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.
YES, thank you, yes. Can you imagine what the conversations would be like? “Hey, want to come over and watch Daredevil?” “Will you touch my penis?” “Uuh, not sure, but probably no?” “Well then NO.” Fun!
And of course the sex would also suck,since it would all be about what he wanted. So pretty much a suckfest 24/7.
Binjabreel
Yep! Not only that, but probably sits in front of his steam-punkified computer monitor in horn-rimmed glasses (or possibly just the frames), a tweed jacket with suede patches on the elbows, his meerschaum pipe on one side, his manly drink on the other (doesn’t matter what, it’s an on-the-rocks glass with caramel-colored liquid, ice optional) surrounded by leather-bound scholarly volumes with a suitably exotic skull in a bell-jar behind him on the shelf.
IOW, an upscale Davis Aurini.
@Three Snakes
He’s the hero we deserve, but not the one we need right now… actually, scratch that – do you have his number? xP
(long time reader, first time poster)
This seems to work conversely too, i.e. if a woman initiates sex when the man doesn’t want it, he feels like his masculinity is being assaulted and blames her.
That is a generalisation based on ‘anecdata’ from my own personal heterosexual experiences of the effects of toxic masculinity. It is only recently, from reading here and elsewhere, that I’ve realised the probable cause of my negative experiences. I have at times felt there was something wrong with my libido due to the bad reactions I’ve received from all my long-term partners (besides my current wonderful, understanding partner)
From the very first time I tentatively suggested ‘it would be nice if, maybe, we had sex more often…’ to my first boyfriend who then started yelling and shoved me off the bed onto the floor, I have always been very positive in my sexual advances, never demanded, never demeaned anyone, never actively elicited guilt.. Yet the pattern of behaviour ranging from anger to barely-concealed anger to shame (then projected onto me) across all my long term relationships seems, to me, symptomatic of this toxic idea that masculinity orientates around sex. Also, that sex orientates around a man’s desires rather being a mutual experience for both to enjoy together.
Sorry if that was a bit long-winded, I just wanted to highlight another manifestation of toxic masculinity that I rarely see discussed. The part about blaming women when their masculinity feels threatened seemed a really important point
@Saphia
Not necessarily! While our nomad ancestors probably didn’t have reliable birth control, woman most likely nursed for far longer than we do, sometimes up to five years! Lactation is a surprisingly efficient form of birth control. In a less positive note, many nomadic tribes probably practiced some form of infanticide. Because you’re right, when you have to walk everywhere all the time and forage for food, it’s difficult to parent multiple small children even if the whole tribe was pitching in (as they most likely were).
While of course it’s difficult to study the sexual habits of people who didn’t write anything down, studies of modern-day nomadic people show that many of them practice various forms of multi-male-multi-female mating (monogamy seems to be the exception rather than the norm for various reasons). One of my favorites is a group who believe that women should have sex with different men in an effort to give their children the best qualities–so they would have sex with the best hunter, the best leader, the best storyteller, and so on in the hopes that the child would inherit all those things.
That said, evo-psych annoys the bejesus out of me. Why is it that every time someone makes assumptions about our caveman ancestors, they seem to think that groups of diverse people living 10,000+ years ago automatically fall in to 1950’s-style gender roles?
@Three Snakes: Oooh, my lucky day!
On topic: It never ceases to amaze me how dudes will drive women out of their spheres of interest, then whine how they can never meet women, and how women and men can’t be friends because they don’t share interests.
@TheDreadVampy
Indeed, for about half of humanity, reproduction actually reduces the likelihood of individual survival.
Possible TMI, but kinda, yeah. I mean, I don’t bring it up much, because of lack of reciprocal interest, but to be totally honest my brain does a rather sketchy job of differentiating affection and attraction.
@Mockingbird
Huh, when I heard about that I thought they were the biggest bunch of jackasses under the sun. I’ve encountered worse jackassery since then, but that hasn’t improved my opinion of them.
@Dizzy
Not to mention herbal abortifacients, and sex acts with no reproductive possibility.
To be wholly fair, me too. I do have friends I’m not super interested in banging because they exist more as family, but they’re in the minority. And there are the sort of “friends” who are more…people who’s presence you don’t object to but wouldn’t seek out, which realistically is where a lot of these guys end up.
@Dali – In fairness, I was in my teens and it just kind of barely registered. I picked up that they were banging drums, talking about their childhoods, and crying.
My thoughts about it ended around, “Huh, well…if it makes them happy, good for them!”
Shorter Chandler:
http://i.imgur.com/dElJJkJ.png
Women are awful because biology! Men and women can’t be friends because penises!
[/shortening]
I laughed harder than I should have at that. Especially considering the massive city I’m trying to build (but keep getting distracted with detailing).
