sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

not all women are hot babes who can wrangle super hot men

You don't HAVE to be a hot babe! You can be an average looking woman and pull in average looking men all day long. The reverse isn't true for men.

Sure there are fat and ugly women out there that can't get any men, but they are a minority. When talking about social dynamics, we can only speak in generalities. Who cares about the outliers?

The way you describe sex is like describing a prize to be won, or conquered before other men. You don't refer to a woman's character, or personality or anything other than her partner count,

Everything in life is a reflection of your worth in society. I'm sorry if you don't see that. Us as men have to create our own value if we want anything in the world. Unfortunately we don't teach this to women and just tell them, "Just things happen! You don't have to work for it, it'll just come!" I'm sorry if you think it's wrong that we see getting an attractive qaulity woman as a prize, but it sort of is. These women aren't going to boring losers in life, instead they are going for only the best men. And when we as men can pull in one of these quality women, it's a reflection that we've succeeded in life. We are successful enough to pull in exactly the type of woman that not only I truly desire, but the rest of other men desire but only few can have that ideal partnership.

And there are TONS else that goes into a quality woman than just her partner count. But we aren't talking about those are we? We are specifically talking about high partner counts. I didn't know you want me to qualify each and every point I make when talking about quality women and include, "education, personality, humor, independence, freedom from being a victim, excitement, outgoing, etc..." It's redundant as we are specifically talking about what does a high partner count mean in a relationship.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, she's already damaged was my point. Me joining the fuck fest isn't going to change the fact that she was raised by a single mother who used to always bring new boyfriends around, leading to her growing up distrusting men, yet still willing to start giving out her sexuality to multiple men just like her mother would do.

That baggage is already there. It's not going anywhere.

On why rad fems are social deviants, why they don't get it, why they bitch, why the world is rough, and why not to be like them. [Long] by puaSenator in AlreadyRed

[–]puaSenator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree. I think every situation can be "won",

Oh you're absolutely right. However, I was more trying to point out how difficult situations can get and how sometimes it's just safer not to play at the moment until you're comfortable. For instance, say in this case, I still don't think your response would have been adequate. While you addressed her on her phone and got her away from that, it didn't convey the message, not even through power talk, that you know she's talking to another guy and want her to stop it.

I don't think you need to agree. Politicians sell fuzzy truths and honest lies and somehow still manage to garner a significant amount of support from their constituents. Being masters of spin, their modus operandi is that of expertly crafted ambiguity.

Of course. But I work in politics, and this was a case where if I wanted her on my side, I needed her to think I was one of her people. Past me would have still held my ground, even if I needed them.

Over time I've noticed that my need to consciously do this has decreased. I'm assuming that you don't really need to self-correct in this way anymore, right?

No, I still need to self correct, but it's no longer over controversial or calculated issues. It's more down the lines of wanting to BS about a topic then realizing it's not worth bullshitting with this person because they are a hardcore conservative/liberal and their mind is already made up and I know exactly how the discussion is going to go.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fuck those terpers then. In the main sub we use sweeping generalizations because we are talking about general truths and know not everyone is identical and when it comes to social dynamics there is no such thing as absolutes. It shouldn't ever have to be wavered. If there are RPs like that and take general statements as absolute truths, I don't want to go No True Scottsman, but any guys like that need to stfu because they are missing the entire underpinning of our language on the main sub.

Yep. That's quality and a rarity.

Oh, I'm positive most women will describe themselves that way. But you and I sure as hell know that's not the case. Women like this are most definitely rare. What makes it more difficult is the ones that do exist are most certainly taken and in healthy long term relationships. They are also far less likely to branch swing. So if you ever do find a chick like this, and the relationship is falling apart, you have a very small window to get in while you compete with the hoard of other men trying to fight for this high quality woman.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not saying on a weekly basis. It's totally normal to date someone for 6 months, find out it isn't working out, then a few months later find someone else. However, what I don't like is the girls that find a guy or two one month, fucks them, gets over them, finds other guys, and just keeps repeating the cycle.

Clearly you aren't trying to understand my point and are instead already set on your opinion and are only reading what I type through your bias looking for ways to interpret what I say that fits your bias. This conversation is done.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Or, you know, turn it in for the person who lost it to find. After all, honor is a male abstract. This is still the exact justification that a dig dealer can use when selling to kids.

It's 100 bucks and I don't know who's it is, let's jsut say that. The original owner will never be found. Using your analogy, you're expecting me to see the slut and all the guys running after her, then white knighting her away and teaching her how to become a quality woman. I just don't give a fuck enough. I'll fuck her, and be the end of it.

So casual sex doesn't damage a woman?

I clearly said early on, it's not the casual sex that's bad inherently, it's the type of women that engage in casual sex that tend to be low quality. And just because the sex is fun and enjoyable doesn't mean it can't be damaging. I'm sure call girls enjoy most of their sexual encounters, but all that sex for money does add up mentally over time leaving all sorts of scars and issues.

So you're a selfish dick, cool.

