Fellas! Do you have any female friends? Do you hang out with them without having sex?
Well, apparently you’re doing it all wrong, at least according to the world-class relationship expert and Red Pill Redditor Throwaway244555. In a recent post on the Red Pill subreddit, he explained the fundamental rule of male-female friendships, which is that there should be no male-female friendships.
Woman are friends with woman, and they have sex with men. So if you’re her friend, you’re a vagina.
Remember, fellas, women are for sex, so if one of them wants to Netflix and chill without the chill part, tell her she’ll have to Netflix alone. By the way, “chill” in this context means sex. Like coffee, Netflix and chill means sex. And may not involve Netflix at all.
You ask this girl to be your gf, she rejects you but ask if we can still be friends. That’s a insult, she thinks less of you.
If a woman likes you, Mr. Throwaway244555 contends, she will let you put your penis in her. If she says she likes you yet is not interested in your penis she is insulting you to your very core. And if you actually do become friends with her, you are failing so utterly as a man that you might as well be a vagina.
A male and female aren’t suppose to be friends, they’re suppose to be love intrest. So basically you’re a vagina, because girls are suppose to be friends with girls, and fuck men. Also girls are horrible friends, all they do is leech off you, and cause drama.
So when a girl rejects you, and puts you in the friendzone, it’s a insult. Next time she says let’s just be friends, say no thank you.
DO NOT LET HER ROPE YOU IN WITH HER TALK OF “FRIENDSHIP.”
Or, I dunno, you could just go ahead and be friends with her, and look elsewhere for sex and/or romance?
I mean, sure, if you’re in love with a woman who isn’t in love with you, you’ll probably do the both of you a favor if you move on instead of taking her friendship as a “consolation prize,” which is really a shitty thing to consider a friendship to be.
Or if you decide to become “friends” with a woman because you hope to eventually manipulate her into having sex with you, well, that’s pretty shitty too. So stop it, and move on.
All this applies as well with the genders reversed, and in same-sex couples, and indeed in any gender variation possible.
But Jesus H. Christ, dudes, you can be friends with a woman if you want to. You can be friends with her if you don’t want to have sex with her. And you can be friends with her even if you sorta do.
I mean, seriously, dudes, you know that gay men are friends with other gay men that they never actually have sex with, right?
That said, if you’re a Red Pill dude, I would strongly suggest you not become friends with any women at all until you cease to be a Red Pill dude.
Regford, in addition to being a lousy lay, you’re also a poor troll. Once again, I find myself pining for the majestic trolls of yore, who could maintain a pretense for days, nay weeks, before finally posting something that didn’t seem quite right.
You’re just not putting in the effort, man.
Vaginaception?
Freemage,
Right? Didn’t Steele last several months, winning troll of the year in the process until David finally found out he was MRAL? Now, I don’t expect that kind of longevity anymore because the banhammer drops way more easily than it used to. But, come on. At least last a day or two!
So if I’m friends with a man, does that make me a dick?
I bet that joke killed in the 1970s.
You know what? I’ll let Dr Nerdlove break it down, because the idea that “men and women can’t or shouldn’t be friends” is based on some real bullshit:
These stereotypes also presume that women “can’t get rejected” or that they have all the power over teh poor menz.
Amanda Marcotte explained it as a “consumerist view” of sexuality:
And their observations are true whether the end goal is a relationship or sex. (Seriously, I’ve known Nice Guys who think they aren’t Nice Guys because they’re not after sex, they want a “real relationship”. Totally different and morally superior! Even though the attitude is exactly the same: this woman won’t be my partner, therefore all women are evil/only want douches/etc.)
It goes without saying, Dr. Nerdlove and Amanda Marcotte are awesome.
I particularly love how the earlier rightfully asserted that there is no anti-GamerGate movement that GamerGaters love to bring up – there’s just GamerGate and then everyone else reacting to them.
Maybe if these guys had some female friends, they wouldn’t be so clueless about women.
Then again, what woman would want to throw herself on that grenade of oblivious entitlement?
“That said, if you’re a Red Pill dude, I would strongly suggest you not become friends with any women at all until you cease to be a Red Pill dude.”
Best advice I’ve heard all day.
@ Charles Miller
I hear you and understand your questions. But, believe me, you might not want to know the truth. As shared on this site, it involves a terrifying revelation. One given by a totes 10/10 hot chick, who’s very real brah, on her deathbed. It will change how you think about, to quote Buttercup Q Skullpants from that thread, “man’s best friendzoned”.
I’ll put it this way. You could say that, in the picture, there’s only one top dog…
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
…and it’s not the male human.
YEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Not hard to see why someone would legitimately want to withdraw for a while after developing a crush on a friend. That’s quite different from feigning friendship to get in close proximity to someone, then doing the passive aggressive ‘she freindzoned me’ routine once it’s clear that isn’t going to work.
Troll,
If you’re shocked by what people do to get off and rely on your friends to tell you about it, might I direct you to one of the many porn sites on the intrawebs? You can get a glimpse yourself. Or you could read a history book because getting off is not new. You might want to have your fainting couch ready though.
Nice try at slut shaming. Those things women sometimes do for fun sexy times? They aren’t shameful. They’re a fucking riot and those of us who dig doing them are not ashamed. Nor should we be. You just can’t handle all those sour grapes.
*supposed
Proper grammar is clearly misandry, fit only for manginas.
