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.
Oh, the preening of the ignorant trolls! Spring has truly begun. Note the deep purple of their prose and their shoddy attempts at reason. Hear their majestic calls, “You’ll regret not flocking to my sad boner one day! Ooooonnnnne daaaaay!”.
Isn’t nature hilarious to behold?
PolicyOfMadness, someday I hope to be as awesome as you.
I’m hoping Chandler is genuine. That would make him even more hilarious.
kupo:
*throaty growl of an apex predator*
That’s such greglandian thing to say.
But frankly, Regford’s posts read like regexp has been involved, along with some rnd() and array functions.
@calmdown
Much, thank you. XD. @Chandler, see? It’s possible to express your very same thought without throwing in pointless dependent clauses and archaic expressions.
So I’m way behind the times here, but I just picked up some of the Avatar: The Last Airbender graphic novels and I’m enjoying the heck out of them. Anybody else reading anything fun?
Chandler:
You’re repetitive, and that makes you somewhat repetitive.
Oh, does only one of them mean “I see injustice but don’t give a fuck”? Which of the two do you adhere to more, and why?
Where are all the people claiming, assuming, marketing for and generally reinforcing the notion that boys aren’t that interested in STEM?
We weren’t waiting for your permission, pal. You have to come up with something fresh.
I’m just going to imagine that Chandler looks like this. It makes it more fun.
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/06/06-jonathan-winters-monocle.w529.h529.jpg
I’m listening to Felicia Day’s own reading of her own book, “You’re Never Weird on the Internet (Almost)”. It has me walking around chortling to myself at work.
I found that imagining his comments being delivered by Yu-Gi-Oh’s Pegasus’ pretentious anime villain voice made the experience of reading them vastly more entertaining.
Ooh, that sounds good. I love when funny people do readings of their work.
I’ve never gone in for audiobooks, probably because I was working in a bookstore just as they were becoming A Thing, and at that point they cost probably 4 times as much as the source trade paperback. I can probably let go of that decade-old prejudice now.
Edit: I know books on tape have been around far longer than that, but they became a fad on CD at that time. I think the first Harry Potter audiobooks were coming out around then, and they cost a bloody fortune.
As someone who is majoring in anthropology, could Chandler explain why he seems to view anthropology and sociology as something less than ”real” science?
You seem to believe that your post was a gift and we should be grateful you have shared your thoughts with us. Frankly, the presentation sucked. Your posts have been pretty much limited to ”look at me, I know big words”. Congratulations, enter a spelling bee. Complicated words don’t mean you’re intelligent. From my experience, the most intelligent people are the ones who get their point across speaking like normal human beings and not trying to show off how many words they can fit in a sentence. I get the feeling you’re not actually trying to convince the posters here of anything, you just like reading what you wrote and it strokes your ego.
I don’t know if you’re trolling or you really are that pretentious.
Oh yeah, audiobooks are much cheaper now, especially if you get an Audible membership. Not having to deal with CDs any more is a huge plus, too. (Wheeeeee, I can do my hoarding in the Amazon cloud instead of my house!)
[Emphasis mine]
Well then by all means, share these numbers of which you speak and show us your equations. Because I’ll bet whatever you’d like that even if you can produce some actual equations that you think support your “analysis,” they’ll be about half as useful as Drake’s Equation.
You know, for someone who was quite happy to denigrate the soft sciences in a previous post, it’s pretty stupid to try and claim you’ve done some sort of quantitative analysis on a set of perceived social ills. But hey, at least you can spell and use grammar correctly! You deserve a participation trophy!
Maybe you can add it to your bookshelf, right next to your slim volume of Yeats…
Don’t worry, everyone. Chandler’s collection of Gibbons, Toynbee, Bede, Thomas Malthus, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Ludwig von Mises, Otto Weininger, Julius Evola, Oswald Spengler, and other “luminaries” will save him from the zombie objectivist flensers. The most important survival skill is misogyny.
Why do euphoric edgelord dudes all have the exact same cookie-cutter reading list? I’m surprised Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, and Ayn Rand aren’t in there.
I’ve got the strangest feeling that the reason you and your ilk get on so well with Nietzsche is his repeated assertions that if you disagree with him it’s because you JUST DON’T GET IT HE’S TOO SMART FOR MORTAL MINDS. I mean, I’ve read Nietzsche. Then I relegated his works to the bathroom in my dad’s house, which is where all my family’s books mysteriously seem to end up when they’re too pretentious, self-aggrandizing or ridiculously verbose and deliberately inaccessible. I fully understand why Nietzsche is so popular with assholes and it’s not because the rest of us just haven’t bothered to comprehend his genius.
Buttercup, there was a post on Return of kings, where they were discussing a translation of The Art of War. And it was very cute, considering none of the people commenting had read it in mandarin or classical Chinese,nor were they people who translated for a living. But they were so smug about having read two different translations.
It was a pretty good description of the whole PUA, MRA, whatever-A movement: they rarely have any idea what they’re talking about, but they’ll be so pleased with themselves for talking about it. Since men are just born with all kinds of knowledge and the penis makes you a genius on every topic.
Carr,
It reminds me of a post we had maybe last year about a PUA who tried to mansplain to the woman he was targeting about the field she worked in. He was bragging about how bored and disengaged she was with him. He assumed it was because she was ignorant and only employed in the field because of the pussy pass and he was overwhelming her with his genius. At no point did it occur to him that she was just contemptuous of him because he was full of shit.
Unfortunately, I know people like this. If you present your arguments, you’re stupid and don’t know what you’re talking about, because they just know that they’re right. Sure, they haven’t read anything that might come close to a peer reviewed article on the topic they’re discussing, but they read a blog post about it once. And even if they haven’t read a blog post, they just know, because they have so much life experience.
And if you don’t bother to discuss with them, because why bother, you’re stupid, because you couldn’t refute their umm…arguments.
Speaking of going back to comic books, I just got a new copy of Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics, so I’m having a long overdue re-read to see if it can help me fix up some lacklustre layouts in the graphic novel I’m working on. Plus for my birthday I bought myself an indie anthology called A Graphic Cosmology, which is a collection of nine-page comics about the creation of the universe. It’s a beautiful book and I’m so excited about it!
Her book tour is coming to my area and I am hoping to get a copy signed by the Queen of Geeks herself!! I have a pick n’ mix of anxiety disorders so going to a place with people and interacting with someone I really admire is going to be tough. However, I really feel it’s something I need (and want) to do, so I’m gonna be there no matter what!
@EJ:
Yep!
The only people I know who take him seriously are those who chant “free market” like saying the phrase over and over again makes their arguments valid.
Because he’s a cretinous dumbass, more or less.
Hey, I hadn’t realised divorce had been outlawed! Possibly because, being happily married, I don’t want one, but still, I pride myself on keeping up with current affairs. When did it happen?
Bertrand Russell (philosopher, logician, radical political activist and randy old goat) had Nietzsche’s number. After noting the latter’s frequently expressed contempt for women (“Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip.”), Russell says (A History of Western Philosophy, chapter on Nietzsche):
But von Mises took the precaution of declaring in advance that his ideas were completely immune from empirical refutation, because reasons.
@Nick Gotts:
Bertrand Russell is awesome.
And, yeah, von Mises’ unwarranted self-certitude seems to have rubbed off on Libertarians in general. Perfect example of such? Penn Jillette. The guy never entertains the idea he may be wrong and that others might be right – even when there’s plenty of evidence to prove that, he dismisses it and sticks to his insipid assumption.
No wonder the CATO Institute uses him as an over-glorified cheerleader…
Michelle Bachman is a Von Mises fan. Enough said.