TLDR: Your experience of musicians is shaped by their performance to you, which they know is necessary to get ahead. You are not truly an "insider" to their world, largely because its mostly a boys club. Rather, you are a resource who can only be utilized if musicians make you like them. This is why you are being told and shown the things you want to hear.

Having toured in many bands and occasionally rolled in some fairly high profile circles as well, this aligns a lot with my experiences. However, the key here is that I find your experience of these guys believable, but I am also aware there is a different reality you have not, will not, and are not supposed to experience. Touring music is largely a boys club, especially rock and hip hop. Even at the low level, musicians are performers, and part of that performance is appealing to the audience down to the micro level. That includes appealing to people like you, who would be appalled by a lot of the private conversations I'm sure the nice sweet alphas you meet have. The top musicians would not be where they are if they failed to follow one of the crucial 48 laws of Power: think as you like, but act like others. This book is massively popular within the hip hop community to the point where Roberte Greene even wrote a book about 50 cent. Greene's work, especially 48 laws, is the heart and soul of true redpill imo.

My point here is that a lot of what you are experiencing is a performance unto itself. As u/Atlas_B_Shruggin has said, artists and musicians are often "show ponies" lol.

>Again, this might be just my theory, but it seems like, if you don't HATE women, like TRP does, you don't feel threatened by feminity, you also don't mind women being independent and completely liberated.

No shit, who but a liberated, "independent" woman would fuck an unshowered, unshaven, broke ass dude who lives in a van 8 months out of the year, knowing full well this will only last one night because he is constantly on the road? Also, the feminism these dudes are often encountering is the "sex positive" kind that benefits them because like you said, they are attractive and cannot meaningfully offer commitment.

>All over the internet you read that "a rejection is not a rejection" and that you have to push a girl till she gives up.

Tons of band dudes have this mentality, but it doesn't mean pester an obviously uninterested girl or literally tear her clothes off. It means if you get a no, deescalate and build more comfort before trying again. Lost track of how many t imes I've had to explain this. It's really not a tough concept.

>I explained I'm not interested in sex outside of a relationship, it was met with a complete understanding (and it was one of the guys of the "smoking hot rock star" type too).

A) you got lucky, this could have gone much worse
B) this guy DGAF's because he knows there's other pussy out there, he may have even gotten laid that same day before or after you.

>Once you are really attractive, you don't have to use tricks to become a center of attention.

LOL performance is ALL tricks to become the center of attention. Great performers have simply internalized them one way or the other. You think a good puppeteer lets you see the strings?

>As for said partners, often they are really pretty girls, but - an interesting fact - some musicians pick girls/women who are by no means considered physically attractive, but have certain achievements in their (usually artistic) field.

This happens sometimes, but those girls are almost always getting cheated on with the type of girl you think they don't want for some mind blowing reason. Their gfs are often even aware of it and don't care. Some of them even have another sidepiece, often for weird reasons like not liking to have to sleep alone while their man is on the road, which he usually is. Musicians have unspoken "open" relationships sometimes, with the dude cheating for variety of ONS and the girl having one consistent back burner dude for emotional intimacy/companionship/sex while he's gone.

>I suppose once you have a confidence of a rock star, you don't feel the need to show off that you are able to get a super hot teen babe, huh?

Once again, I am truly mind blown about female projection here. Women simply cannot accept that the motivation for fucking/dating teen babes is almost purely physical pleasure and showing off is a secondary benefit if at all. Women date men to show off status, men date women to fuck a good looking body.

I've known all types of musicians. Ultimately, band dudes are the scum of the earth and should be avoided by women looking for long term commitment and a family. Yes there are exceptions, but chances are you are just enjoying the performance ;)

EDIT: One last example I'll add is the recent wave of outrage at Warped Tour pop punk bands over the last few years. A huge amount of their fan base comes from tumblr, which of course has the unspoken assumption of feminism being a part of their bands views, so of course the bands champion this cause. Then, inevitably, almost every band has a scandal of some girl leaking screen shots of some band member scamming on 15 year old smokin hot jailbait, and the scene goes berzerk as though this hasn't been par for the course on Warped Tour since its inception. The difference is the audience now has evidence of it that can spread in a viral manner, and are mad that their perception of the band was obviously inaccurate.

