Red Pill ExampleThe proud feminists of AskWomen shamefully admit that they get horny for Dark Triad men. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by needsomehelp3211

Thread here.

Remember askwomen? That subreddit where everyone proclaims to be a stalwart feminist who needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle? Get a load of this thread. Someone asked "what are you ashamed to admit that you're attracted to?", and it filled up with Redpill truths.

I guess I'm just embarrassed that I'm attracted to authority figures. Anyone with control over others (in a generally positive way) gives me a ladyboner, even if they're not that attractive. This manifests itself in several different ways.

Yes, and this isn't surprising at all. Women love guys who are dominant and control them. It's been that way for eons.

I'm super attracted to guys that look... I don't know. Dirty? Used up? Like they're coming off a three day coke binge and would probably give me diseases. I have no idea why.

This screams Dark Triad. Sociopathic, controlling, doesn't really care about her welfare. She fucking loves it.

I am chronically "hot for teacher." Professional, established, middle-aged man smarter than god and knows it? In a position of power? Kind of self-absorbed? Emotionally distant? Makes me eager to please and I love it.

No honey, it's not the teacher part. It's the power part.

I'm attracted to men who aren't completely available. I figure it's to continually relive my relationship with my dad.

Again, a fundamental redpill truth. Don't pay attention to her and she'll worship the ground you walk on, if you're hot.

I'll admit I'm a total sucker for the bad boy who's secretly good thing. Like not so much in real life, but for movies/tv shows/books? If there's a character that's kind of an asshole, but then has a redemption arc I'm hooked on him.

Dark Triad at its core.

My fiance is a good guy good guy and I really love him, our life together is great ...but then I talk to the dirty long haired pot smoking mechanics at work and it makes me miss fucking up my life by dating them. Stupid.

Alpha fux, beta bux. I feel so bad for the fiancΓ©, this girl should be ashamed of herself. But she's not. "Her priorities changed", that's why she's with her quiet and submissive fiancΓ©!!!! She's just "mature" now!! Right guys?

This thread has it all, gentlemen. Read all of it. No matter how much women squawk about equal rights and feminism, they don't want equality because they are not biologically capable of it. They want to be led and they want to obey.

Of course, these same women will probably log onto Reddit tomorrow again and start complaining about how RedPill is just a bunch of lying mysoginistic neckbeards. But there's female rationalization for ya.

[–]thredditsowaway 182 points183 points  (29 children)

The honesty in that thread is actually admirable. Not only do they admit their true motivations, they admit that they're immoral and dishonorable in many cases.

That said, one useful observation: not all these men are leaders, not all these men are massively successful, not all of them are socially powerful. The common thread is actually in what they are NOT: followers.

The same woman could get turned on the same way by the "hot for teacher" professor and the "pot smoking mechanics" on the same day. The key thing is that these are people who don't follow the herd and aren't invested in the reactions that others have to their actions. They form their own opinions and go their own way. Sometimes they lead others, sometimes they only lead themselves.

[–]SelfMadeMonarch[🍰] 108 points109 points  (13 children)

There's a legitimate theory that power structures in hierarchical animals are defined by the level of autonomy a participating agent has. Power isn't the ability to control others, it's the ability to resist being controlled.

[–]thredditsowaway 24 points25 points  (8 children)

This definitely supports the notion that part of being "alpha" is "not following others." I didn't know about this theory before, thanks.

[–][deleted] 49 points50 points  (1 child)

In my humble opinion this is the reason why people are against posts that beg for certain steps on "how to become alpha", "please tell me an alpha career" and so on. Not because it's an intangible concept but because when you follow a "step by step" almost recipe-like process to achieve it you're basically fulfilling a guide you were given, not a guide that you crafted from your own calculations and conclusions. You could basically follow a "guideline to alpha" without necessarily knowing why.

Last but not least a personal anecdote: During my betamax days, back when I had girls dragging me around while I was "enjoying" the friend zone, I was out with a girl who was professional dancer for dinner. At one night she told me of a guy who worked at a small shop where they sell cigarettes and newspapers and she was so full of admiration for him. The reason was because of "his ability to go to the beach on his own with a book in his hand and just enjoy reading under the sun with no fucks given". And I vividly recall myself mentioning how awkward it would feel because most people go down the beach with friends or girlfriend. He was obviously not one of them.

[–]thredditsowaway 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good point. Maybe one could say that being alpha is literally just doing what you want without giving any fucks. Doesn't automatically make you attractive but it's the right mentality. Combine it with lifting and social skills and you've got high SMV.

