Dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man", to show women's poor dating behavior and unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves.
- Main Forums
- What's Hot
- TRP.RED
- Tribe Forums
- TheRedPill
- Tribe Management
- Create New Tribe
- Manage My Tribes
- Find New Tribes
- Recent News
-
-
houseoftolstoy Unchivalrous Christian 2y ago Stickied
This is the crux of it. Not just the fact that it is their choice, but the fact that the average woman will have more options with men who are willing to accept her as a girlfriend than the average man's options of the women who will accept him as a boyfriend. Yes, a woman may not like all of her options, but she certainly has them. And even if we are generous with factoring out those she would reject for justifiable reasons, she is still going to have choices that would both be ones that she should reasonably accept and that will not be the type of man who will be abusive and would cheat.
But there are women still choose the "jerk" type of man. I do not believe for a moment that they cannot detect those aspects in such men, but they are choosing them with full awareness of those aspects. Along with that, they are actively rejecting the types of men they claim they want or are passively doing so by making themselves unavailable by continuing to pair with the type of man with behaviors they claim they do not like.
When you have the power of choice, you have the burden of responsibility. If you were a billionaire, you could afford to drive any kind of vehicle. So if you choose a piece of crap vehicle that is always breaking down and controls poorly, people will indeed wonder what you are thinking, because they know full well you can easily choose to drive a different vehicle. You don't necessarily have to get the fanciest and most expensive vehicle, but no will kid themselves and think that you would not have the means to choose a more reliable vehicle. The same logic applies with a reasonably attractive woman. Such a woman would not be limited to only having jerkish guys as their choice to date, so if they do choose such men, it absolutely is a reflection of her decisions.
Problematic_Browser Sr. Hamster Analyst 2y ago
"It's our choice who we date: losers!"
Fixed for accuracy
DextroShade 2y ago
Women's poor choices have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that patriarchy is a much better system for everyone, them included.
Ripstar 2y ago
I am so glad that this proves I am the prize.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 2y ago
Not necessarily. Some guys really don't have their act together: not every guy is "husband material" any more than every woman is "wife material." We talk a lot about "alphas" and "betas" because they are useful as shorthand terms, but reality is far more nuanced.
Not every young "beta" male is going to either learn "game" or go MGTOW deliberately. The system (gynocentrism) is very effective at keeping guys in the dark, and most men never swallow the red pill. In fact, most men still don't know it exists, and many of the ones who do know don't want to swallow it anyway.
In the post where I introduced the word "Inspin" as the female version of "incel" I talked about a friend of mine from high school who checks every box on the "Incel Checklist." He didn't hate women... he wasn't "BiTtEr" about his lack of success with them... as far as I can tell he never fixed his problem, and knowing him I'm guessing it never occured to him to try. Guys like that may be able to put a modest roof over a woman's head and a baby in her belly, but they're nobody's idea of the "Prize" (except maybe the consolation prize).
On the other hand i used to work with a real-life Chad who is utterly amoral. He spins plates like a master and tosses them aside like last night's condom when he gets bored or they get clingy. He's divorced because he cheated on his wife too many times. But he's tall, he's good-looking, he makes a lot of money, and he's the most cocky sumbitch you'll ever meet... and women love him for it. But in a sane world he would be even less of a prize than my buddy from high school. Sociopaths don't make good husbands, either.
I'll echo what others have said and add my own take:
I was the quintessential "late bloomer," and I'm reminded of a girl I liked in high school. I took my shot and she declined (she was very polite about it), because 1) I was a mess (5'7" and scrawny with horrible acne), and 2) she was interested in my friend who had none of those issues (although he was one of the "cool kids" he wasn't going far in life). Frankly, I don't blame her for turning me down: the upward path my life was to follow wasn't obvious at the time, but his spot on the basketball team was as plain as the varsity letter on his jacket. (FWIW, I lettered in track, and did an obscure martial art outside of school, but the only sports that got you "cool points" were football, basketball, lacrosse, and soccer.)
So was I the prize? Objectively, yes, especially considering where I ended up. Was that predictable at the time? Clearly not.
I actually feel bad for young women. As many others have noted: women get their SMV / RMV in a lump sum on their 18th birthday, and after a few short years the sum starts to get reduced. The longer they wait to invest that lump sum to acquire commitment from a guy the less of it they have and the fewer good options they'll have. Men, on the other hand, aren't necessarily a "finished product" until later. I hit my peak around 25. (That's the time I met and married my wife, who was a 20-year-old debt-free virgin with no tattoos.)
Anyway, I guess the point I'm rambling towards is that it's not always clear who's a prize in the long term and who's not, and timing plays a big role.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
Good comment.
Loneliness-inc LvL 99 Rogue NiceGuy™ 2y ago
Sob sob... I'm an innocent victim... it's all his fault... waaaaaaaaaaaah......
Boar_excrement Jr. Hamster Analyst 2y ago
Actions have consequences. You are free to choose your actions, you are not free to choose your consequences.
Getting equality means you get it all, laydeez. Everything, including accountability and indifference. Congrats on your victory.
[deleted] 2y ago
[--removed--]
kevin32 Ambassador for NiceGuys™ 2y ago Stickied
Because the fact that he demonstrates good relationship material by making her his world rationally makes him the more suitable partner for her to choose over the abusive asshole. You said in another comment below that you simped over a girl, so to ask 'why should they' is to say that that girl shouldn't choose you, and that's bullshit.