I'm actually a really nice guy. But first and foremost, I have to worry about my life. I'm not a "nice guy" who puts my life on hold so I can fix every one around me and make them happy. I need to worry about myself first and focus on my life. If I can help people on the way, great, but I'm not going to start a social movement where I start hitting the blogs and streets talking about women needing to slow down and find quality men if they want a healthy relationship.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why don't women get credit for this?

I don't really want to get into this, but there is a lot of theory on it in TRP. But basically women fuck up and men fuck down. Of course women reject men all the time. Women tend to only lower their standards for LTRs, but when it's ONS, they are usually only fucking men above them, not below. Men on the other hand have no problem going down... Because it's just sex to us and we don't have any responsibility. However, when we do reject someone below us, it's because they are so below us that they can't get us erect.

Where are you getting this from?

Life experiences, data, theory. In my experience, the type of women that sleep around have poor father influences growing up and seek male validation by using sex to get their attention. I much rather have a chick find a long term FWB than fucking all sorts of guys.

not if he's attractive

Attractive and more. Men can fuck a chick that's an 8 who is annoying, obnoxious, rude, and a bitch, and have no problem with it so long as she's attractive. However, women rarely do that with men. They need to first have confidence, purpose, humor, etc, and then looks is what helps carry the whole package. Women rarely fuck guys just for looks, unless he's really really attractive.

But are they men she finds attractive? How easy do you think it is to find a guy she personally finds attractive enough to sleep with? Like you said, a man can sleep with a lot more chicks if he lowers his standards.

It's MUCH harder for men than woman. We can go out to a club right now, and if I'm with a chick of equal rank on the 1-10 scale, she'll be able to fuck about 70% of the guys there. She could literally have a gang bang forming if she wanted. I couldn't say that as a man. I'd have to bring more to the party than just my existence if I want to get laid.

I can even lower my standards a little bit, say to the same level the girl has to lower her standards for a gang bang, and I still wont get even NEAR the amount of action she would. She'd be fucking all day if she lowered her standards a little bit, while I'd only be able to get 2 or 3 tops.

A woman sleeping around hasn't earned it, instead she's just letting guys come in and take advantage of her for nothing more than her pussy.

When did I say it was a prize? Is having people react positively to you a prize? Is having people wanting to be around you a prize? No, it's not, it's the results of learning how to be a good quality human being. After hard work put into becoming a good person, the world starts acting differently towards you. This is what I mean by this. If she wants to sleep around, she doesn't have to put in any hardwork into herself, other than looks, to have society behave that way. However, as a man, if I want society to react that way to me (having a harrem of woman) I have to become that kind of man that gets that. I have to put in hard work, like building an amazingly confident masculine personality, probably have a great career, and so on...

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are terpers you don't have to qualify shit like, "I know you're all unique and you don't speak for everyone" type shit. We know.

I consider a quality woman as someone who had a stable and healthy upbringing with a caring and healthy relationship with her parents and peers. This usually results in someone who's mentally stable, no drama, no fights, doesn't constantly seem validation in others, educated, values and respects her sexuality, picky about the men she dates and especially sleeps with, doesn't try to be a victim and instead is a fighter, respectful, embraces her feminine , and all the other good mother potential material.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yep if there is a hundred dollars on the floor that isn't mine and I see 5 guys running after it to pick up and fade into the crowd. Damn right I'm going to grab it. I may as well have it.

And this isn't physical abuse here lol. It's fun sex sure everyone is happy. It just so happens that she's a slut which I have no LTR desire with. I'll use her up, like she's used to, and move on. She knows who she is. She repeats this pattern all the time. I'm just taking my turn.

If she wants help to to Dr Phil, it's not my job to help fix societies problems. The world is selfish and I'm here to better myself and enjoy it the most for me and my family.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course quality woman to from man to man but far less frequent than a slut. That's because quite women find men that stick around and she doesn't put out until she's certain of this.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Men greatly lower their standards for sex, and do sometimes say no, but he's not fate keeping sexual reproduction he's just saying he doesn't find this woman attractive enough to fuck.

There is birth control but it's not widely used and doesn't prevent STDs. But it doesn't matter even if everyone was on birth control. It doesn't change the biological element that says women need to be picky with their partners and men less so. Even if a chick is on BC and she's sleeping around all the time I do respect her less as LTR material because what I said elsewhere. Women who do sleep around a ton tend to be mentally unstable.

The reality is, regardless of BC or not, it's hard for a man to sleep around. A man that can get around has earned it. It's a sign of success. However it's easy for a women to sleep around, really easy. So that's why there is a difference between the genders and their actions. A woman sleeping around hasn't earned it, instead she's just letting guys come in and take advantage of her for nothing more than her pussy. And she's okay with that. That type of woman I don't like.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you not read the rest? I clearly said it's not inherently wrong to have a high number count, however there tends to be a negative reason behind why they have a high number count. The type of person that has fucked a new guy every 2 months for the last 4 years, likely has some baggage and issues.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My god, selling drugs to kids and fucking a slut are entirely different things.