Thanks, good additions as well.

Iron John - https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-About-Men/dp/0306813769

> Perhaps a love and affection they have never experienced, but can only imagine? As one would imagine heaven. Or some other end state, when there are no end states.

Yes absolutely. For me, as an INFP personality type, I have an inner knowing of an idealized form of love. It's like a union of the divine masculine/feminine. In orgasm, it's like touching the void - getting a glimpse of heaven. I'm also attracted to BDSM where they are consciously exploring altered states of consciousness through sex. So perhaps NiceGuys are just more sensitive/intuitive type of men who through nature/nurture have a proclivity to want a more transcendent experience of love.

> They do seem to have an intense need to be seen as better than other men. But at the same time they are men, so they are not better than other men, in a generic sense. We are all men. We all share male desires. Lacking or pretending to lack male desire, does not make you better than other men. It makes you a eunuch.

Yes. It stems from a belief that they are flawed and not good enough as they are (like most humans). Once he begins to accept his own darkness, normalcy, and most hated parts of himself, he will begin to ground himself in reality. It won't actually remove his idealistic nature of love, it will actually just make him a lot less anxious and needy. He won't need a woman to validate his existence, but he can still enjoy their company.

> Fall from grace? The grace of denial?

Yeah that's one way of describing it. To accept their inner evil so to speak. I'm still healing from this fall which started happening years ago. So I can't say what it looks like on the other side. But I just know it will be ok.

>I'm not quite happy with my dating life, but I'm not sure there's a way for me to be happier. I still feel like I'm doing the best I can... Which is a sad thought, as I'm not doing very well, of course...

If you want to improve your outcomes, you need to change what you're doing. But I think before you get to that point, you need to adjust how you relate to yourself.

>I try to be honest with myself. I don't quite understand why I would "live in the present," when I know full well that there is a tomorrow. I knew since high school that I wanted to go to law school, and I did it, and it seems to be going well for me. I plan. It's who I am. I'm critical of myself when I have something to criticize, because if I'm not, that's dishonest, isn't it? I should know my weaknesses, and account for them, right?

This is what I mean by intellectualization as a defense mechanism. I know it well. Here's an analogy that helped me. Think about how most really hot girls live their lives. They get by on their looks. They focus on their looks. They invest in their looks by going to the gym, curating an impeccable wardrobe, tanning, spending hours on makeup, growing their hair out, etc.

Sure there are exceptions, but in general most people that are gifted in a specific area, tend to over rely on that talent. This is equally true of intelligent people, who place too much importance on being smart, and not enough importance on being themselves. And there is a distinction between your conscious, higher mind, and you as a person.

Getting in touch with your whole self (your sexuality, your unconscious, your body, your emotions) in the present isn't dishonest. Always living the future is. Because it's an escape from where you really are.

Some good books on this are:

The Mindful Path to Self-Compassion

Healing Your Aloneness

Iron John

Anyway, I know how hard this stuff can be. I've worked on it for years and will likely never be finished. And if you are a smart person it can even be harder because your mind will be able to invent very compelling rationalizations for avoiding growth.

> Not that I disagree with them on a lot, but they're a bunch of sad fucks.

Note that these self professed sociopaths agree with them on many ideas. They just don't like the people. Reminds me of some rpers who say they don't mind RP ideas, but don't like TRPers (majority people who subscribe to and get advice from TRP subreddit).

This serves as evidence for my virtue theory: that virtue ethics / valuation is how people judge rpers poorly. Many people don't naturally understand how to moderate behaviour, and to the rest of us this is a sign of lacking virtue. I.e. it's something learned through practice rather than theory. And it seems these people (bpers and self-professed sociopaths) are just criticizing "autistic trpers" for the same reasons. (Autism ==> not understanding how to moderate behaviour)

> Finally, the dark triad worship. I don't cringe often, but this one does it for me. I mean, I get it; I'm awesome, they want to be awesome. But, it's hilarious that they find something categorized as a disorder so appealing. It's like they don't understand that a bunch of people with the same characteristics are incarcerated. It just reeks of that neckbeardism 'women like bad boys'.