Hambeast;
In my head, I was starting a mantra of needs a skull, Needs A Skull, NEEDS A SKULL as I was reading, and you did not disappoint! That was some cathartic pay off, if I may say so. XD
…I got unreasonably excited over that reference.
LordPabu – You are welcome!
Actually, I was thinking something suitably pretentious and Victorian like a cheetah skull.
That whole screed I wrote is what my brain was picturing while trying to read that particular piece of prose. It was so purple, it faded in and out of the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, I swear!
Is David Futrelle still a virgin? Because this piece reads like he is.
Not surprisingly, a very scanty number of you were actually capable of dealing with the substance of my arguments, which is not altogether surprising, given that I held a very dim view of your collective reading comprehension from the start. You are the sort of people who complain about others having “privilege” while you yourselves would refuse a generous gift because the box in which it came did not suit your liking. Pity.
And yes, I did at one time use a marble bust of Caligula as my picture on an account, much like the one I have on my bookcase (which does not, by any means, contain scholarly leather-bound works, but does contain the works of Gibbons, Toynbee, Bede, Thomas Malthus, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Ludwig von Mises, Otto Weininger, Julius Evola, Oswald Spengler, and other luminaries that the lot of you would do well to acquaint yourselves with). What of it?
Given how loosely the word “science” is used these days, I would think it appropriate for one to properly denote what they mean by “science” before proclaiming to be one of its practitioners; for all I know, the “scientists” amongst you might simply be those who have majored in something like anthropology, sociology, or the like.
Cool story, bro.
That problem where you’ve lovingly filled your bookshelves with carefully-selected pretentious shit, and then you realize the people you wank at on the internet can’t see it.
Awwwwww, adorable, it thinks Nietzsche is impressive. Who’s surprised? The only impressive thing about having read Nietzsche is having the ability to wade through his neck-deep pretension, God complex and lack of self awareness. Kind of like Chandler themself.
Like, OMG, that’s sooooooooooooo clever – I haven’t heard similar a billion times from a 15-year-old!
So, the mostly speculative (i.e. bullshit) armchair philosophy of Ludwig von Mises is worthy of consideration but not Franz Boas or Émile Durkheim?
I can’t help but think you’re just a fucking moron whose able to “sound” smart. You may as well’ve just copy-pasted The Architect’s monologue from Matrix Reloaded – your posts are just as pretentious yet nonsensical.
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
Chandler, unless you have a degree in human evolutionary biology (which I am pretty confident you don’t) you have no qualification to speak on these matters, and we don’t respond to your arguments because they are pulled from your ass.
See how few words it can take to make a point?
Heh. You’re adorable.
To save time, you should just cut to the chase and admit that you’re an insufferable pseudo-intellectual reactionary. Plus you’re laying it on a bit thick by the time you get to Evola and Spengler, you may want to dial down the crackpottery.
I would explain to Chandler that I’m a bona fide STEM scientist, but I doubt he’d believe me, given that I have a vagina.
@WWTH
Love it.
Sorry for the double post, but the edit window ran out.
@Starfury
Is that what that is? I could not for the life of me understand why my ex would start screaming at me when I’d try to snuggle up to him sometimes.
Also, welcome!
Sorry for the delay, I have no excuse, I wasn’t even trolling. I don’t remember how I got to this site. Anyway there are too many feminists to defeat them, it’s just a word, you know, like ‘occupant’, even my son says ‘I consider myself a feminist’, he can’t get it through his thick modern head that the real breasted feminists are snickering behind his back.
Anyhoo, I really said it wrong when I said “Feminist just means single”, it was pointed out to me that this wit is from the 70s; hey, that’s when I invented the phrase, he he.
My serious error is that I did not *update* the meaning of single. This will include many more than feministas.
People live long now and those who sign a marriage licence at 25 are sentenced to >60 years in marital prison.
Are single feminists = lesbians or man-haters?? I rather doubt it. No, here is what you can self-identify as::: “one-bdrm suite dweller”.
And there you shall stay. You will have no children. Your parents are dead or just someone you met long ago. You have many relations on Facebook, but they will never invite you to visit their house , and soon enough they will be in cells like you.
When you travel on transit you are struck that 95% are unattractive and you wonder if you are joining their joyless majority with every aging day. You have a cat and don’t much notice that you leave it alone all day, without wondering if this is actually the ‘right’ thing to do. You hate your female boss because you can’t con her like the old guy that got laid off.
That’s what single is; now you know.
I don’t have the answer. I see no way out of the trap.
And anyway I’m in the wrong forum; I’m actually in action to Troll the transgendered. You despise them too but won’t admit it; feel free to recommend a good url where I can go and wreak mayhem among the gender fraudsters. Troll should always be capitalized as a mark of respect.