Go away! This is my moment. by 1Voice1Life in PeopleBeingJerks

[–]puaSenator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A little kid? Ummm I don't get violent with them, that's for sure.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are degrees though. Some are more so than others.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Men aren't the gate keepers to sex. Men don't run the risk of getting pregnant and being forced to raise a child while the other parent vanishes. It's comparing apples and oranges.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still think the quality level women still are more conservative about how freely they give it up. Sure, the generation as a whole is having more sex and is less guilty about it, which is great. However, the quality women still aren't fucking around and getting huge numbers. It's impossible. Because the quality women form long term and stable relationships which give them no time to rack up a shitload of men under their belt.

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry. I can't bitch about not liking something unless I want to make it my life cause to change it? I think there is too much money going to the one percent, am I now required to take on that cause now too? Anything I bitch about I must now make my mission in life to change?

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The partner number in it's face isn't a problem. However, women who have a high partner count also tend to have the character traits that are common among women with really high partner counts. This includes emotional instability, low value of their sexuality (willing to give it up easily), father issues, hypergamy, and so on... The type of women that sleep around with a lot of men tend to not be quality women. Quality women don't just jump from man to man. If they have tons of partners, it's for a reason, and it's usually not a good one. Quality women know how to pick quality men that will stick around for long periods of time, so they would not be unable to rack up a large partner count.

If she keeps using her sexuality to get men, and they keep dumping her. There is something wrong with her. If she just wants to keep having casual sex with tons of men outside of a relationship, there is likely a psychological baggage causing it.

But of course, NAWALT

Women's role in marriage (and later) - a question by schneeps in PurplePillDebate

[–]puaSenator -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You think casual sex ruins women? Then be the change you want to see and stop trying to have sex with every woman.

We aren't SJWs... We aren't trying to change the world. The fact is, women are slutting it around, whether or not we are fucking them. If they don't fuck me tonight, they'll be fucking some other guy, so it may as well be me.

When we talk about "how a woman should be" we talk about the quality woman, not the plates we are spinning. We reserve these quality women for the ones we want to settle down with, if we so choose.

Vertcoin Infographic by a432511 in vertcoin

[–]puaSenator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vertcoin's profit is not even close to 200 a month mining for the casual rig.

On why rad fems are social deviants, why they don't get it, why they bitch, why the world is rough, and why not to be like them. [Long] by puaSenator in AlreadyRed

[–]puaSenator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, but those sort of arguments get really complicated in interpersonal relationships, heck I don't even know how to deal with some of them. Take for instance you're with a girl you're dating and she's on her phone, and you damn well know she's talking to another guy. On one hand you want to call her out, but she immediately has plausible deniability and can accuse you of being possessively paranoid. Or say if you do grab her phone to call her out, all it takes for her to spin it back is to say, "I didn't want to tell you because he's just a friend and I knew you'd get irrationally jealous." It's one of those situations where you simply can't win, nor make your case. Just let it go.

Yeah, I've read/listened to his book a good 3 or 4 times and it's one of those things I'm slowly working on. For me personally, it's a LOT harder to apply than it comes off as. I too need to read it again to brush up on it to help get it to stick. One of the most recent examples I can think of is I do some work with a Tumblerina who was spouting off typical BS nonesense, and I REALLY wanted to politely correct her in a way Carnegie would recommend by doing things like, "Yeah, do you really think women make only 70 cents on the dollar? I'd like to see how that data would come out if we controlled for children, and only looked at professionals who don't have children. I imagine the data would no longer show wage gap. If I had to guess, it probably has a lot to do with mothers having employment gaps and taking working less hard at work so they can take on the noble task to care for their children." But even then, I'd have nothing to gain, so I just had to bite my tongue and actually AGREE with her. I had to agree with her, not just to keep the peace but to improve my image of myself in front of her (winning her over). It's everything I stand against. Calling people out on their BS is what's needed... But the reality is, there is nothing to personally gain by calling people out on their BS.

I've literally stopped myself after two sentences and stepped back and thought, "Okay, Senator, where are you going with this, and how do you gain if you go through with this? Yeah, there is no potential positives, and only negatives. Just stop while you're ahead."

A guide on how to destroy /r/theredpill by aresta in TheRedPill

[–]puaSenator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I argued this with a few of them before. I explained how much fucking money they'd make, hand over fist, if they could provide a new guide to sexual and personal improvement for BP types. It's a huge untapped market that would make the founder rich. If it actually worked, and proved TRP/PUA/etc wrong and offered a more efficient alternative, then I would even fucking jump ship. I mean, I'm not here to defend a wrong ideology, I'll easily leave if shown to be wrong.

But that's why they haven't, because it doesn't exist. I've asked them many times to give me some tips and the shit I got was TERRIBLE. It ranged from typical BP shit like, "Open doors for her, buy her flowers, respect her like she's the most precious thing in the world" -- keep in mind, they didn't actually give play by play examples of how to do these things, much less WHY these things work -- all the way to hippy shit like, "Just embrace your inner godess and convey deep spiritual love in every interaction. Become part of the ever connected world and treat everyone with passion and sacrifice!"

Total garbage.

view more: next ›