Check out my new blog, My AI Obsession and my latest post there I tried the right-wing chatbot GIPPR, and I don’t think it likes me very much
So many unhealthy ideas about dating and relationships floating around in the PurplePillDebate subreddit! Today, let’s take a quick look at a rather bitter red piller (or perhaps even a little bit of a black piller) explaining to the assembled masses why “relationships are for losers.”
A relationship entails a man having to compensate for his lack of physical attractiveness with other forms of payment for sex.
God forbid anyone have a relationship that isn’t nakedly transactional, where neither partner (whatever their level of conventional physical attractiveness) pays any “form of payment for sex.”
In other words: Relationship are for losers; and this is easy to prove as the ltr-man (a.k.a. physically unattractive/average man) has to provide far more to get sex without getting much else in return, tipping the balance of win/loss towards the loss compared to what a good looking man got from the same woman in a FWB-situation.
Dude, if this is how you think about sex–jotting down notes in a “win/loss” ledger–you’re not likely to actually get any, and even if you do, you’ll end up bitter about it.
I genuinly do not understand how anyone can actually believe that having women give you casual sex is worse than having a relationship with one.
What if you want to be in a relationship because, I don’t know, you’re in love? Or because you like having someone around who you care about and who cares about you, someone you can talk to and do things with? Maybe you don’t feel like spending your life casually dating. Maybe you don’t see relationships as some sort of consolation prize compared to the real prize of casual sex.
Why would anyone downgrade from getting sex for free to going into a relationship and having to provide so much more?
WHAT do you HAVE TO PROVIDE? I’ve been in a variety of relationships of varying seriousness, and I’ve never had to “provide” anything that my partner wasn’t also providing.
Important though is that this only applies to average men because they are unable to get regular sex without a relationship, while good looking men can get the benefits of a relationship with a woman for free, reason being their reluctance to commit.
You realize that good-looking guys also want relationships a lot of the time, right?
Besides that, when you are in a relationship with a woman that did not want casual sex with you, you will know that her FWB’s were far more physically attractive to her than you will ever be.
Why would you think this?
You know that they got the better deal.
Love and sex are not zero-sum games.
What you need to understand is that there are no “true hoes”, at least they are very very rare. There is only women that wanted a good looking man to commit to them, and gave him casual sex in the hopes that he would stay around long enough for her to show her other qualities; even though she would never have been good enough in the first place, so he dumped her.
Well, if you call women who have casual sex “true hoes,” is it any wonder that no women want to have casual sex with you?
The rest of this is just made up. Some women prefer casual sex; some women prefer relationships. It’s not all about women trying to snag an alpha with sex.
So how can women claim that they “love” the man they are in a relationship with? This is nothing else than the woman lying her man into his face about having feelings for him even though they actually had feelings for their FWB; the man they actually wanted.
So much bitterness. Such a mess of made-up nonsense.
Casual sex is fine if that’s what you’re after. Relationships are fine if that’s what you’re after. The only loser here is the person who convinces himself that relationships are a “downgrade” from casual sex and somehow a terrible burden on men.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
The way they insist on the terminology of ‘giving/being given sex’ is revolting no matter how many times I see it. I would never touch any man with a ten foot pole if I knew he viewed sex as something to be ‘given.’
I thought he might be aromantic, but he’s probably just a D-bag. Aro people don’t disrespect others like this.
@freneticferret
It really shows their mindset that they view a woman as someone to be tolerated and used as a means to an end. Mind you they’ve often said as much in clear language.
Behold, the old AFBB canard once again.
Okay—so is what’s the purple pill in Manosphere Pharmacology (I presume they’re not talking about Nexium?)
Truthout sez:
When I’m not under attack myself, it’s things like this that make me want to scream. Where are the war crimes tribunals? These pharma execs and board members have blood on their hands at a scale rivaling Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. The only worse capitalists around are probably the larger arms dealers. Heck, never mind tribunals, where is the torches and pitchforks mob? Does the whole planet need a remedial lesson in the fine art of giving a shit?
