Call me a masochist, but I like conversing with Feminist leaning women when I get a chance. Thinking about, and writing about, Red Pill theory is my thing, and I find a lot of value in getting feedback from them. Not so much what they're actually saying, but how they react when the different foundations of the theory kind-of bang against their different inarguable premises.

The conversation started out with the casual implication that WOMEN ARE WONDERFUL. This one is rather interesting, because if you ever point it out in explicit terms, you'll get treated like an idiot: "uhh, dude, of course I know that women aren't all wonderful.... women are people, like anyone else!" But then, you can sit back and what the magic of how WOMEN ARE WONDERFUL implicitly plays out in a constant infinite feedback loop.

For example, when I mentioned how only men are able to be criticized socially- while women always seem to get a pass for poor behavior, of course she laughed with the claim that women receive "far more criticism" than men, but when pressed, she draws the designation that poor female behavior is the result of ultra-unfair social pressure, while poor male behavior is exclusively the responsibility of the individual man... This is, in fact, WOMEN ARE WONDERFUL in action; all women would be morally righteous if not for succumbing to social pressure, which compromises her agency- conversely, men enjoy full agency, so when a man misbehaves, it is his fault alone but also reflective of a morally corruptible male nature.

MALE NATURE was something she was willing to concede existed, and its existence was quite obvious; male nature stems from male sexuality, a kind of affliction which all men face (although we're only focusing on heterosexual men, to avoid the whole "gays are (somehow) wonderful" sidetrack); when asked, she said that "100%" of men would be attracted to a hypothetical 22-year-old with "great hair, big tits, and a small waist." The implication, of course, is that 100% of men would be easily led around by their dicks following around this genetic-unicorn of hotness, while doing whatever it took to get her panties off. So, MALE NATURE is something real, potent, and highly corruptible- which, of course, leads to the "MEN ARE AWFUL therefore WOMEN ARE WONDERFUL" dynamic.

Make no mistake, this dynamic is the foundation of "the blue pill," with the end-goal of blue pill men to achieve sexual success by way of disqualification. You see, they aren't like those awful, corrupt, probably rapist-type men; they suppress their demonized male nature, so they are not-at-all like the wrong kind of men, but instead, the good eggs, so therefore, since women are wonderful, should get the sex... because, remember, everything is sexual strategy.

But the truth of the matter is that MALE NATURE is real! We are hyper-sexual beings! We'd probably stick it in 80% of women if we could; in fact, we're in this mess because our fathers and grandfathers we're so godamn giddy over the invention of birth-control and the relaxing of sexual mores, a promised sexual utopia, that they dropped the fucking ball and let it all go! Thousands of years of careful Civilization building torn to the ground because, maybe, just maybe, you could stick your dick in a few more girls before dropping dead! That is MALE NATURE- yes, we're fucking horny.

The modern world is built around the notion that male nature is real, and must be contained... and, contrary to popular belief and constant female-chauvinist propaganda that wimpy blue pill men glady share on Facebook to virtue signal that they are the sex-worthy good apples, we've had social restrictions put in place to contain male sexuality, to the point where the containment of male sexuality has become an equally potent evolutionary component of male nature- namely, men understanding not to rape- both, by law, and by the carefully constructed system of men only remaining non-disposable by-way of retaining positive social value, and the understanding that rape entirely destroys the potential for social value and relevance; furthermore, the sympathetic love men have and protectorate identities that men create in regards to women will dictate that a man will not feel like a good man if a man rapes a woman. This is why you'll see FAR MORE WOMEN with a rape fantasy than men; it doesn't feel good for a man to feel like a rapist, it goes against all of his social and evolutionary programming, and, if anything, women intrinsically understand this and have a rape fantasy as the ultimate way of separating men who they perceive to "have balls" (willing to take what they want and rape; the ultimate needless Alpha who doesn't even need a woman's consent) from the men who are "good little listeners."

Of course, I couldn't get that far into the conversation with her, because as soon as the word "rape" came up at all, she got triggered and started feeling "nervous," which is just a way for her to control the conversation. The topic of rape, or Rape[TM], is the ultimate power-play a woman can have where the mainstream, blue pill worldview is that a man may not have an opinion about rape and must always defer to women, the perpetual rape victim- even if she's never been raped, but I'm sure if pressed, she'd have a heck of a rape story.

And when the idea of FEMALE NATURE came up, she wouldn't even begin to entertain the idea at all... of course, again implicitly referring back to WOMEN ARE WONDERFUL, while attacking me as childish, inexperienced, hateful, and heartbroken.

PRO TIP: Once you get her making those kinds of accusations, you hit the main nerve, and you've won the day.

So even if men has a highly corruptible, unifying MALE NATURE, all women are different, all women are individuals, and even if there are a few bad apples sprinkled into the bunch, NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT, or, in other words, there are no unifying commonalities between women that make it possible to understand women as a whole; this is the feminine mystique- or the idea that it's impossible to understand women. You'll see this idea regurgitated in sitcoms or Hollywood movies, where Prof. Blue Pill has a man-to-man talk with a misguided, romantically unsuccessful proto-Red Piller, where Dr. Pussy lays out the idea that women are complex, and unknowable, and deep, and superior... which is essentially the complete denial of a FEMALE NATURE, while the implicit demonization of MALE NATURE- male nature is what make men simple, stupid, easy to understand and potentially amoral; MALE NATURE is why blue pill men trip over themselves to share vox videos about nasty teenage "rapists" on Facebook; and understanding male nature as a toxic affliction that "100%" of men possess, by elimination, we can infer that WOMEN ARE WONDERFUL, and if women are wonderful, women should be allowed moral authority over all issues... which is how the patriarchy we destroyed, and why we're living in a cultural cesspool.

I then showed her my Social Matter article on my Red Pill origin story, and the theoretical foundation of the Red Pill, "Baby Did a Bad, Bad Thing," and she flipped the fuck out, saying: "I feel like your whole point is boiling down to, 'women are materialisrtic whores who only want Alpha males and that is why they should be treated as such'," which, of course misses the entire point. Human nature is amoral, which is why we need social restrictions on the more destructive aspects of it- this used to come in the form of religion, or law, or even social taboo- but the modern world only works to contain and demonize male behavior. And that last part, that they should be "treated as such," is exactly how the mainstream world thinks of men.

Aren't women wonderful?

Like this post? Check out my blog KILL TO PARTY- Updated with: The Narrative of Heartbreak and “Big” (1988)