The problem is that these men are in the gross minority. Rollo talks about this in Schedules of Mating. Once the former NiceGuy/beta/simp understands the nature of women and applies Game principles such as being non-needy, cocky-funny and elusive - and starts getting successful with women - it's virtually impossible for him to go back to being the attentive, kind-hearted good guy women need when they want to settle down. He has options now and is either playing the field or gone MGTOW, and is a fundamental reason why women should choose attentive, responsible men before it's too late.
But just because women feel a greater attraction for the exciting, alpha asshole doesn't mean that he's good for them, nor that women should go for that type of guy, nor that the men who don't fit that mold are losers for the simple fact that those same women seek the decent guys to bail them out when their plan to secure a seemingly better guy inevitably fails.
I'm leaving your comment up, but observe Rule 1 and please refrain from referring to decent men as "boring losers" just because they're not as exciting or alpha as the Chad/player types. We sympathize with those guys here.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago Stickied
I want to add this to the list as well: Just because a woman can get pumped and dumped by a Chad does not mean that she deserves this guy or can obtain this guy or to keep him committed to her. They can't and that's where the butthurt comes from.
When Sheryl Sandberg advised women to fuck all the bad boys and then to choose beta men, she was encouraging a conscious dual-mating strategy. Most of the dummies we see in our sub are not that smart. They think that their ride in the carousel enables them to own the ponies they rode. They can't and that is where their frustration behind "Where are all the good men" comes from. By good men they do not mean good men who spent their youth in bettering themselves and would make good husbands. No. By good men they mean the men who are in demand and can choose any woman yet somehow decides to choose them.
The good men often do not do much wrong. They were just stupid enough to buy into an old system that promised them something that it could never realistically deliver. That blame lies on the system itself and the women who lie through their teeth to make sure that the system is perceived to be still effective and alive so that they can reap the benefits it provides them without ever having to put in any work
@IBelieveInTheFallen
Intrepid_Place53900 2y ago
(when sheryl sandberg advised women to fuck all the bad boys and then to choose a beta man).
dont' think so, my take is she was saying, you girls are young, you don't know what you like and don't like. so, do what I did. F them all, find out what you like and don't like, get experience. Her view is, it will be helpful, all experience is good, f them all and have fun. You have plenty of time to find the guy you like/want and with all that experience, you can be assured it's what you want and you "aren't missing anything".
Now, this is terrible advice on many levels, but you won't find that kind of disagreement/discussion on main stream media. the girls over at red pill women, maybe, but that's not MSM>
[deleted] 2y ago
[--removed--]
Intrepid_Place53900 2y ago
(does this mean that good guys aren't of caliber to attain hookups with hot girls)
Casual sex, is about physical attraction , the prettier the girl, the more attractive the guy has to be.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
Good guys describes a broad spectrum. Beta bucks was a winning strategy once because it was promoted. At present, it is not a good strategy. Alpha bucks or alpha fucks are.
Intrepid_Place53900 2y ago
(beta bucks was a winning strategy once)
Depends upon what you define as winning.
I don't think it really ever was a winning strategy. Sure, you can get the post wall girl who's looking for a provider. Does that mean you won?
Not in my book.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
You're looking at history with the lens of current practice. As @lurkerhasarisen points out, it works out reasonably well if society wants it to work well.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 2y ago
Before the SexRev is worked just fine. Betabux guys got women of similar SMV in their prime. That was before the fatapocalypse and hormonal birth control, so most brides were human-sized and hadn't lost their pair-bonding ability due to sleeping around. Also, the families were invested in the success of their children's marriages.
Intrepid_Place53900 2y ago
agreed, prior to (modern sex) , beta bux was a legit strategy.
Now, back to today's reality.
[deleted] 2y ago
[--removed--]
Junkas 2y ago
You say that, but even going out of your way to describe a poor option, all that you said was that he’s boring and very invested. Investment isn’t an issue if she doesn’t take advantage of it, and boredom is mutual: he can look past it, she can pick up some slack providing entertainment. That’s the hypothetical bad scenario guy though. If she doesn’t like him, she can settle for the guy who is more entertaining and just makes her a part of his world instead of the whole thing. You gotta dance around a lot of men before you find the guy who will kick you in the stomach, sleep with your sister, then move to a different state
[deleted] 2y ago
[--removed--]
[deleted]
Junkas 2y ago
The entitlement is encouraged. It shows itself in how they’re open to insult other “nice” guys. Strength of character isn’t a priority, holding yourself up and shitting on lesser individuals is. So what happens when these people who jockeyed for their position get rejected? They thought they were in a great spot, they were free to shit on others who didn’t realize it.
They’re going to try to maintain their status, they’re going to give in to the negativity that received a thumbs up daily until they became the target, it’s going to build up past that point when they realize they’re not much different than any of the guys they shit on, this will be hammered home by their male peers suddenly exploiting the opening to shit on them, and they’ll no longer have a need to try and change their behavior to keep those men and women pleased
It’s similar to women who start shitting on men like crazy after they realize the status they believed they had during their fun years didn’t set them up to land a top tier guy at the end and they become more and more disgusted with themselves as they walk back down the ladder towards the “lower” men who still might give them a chance.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
Rule 1. No shaming men.
[deleted]
[deleted] 2y ago
[--removed--]
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
No shaming men. Read Rule 1.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 2y ago
Fucker beat me to it!
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
You're getting slow in your old age.
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 2y ago
This is what you get when you choose tingles over partner viability
hornetsfalcons12 Sr. Hamster Analyst 2y ago
Back in the day, we had fathers that could help their daughter out in this regard, and give his seal of approval to Dr John instead of gunslinger Jimmy.
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 2y ago
Even if we did have that still, would it be enough to counteract the feminist, Sheryl Sandberg carousel advice and influence out there?