Maybe the problem is the music these days. We used to have Tears for Fears. Now we have vapid pop. Very little contemporary music seems memorable to me. I wonder how much of that can be blamed on increasingly concentrated ownership of radio stations, music labels, and so on? Getting all of those in the 80s to keep overtly leftist acts off the public airwaves would have been like herding cats. Not these days. There’s like three or four gatekeepers to getting a traditional album out there, and all owned by zillionaires. Ditto getting radio airplay, and although you can in theory self-publish online, if you want exposure, you will likely have to do so on Amazon, Apple, Spotify, or Soundcloud. The former two are owned by the richest two human beings on the planet, now that Musk has blown a ludicrous amount on Twitter and then rammed it headlong into terrain at Mach 10, and of course it’s easy for any of these platforms’ owners to plausibly-deniably rejigger The Algorithm to bury anything they don’t like way down on the 50th page of search results. The next Tears for Fears is probably somewhere out there … playing gigs in taverns in and around Podunk, Pennsylvania to a cumulative audience measured in the mere thousands, and getting two or three downloads a month from their Soundcloud page, almost all from direct link and type-in traffic. Meanwhile Fox, its equivalents, and talk radio are blaring $(local majority ethnicity)-nationalist conspiracy crackpottery out of half the TVs and radios on the planet, putting the likes of Republicans and Tories and Likud and the BJP in office.
How do we fix that?
@Surplus
The #1 song of 1969 was “Sugar, Sugar” by The Archies. Music has ALWAYS been dominated by manufactured pop crap.
These kinds of people are looking for sex and/or emotional intimacy (usually both). Sometimes they’re looking for children and/or household labor as well (replace “household labor” with “supplementary income” in the case of some women who are like this), though apparently not the OP. These things are “owed” to them, not by the person who they’re dating, but by society as a whole, though they still expect that person to fulfill it on behalf of society. They don’t get much if any joy out of being invested in their partner’s life, and may not even care all that much who they are as a person; providing for that person’s needs and desires or even just being friends with them is “maintenance fees” which they would generally prefer not to “pay” if they can help it, and may even resent being “forced” into doing so.
Some of these people would be happier with better understanding, better communications, and more realistic expectations (though that really goes for people in general, it’s just that these ones are in especially dire need of that). Some need to somehow realize that they aren’t as aromantic and asocial as they were lead to believe, they were just in a bad place in their life and fell into a bad set of beliefs which were holding them back from truly getting what they need from life. Some are just hopeless; what they need is the kind of saint who is just wasted on the likes of them.
And what do I wake up to? News of two mass-casualty terrorist attacks on the Hispanic community in Texas. One fucker drove an SUV up onto a sidewalk and into a crowd in front of a refugee shelter housing Venezuelans, and the other shot up a crowd of Latinx shoppers at some mall in a manner rather reminiscent of the El Paso massacre a few years back.
It’s gotta stop. When do we (collectively) quit wringing our hands, dust off a lot of defendants’ docks, and start rounding up Nazis?
Not sure why I would stay in a 12-year relationship without love. Do you know how many hours a day I spend with this man? No one is that good an actor.
@Surplus to Requirements: Here in the US we have the situation where approximately ¼ of the people want the kind of severe restrictions on guns which most other countries have, if not banned outright, ½ of them want guns to be more restricted than they are already in most states, but not quite to that extent; and ¼ want virtually no restrictions plus a right for white people to murder any minority for merely the suspicion of having a gun. Guess which group mostly wins out? If we can’t fix that problem, despite about ¾ of the population wanting it fixed, what makes anyone think that we can fix the Nazi problem?
One can blame the Democrats, of course. They’ve chosen to, for the time being, largely capitulate in those areas in favor of focusing on LGBTQIA+ rights, the environment, and fixing economic messes created by the Republicans. But on the other hand, it was a common complaint in the past that the Dems were too unfocused, resulting in almost nothing getting done, and this increased focus is at least an improvement, even if not a whole lot is still getting done due to constant obstruction. One can also blame the Republicans, for failing to get anyone elected except those who are bomb-throwing chaos goblins and those who are unwilling to stand up to them. But that’s what the younger conservative voters want, and a lot of the older ones are still clinging to the notion that the Republican party of their youth still exists today, so it’s not like you’re realistically getting anything else.
@Snowberry
They’ve done basically fuckall on any of those either. The next major legislation Democrats pass will be the first since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.
Just here to spread a a hot take: this incredible “alpha male” influencer gets his sad-behind-the-scenes laundry aired.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sadcringe/comments/13a6t8r/understand_the_game/
“Purple pill?!” Like, they can’t even choose between the red and blue pill, and have to compromise? What a joke.
