. I say things back that would probably also be considered abuse (I threaten to stab him in his sleep quite regularly), but it's all playful.

And he has to have a sense of humor about himself, too. I recall one time when he was sick, he was really playing it up and milking it. He says to me, "Karen, if I don't make it, if I don't live through the night... promise me you'll erect a monument in my honor..."

I said, "oh, yeah, of course. And I'll give SUCH a eulogy. 'I don't know where he is today, what realm he's entered, or whether he's really in a better place than this earthly plane of suffering and strife, but there is one thing I do know. At least he's not whining...'"

He laughed so hard.

Real partnership (a shared vision), playfulness, affection, lust, solidness, being able to depend on each other, supporting each other's goals, acceptance of each other's flaws, all of that. And being able to talk honestly and frankly when there's a conflict--that's a big one.

You're welcome. And thanks for sharing--it's stories like yours that keep me motivated. I get accused a lot of spreading hate, or giving men excuses to hate women, but more often than not, the messages I get are like yours. Finding hope in understanding, and being able to let go of the anger.

You're welcome. :)

The MRM already knows that. Arguing with feminists in good faith is intended to convince bystanders, not feminists.

Don't you guys have other interests rather than bitching and complaining about the MRM?

:)

Gulabi Gang

Their focus seems to be entirely on women and girls. How can society be improved when you're only trying to fix things for half of the population?

The rhetoric around this group includes the "epidemic" of rape in India. Judges and investigators see things otherwise--there's significant evidence that about half of rape reports in India derive from consensual sex between unmarried persons, but which fall under statutory definitions of rape that are being questioned within the system as to their moral basis in a changing social landscape. Does a woman who willingly has sex with a man have the right to charge him with rape to compel marriage if and when she becomes pregnant? If she has the moral and legal right to consent to sex outside of marriage, does she have the right to withdraw that consent when she decides marriage is what she wants?

While I'm certain that, among females, low-caste women are the most vulnerable to actual rape (and the most likely to be ignored as victims), there are HUGE problems with the legislation that's come down over the last 20 years.

Dowry abuse is a thing. So is abuse of the laws designed to prevent and punish dowry abuse. Rape is a thing. So are false accusations, particularly given the loopholes in law and due process.

And one of the most horrible things is that entire families can be criminally implicated in dowry abuse cases, including minor children, and you sometimes see entire extended families sitting in jail awaiting trial based solely on an allegation.

Places like India need movements. What they don't need is feminism.

And.........what about the perceived ENCOURAGEMENT and CELEBRATION of female promiscuity/sexuality by the feminist movement? This is a real thing as far as I can tell.

I'm not sure what you mean by reliable...?

If it's going to happen, it will happen like a crescendo. Like that transition in Beethoven's 9th, where it goes from quiet and the tension builds over a few bars, and then BAM! It will accelerate slowly, but exponentially.

Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to ever go back to base line.

I'm sure you recall the Satanic daycare scandals of the 80s? I watched these stories play out on the news as a teenager, and I was flabbergasted, much the same way I'm currently flabbergasted regarding the rape culture narrative. Eventually, the world kind of woke up and realized it had been in the throes of a mass hysteria, but at the same time, society never went back to that state it was in before the scandals. Prior to the scandals (and others, like the Catholic alter boy thing), no one would bat an eyelash at a middle aged man ruffling a young kid's hair and saying hello on the sidewalk. But now, we have men taking pictures of their own kids at the mall being approached by security because someone thought they were predators.

There will be a large scale correction, IMO, but it won't put us back where we were. Because I believe female nature or gynocentrism (or whatever you want to call it) is not a pendulum but an engine, we'll be revisiting this moment over and over. There will be a correction, then things will start to creep back, then another correction and then again things will creep back.

I'm not Karen, but maybe the government can stop being so liberal and causing gender imbalances? That's my personal solution.

Right now, marriage isn't a contract between two parties. It's a legally binding blank piece of paper, the terms of which will be decided by a third party (the court/state) upon dissolution.

I would marry my current bf if that was not the case. I mean, I know I won't fuck him over, but when I dissolved my marriage with my ex the court wouldn't let me treat him as fairly as I would have liked. I wanted to formally waive child support, but no judge would sign off on that. All I can do is refuse to take measures to collect it, and try my damnedest to stay off welfare or anything similar, since they'll collect it for me whether I want it or not.

Marriage needs to be an agreement between two people, yes, enforceable by an authority, but the terms of which are spelled out and agreed on by both parties to the contract. Prenups kind of do that--stipulate the rights and entitlements and responsibilities of both parties, and who's entitled to what if things go Pete Tong, depending on who's at fault, etc.

But right now, all marriages are 'boilerplate', and all boilerplate marriage contracts are subject to executive fiat. Prenups can be thrown out on the whim of judges, and essentially most marriages are to the state.

And like a judge ruled here in Canada 100 years ago when denying a man a settlement over a broken engagement--you're not entitled to anything, because men aren't expected to advance or gain economically through marriage. Women are.

As much as some members of /r/MR dislike you guys, I've never been shy about my opinion of TRP when the topic comes up. I usually get a little bit of flak--"I am disappoint"--but it doesn't bother me much. I've had the odd person kind of hint that they'd unsubscribe or whatever, which I'm willing to accept.

On the other hand, there is some overlap between /r/MR and TRP, and there are people involved in MR that have no opinion one way or the other.

I uploaded a video of my comments that got stickied here, along with some commentary, and the "like bar" looks healthy, even though a lot of the comments were very negative. One commenter expressed a wish that I'd learn to speak more wisely and circumspectly on topics like RooshV's suggestion to make rape legal on private property (all I said was that however stupid or unfeasible or offensive his idea was, his stated intention was to prevent rape, so I wasn't going to call him a bad person for it).

I can't really guess how much of the attention the MRM is directing at TRP is due to your growth. There seems to be a certain admiration for the competence of some red pillers here and on YouTube as far as message delivery, and I think most terpers (is that the right term?) would be surprised at how a lot of the animosity is generated by readers rather than leaders, if you will. I know AVFM is interested in a cautious approach toward including PUA perspectives on the website. That doesn't surprise me, given Paul is a libertarian and he's been willing to publish articles by communists.

I don't think they're going for an assimilation or co-opting of other groups (the way feminists have done with LGBT and other interest groups). It's more about providing a wider range of masculine perspectives. They're in a difficult position in trying to do so--they took a lot of heat over the MGTOW marriage thing. They have right wingers like Bernard Chapin calling them a bunch of lefties, and they have progressives accusing them of promoting traditionalism, and they have MGTOW accusing them of advocating a return to the yoke for men and allowing women too big a role, and they have other MRAs advising them that they'll never attract young men into the fold if there are no women under the umbrella.

Seems like no matter what they do, they're going to get a bunch of people telling them they're fucking it all up.

As far as what the interaction will be, I can't say. Personally, I'd be happy with a ceasefire. Criticism of ideas is all well and good, but there is that tribalistic component that comes into play, and I'd like to see more of a "live and let live, and let's promote this or that article if it's worthwhile without getting worried about accusations that we're panderers or collaborators because we agreed with Heartiste on this one issue," kind of thing.

I don't think the "manosphere" can all be united under one umbrella, but there's enough overlap that if they set aside some of that tribalism they could achieve more on an issue-by-issue basis. That's what I hope will happen.