I used to have the same fear of doing things alone but something that's helped greatly is pushing myself to do those things. I have a friend who is very naturally alpha and I picture him laughing at me if I were to admit to that fear. It's almost gone now.

[–]FerrusMan 8 points9 points  (1 child)

I think it's even more than part of it. It's one of the most important parts of being alpha, being a leader. Now obviously we can't all be THE leader all the time, but it's more about leading by example, confidently and in charge of yourself. Others will follow you automatically when you do it right. Mostly, it's about being the leader with her.

[–]thredditsowaway 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's about being a leader regardless of how many people are following you. If you're alone, it means guiding yourself. If you're with a girl, it means guiding her. If you're in a group, then it means leading the group. That's why we can see guys who are total loners be labelled as "alpha" in some cases.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Does that make MGTOW the most alpha towards women?

[–]thredditsowaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A man who plays the seduction game by his own rules (refusal of commitment before sex, acceptance of the value of dating younger girls, and so forth), while acknowledging the reality of the marketplace (lifting is critical, style dictates how you are perceived, etc) and does so without seeking or needing the approval of others is what is most attractive to women. Without attaching a title to it, that's what TRP generally advocates.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It certainly explains the Alpha/Sigma discrepancy.

[–]1Snivellious 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This actually makes a lot of sense. Power structures aren't strictly tree-shaped, so looking for the "most dominant" is something of a futile task. Looking to minimize who's "above" a person is a much clearer task, and it helps allow for things like the autonomy of a medicine man vs a chief.

Thanks for pointing out this possibility.

[–]GuruDev1000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's actually quite relieving if you think about it. That means men will stop picking fights in the process of being alpha as they won't need to lead other men. They just need to prevent themselves from being led to look alphaβ€”and that usually doesn't lead to fights.

[–]PeppermintPig 29 points30 points  (6 children)

That said, one useful observation: not all these men are leaders, not all these men are massively successful, not all of them are socially powerful. The common thread is actually in what they are NOT: followers.

Great slice of wisdom right there.

Those women who attempt to champion an ideal of injustice between the sexes are insincere about their motivations the more fervently they go about demonstrating it.

If differences between the sexes cannot be demonstrated through scientific fact, and consideration for individuals who do not follow the herd is not granted, then these sorts of archetypical straw men that attempt to idealize the perfect man or woman, or more typically attempt to typify the least flattering view of the opposite sex, then what you have is not a road to recovery but an attempt to cover up the truth with bigotry and victimhood masquerading as some noble truth. Who wants to live their life championing that kind of delusion? It only leads to misery and bitterness. Admitting to fault is vitally important no matter the sex, but only as a means of discovering a way to improve.

[–]thredditsowaway 24 points25 points  (5 children)

From what I can gather, the major argument made by the "gender theory" feminists is that it might be painful trying to override our social programming/biological imperative (ie, for a man to willingly become more feminine at the expense of any sort of reasonable sex life) but that it is noble to do so because the present/prehistoric state of affairs is somehow "wrong." They hope that one day we can live in a genderless world and then we'll all be happy again, but it will take a few generations of pain in order to get there.

In summation, they expect nothing short of martyrdom from us. The answer is No.

[–]PeppermintPig 19 points20 points  (0 children)

My answer would also be no. They can hold whatever belief they want, and I'll continue to make my own choices. I will not be a contributing member of some collective guilt trip. It is absolutely toxic to the building of an individual's character. It's prejudice, pure and simple.

[–]2elysius 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Not just feminists, that's the entire point of Progressivism, known in the US as the liberals. It is an entire social and political system based on destroying the previous/traditional/natural order and replacing it with one that's "fairer", doesn't matter how many lies they tell or lives they ruin to achieve that.

Also, spoiler alert: it's not going to work.

[–]aggressivejoe 11 points12 points  (2 children)

I hate calling it "progressive", because it implies progress. "Progressives" are really just Marxists that changed their name when being called Marxist became somewhat of a slur in the 50s. Just like all Marxism, it looks great on paper and in ivory tower discussions, but is horrible in reality.

[–]thredditsowaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can seriously feel my blood pressure spike when someone says "progressive" or "enlightened" or the like. OH MY GOD. One might say such language is... triggering.

[–]DrXaos 18 points19 points  (3 children)

What's remarkably different with men is that the personalities of women they are most attracted to are also the ones with the best character for long term relationships, and the best person overall.

Obnoxious screw ups, snobs or skanks are never ever more desirable on account of their nasty personalities, either for relationships or fucking.

No man with an awesome LTR really wants to give attention and resources (a man's scarce provision) to a bad woman.