Fenton: YOW! I hope that sex-worker doesn’t get any heat for blowing that little secret…
@Fenton:
im 40 and I don’t date girls over 24
my girlfriends are 20, 21, and 24.
…Does Girlfriend #3 realize that she’s about to age out, I wonder?
And the OP’s rotten judgment of age echoes the sort of dudebros who’ll point to a girl as an example of a natural look, without all those vain and deceitful cosmetics—while makeup-users in the audience can rattle off the fifteen products she used to achieve the look; the keenest aficionados can sometimes identify the brand and color.
@Viscaria: I have no real world experience at being in a loveless marriage. But at least in books about arranged marriages among the nobility and rich yuppies, neither spouse needed to act long term. They were both transparent that the marriage was simply about politics and raising the heirs.Assuming said heirs were successfully produced, they often wouldn’t bother spending any more time together.
Ancient Rome had a law that, if someone had an affair, the offended spouse was entitled to kill them. But they only had a limited time in which to do so (usually one month). If they chose not to, then that was seen as a sign that they were cool about it. So it was socially acceptable to invite the lovers to parties together and the like.
I am now back from my soiree in Hong Kong; so I think it’s probably ok to talk about it. A UK Govt peep said I should trash my phone. But I can’t see why. The Chinese Govt were lovely. They even put an app on my phone so I could get free internet.
But anyway, what I thought people might find interesting is this.
The purpose of the visit was to train some young barristers over there. We have a scheme where barristers from different countries help train with local Bars. So there was me from the UK, and then someone from Singapore, Malaysia, Mainland China, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. We work with the local Bar; and then they come and work with us etc. That way we can see how we all do it and try to adopt the respective best practices.
But this was one of the exercises (apologies for the language but that’s the local vernacular)…
We train with real judges. So when the first pupil said “So may I ask the court to address my client using female pronouns” they were met by a robust “No”.
So the next day I wore my Middle Temple Pride, and anti judicial bullying badges.
The locals laughed and said I must really want a job in a football making factory. We did though have a discussion later about colonialism and respecting local mores. I appreciate for people living those experiences it’s not an academic debate; but obviously these are topics we need to discuss.
As it happens I’ve just unpacked and my badges have somehow vanished from my bag. I’m sure there’s a perfectly non suspicious reason for that.
Oh, and I also got to fulfil my ambition of having a Kung Fu fight on a Hong Kong rooftop (what can I say, I love those films).
I can’t wait though until next time one of the threads is about MRAs and how they think Asian women are submissive. I believe I may have some counterpoints.
I won’t do any spoilers except to say, fuck around with a Kowloon girl and you’ll be lucky if the authorities find your body.
@Alan Robertshaw
I may just be generalizing about slender bald men
But dude you look A LOT like Grant Morrison
@Dave
Oh, absolutely right, everything you’ve said. However, the post discussed in the OP says:
Which reads to me as every woman in a monogamous m/f relationship who claims to love her partner is actually lying. I’m still telling my husband I love him on the reg, so this post would suggest that I haven’t let the mask slip in over a decade.
My hat really goes off to women who have been in seemingly loving m/f relationships for multiple decades. Such acting. Such dedication to the craft.
@ jmc7r
Thank you; that’s a flattering comparison! Grant though is some pagan weirdo who is constantly banging on about animal rights and veganism.
As you probably have all already seen, the jury in Trump’s defamation case has found for the Plaintiff. Specifically they have found he sexually assaulted his victim (so $3M damages for that) and also assaulted her by battery ($2M for that).
They held he didn’t actually rape her. But that is actually good for the Plaintiff. Mixed verdicts show that the jury considered the evidence properly, applied a high threshold*, and weren’t biased. So that makes them nigh on impossible to appeal.
(* Although civil cases apply the civil standard of proof – ‘more likely than not’ – when the allegations are of a criminal nature, then the jury are directed that the evidence needs to be stronger than if it was a non-criminal allegation. The English example is that, if I say I saw a dog in the local park you might take my word for it. If I say I saw a lion then you may want a photo before you believe me.)
@Alan Robertshaw:
Maybe. But definitely one of the greatest comic book writers of all time