Manosphere hero or villain? You decide.
http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o575/MewMew1989/12439054_503196683207852_2679168595630803364_n_zpswb4abk8j.jpg
What’s so bad about being a single woman? I am one, have been for nearly half a century now. I can actually recommend it, or at least recommend it over the company of an idiotic/abusive/you name the dealbreaker dude.
And, for that matter: What’s so bad about a woman wanting a raise? Have you priced the cost of living lately? It’s not exactly cheap. Especially if you’re a woman, because then you not only get paid only 70 cents on a man’s dollar, you also so often end up paying extra for “feminine” versions of things that don’t need to be gendered, like unscented deodorant, or razorblades, or ballpoint pens.
But somehow, I doubt any of that has filtered through to you. I mean, you ARE so remarkably lacking in perspicacity, old son.
In short: Weaksauce troll, 2/10, would not bang. (Except maybe in the literal sense, with a paddle.)
Don’t blame the syntax. I don’t think most people feel dehumanized by “young intellectuals.”
(see also worthies, bravos, whatever the plural of “religious” is, etc.)
Reg came in here, threw some shit around, and then strutted about like he won something. Wow. Much troll. So butthurt. Such anger.
“Oh, just imagine what I said and get mad at that!” He said, as though the entire forum wasn’t looking at each other and laughing amongst themselves.
http://40.media.tumblr.com/8c43ba7c0d9d20676e93fcdc4b3d2cc3/tumblr_mf5z15BS8h1qdmmo5o4_500.png
Hit harder grandpa, this particular feminist can’t get off on this weak garbage trolling.
I think we need a Troll Fluffer. The Fluffer will get the troll’s quickie out of the way so they last longer and perform better.
Because I cannot handle all our trolls blowing their weak loads so quick. I need some meat on the bone.
Having read this nauseating hatchet job of elephantine proportions, I must conclude, by way of reason and prior experience, that the author has little experience in that of which he speaks, and I find it lamentable that he continues to speak, in such fashion, at levels which are inversely proportionate to this degree of experience (or, if you would prefer, “lack thereof”). I shall examine his statements at a length most appropriate to their merits and, in the process of this investigation, excavate by way of reason the fallacies contained therein, thereby illuminating the faults in his slippery cogitations.
It is, first and foremost, profoundly inaccurate to characterize human interactions as though they were anything but transactions occurring for the explicit purpose of satisfying the multitude of mankind’s illimitable needs and wants. Naturally, sexual and interpersonal relations fall within the range of these boundless desires, and humans, driven as they are by a set of biological adaptations acquired throughout the millennia to satisfy these wants, construct systems of relations with one another based around the limited material means through which to pursue these desires. These relations often take the familiar (and, to date, most successful) form of a society in which men compete over a limited number of women, so that they might satisfy their urges to procreate with the largest number of women possible, thereby ensuring the survival of their offspring, and in which women stand as the primary beneficiaries of male labor, often copulating with the most successful males that their sexual market value can afford them.
Try as men might, they cannot overcome their biological programming; the invisible hand of human evolution has driven man thus to search out physical companionship with the multitude of available women, and this is a fact which is so deeply ingrained in him, one can scarcely see him overcoming it in the foreseeable future. In a manner similar to his ancestors, man is driven to lavish upon the fairest of the fairer sex the visible and tangible extent of his resources, in hopes of procuring the favor of those he finds most appealing.
What visible impact does this have on our modern society? Simple; those whom you deride as ‘nice guys’ are simply those who do not have the material means to properly secure the interest of a desirable woman. Thus, they attempt to leverage their personalities and so favorably incline their behaviors towards the objects of their affections in order to gain the trust and, should fortune permit, affections of the women that they find most attractive. In so doing, they are not committing to any wrongdoing; they are simply making the best of the available means they have at their disposal. This is, quite simply put, an economic transaction, and one that is built upon so steadfast a base that no mere insinuations that one should somehow overcome it and ‘make friends’ shall displace it.
In summary, what you are bearing witness to is completely natural and a product of human biology; all economic systems are in part developed with these aspects of immutable human nature as their foundations, and you are no more within your rights to condemn a man for putting forth his best immaterial resources (friendship, personality, etc.) as currency in his search for female companionship, as you are in condemning any other sort of male organism for doing likewise. It is simple science, and you would do well to heed its counsel.
What was Regford even responding to? It seemed like a long rambly non sequitur. And that joke about feminists being another word for single was funnier when “suffragette” was used instead of “feminist”. I’m kidding, it was never funny.
“The majestic trolls of yore”
Dibs on the band name.
I know I’m always late to the party, but here’s the late news flash:
You don’t need sex to be happy nor to prove that you are a “REAL MAN”.
Besides, friendships are formed naturally, not through force or because you want something from that person.
Question: If a guy is asexual is automatically a vagina, or can he not be a vagina if he refuses to be friends with women?
At first I thought Chandler was being facetious, now it seems they are a long winded troll that oversimplifies human relationships just like the Redditor in the OP. I just skipped past the rest of their post once they said all human relationships were like economic exchanges. Bleh, what a dim view of humanity.
I feel kind of sorry for these people who can’t be friends with women. It just sounds to me like they can’t be friends with anyone, men or women (or genderfluid, but I think with attitudes like theirs, that’s a given). I’m a woman and I have male friends, one of which I’ve been friends with since we were 8. We have good times together and with other friends playing board games and going mini golfing.
Skybison: Trick question, there are no asexual men, just as lesbians don’t exist.