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.
@ jmc7r
Indeed. I was just joking because I share those sentiments.
But I’ve loved GM’s work since back in his 2000AD days. He’s a great writer generally; but obviously I especially love his animal rights related works. WE3 made me cry.
@Alan:
Yeah, it was sort of like The Plague Dogs with heavy ordinance.
To the two gentlemen above this comment.
I’ve been a fan of Morrison’s since high school. Although I came to him through his traditional superhero stuff. First Morrison comic I bought: JLA#16 I was of an age & into comics when Wizard was at its peak. And Morrison was one of the hottest writers of the era.
This suggests tunnel vision on my part, but my favorite of the genre’s he works in is his metacommentary, the comics about comics. Flex Mentallo, etc. I’ve been reading “Supergods” once a year since it came out in paperback.
@ jmc7r
You may find this interesting. Grant’s contributions starts at 12 minutes in; but it’s probably worth a watch of the whole thing if you’re interested in comics.
Grant does do ‘meta’ very well. I like when he inserts himself into his own works in a really unflattering way.