IllimitableMan's posts are too long for me to read, but one thing I caught on quickly that even he doesn't want to become DT... and he's the primary person writing about DT on TRP subreddit. I don't think anyone actually does want to become sociopathic. They talk about why sociopaths may have advantages over normal folk. This is no different from Kevin Dutton's own study on psychopaths:

https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Psychopaths-Saints-Killers-Success/dp/0374533989

Does Dutton want to be a psychopath himself, or was this merely a topic of interest?

I'm guessing this self-professed sociopath doesn't read his sources. He probably doesn't have to if he can convince people he does just by sounding confident enough.

Fine, I did your work for you.

Feminism and Masculinities, part of the Oxford Readings in Feminism. Here's the description:

> This Reader provides an international mixture of the best classic foundational pieces and recent key works that investigate masculinity from a feminist perspective. The chapters examine a wide range of topics including gay liberation, the men's movement, black and working-class masculinities, homophobia and the Internet.

One entry is referenced as [11] in this wikipedia entry.

> The link between the biological male sex and the social construction of masculinity was seen by some scholars[10] as a limitation on men's collaboration with the feminist movement. This sharply contrasted with sex role theory which viewed gender as something determined by biological differences between the sexes. Other key elements of the men's liberation movement were the ideas that genders are relational and each cannot exist without the other, and that gender as a whole is a social construction and not a biological imperative. Thus, second-wave profeminist writers[11] were able to explore the interactions between social practices and institutions, and ideas of gender.

This book, Masculinity Studies and Feminist Theory seems to undercut your argument completely. Instead of reinforcing masculine stereotypes, it tries to rethink masculinity.

The Amazon description:

> This collection overturns old paradigms about identity, victimization, and dominant and alternative forms of masculinity to advance new dialogues between masculinity studies and feminist theory.

>How are male power and privilege constituted and represented? What are the effects of men's masculinity on women and men? How can more egalitarian forms of masculinity be fostered? Looking particularly at literature, film, and classroom practices, Masculinity Studies and Feminist Theory links the analysis of masculinities with feminism's ethical and political agenda for the future.

And the Columbia description:

>Why is there so much talk of a "crisis" of masculinity? How have ideas of manhood been transformed by feminism? Does feminism hold the key to the development of more egalitarian forms of masculinity? Masculinity Studies and Feminist Theory addresses central questions about the analysis and construction of masculinity in contemporary society. The volume examines the ways male privilege and power are constituted and represented and explores the effect of such constructions on both men and women. With subjects ranging from Robert Bly's Iron John to Tom Hank's "niceness," this collection overturns old paradigms about identity, victimization, and dominant and alternative forms of masculinity to advance new dialogues between masculinity studies and feminist theory.

>Looking particularly at literature, film, and classroom practices, Masculinity Studies and Feminist Theory links the analysis of masculinities with feminism's ethical and political agenda for the future. Its authors share a conviction that such a link not only reveals the persistence, now more subtle and varied, of male entitlement but also promises to create an enriched and reinvigorated feminism for a new century.

And that book is cited as [208] in this Wikipedia entry that also disagrees with your argument:

> Feminist theory has explored the social construction of masculinity and its implications for the goal of gender equality. The social construct of masculinity is seen by feminism as problematic because it associates males with aggression and competition, and reinforces patriarchal and unequal gender relations.[63][207] Patriarchal cultures are criticized for "limiting forms of masculinity" available to men and thus narrowing their life choices.[208]

I also found a blog entryclaiming to be part of the SIUE Women's Studies Program that portrays the evolution of feminism into gender studies into masculine studies, which implies that focus and questions about traditional began with feminism:

> over time, feminism has turned into feminisms, paying attention to global women’s rights, as well as to the issues of race, class, and sexuality. By the time the 1990s had rolled around, Gender Studies had started to emerge as an offshoot of Women’s Studies.

> In the 1990s, Masculinity Studies, a relative newcomer to the field of gender inquiry, began to pose questions about men and their relationship with patriarchal power (something that had hitherto seemed obvious and gone unquestioned). Do all men have power? Do all men want power? Is masculinity the same in every culture and time period? Is masculinity a word that has a plural, as well as singular, form? Does the performance of masculinity depend on the categories of race, class, and sexuality?

A blog isn't as good of a source, of course, but that entry seemed interesting.

Here's a book, Men Doing Feminism that looks interesting:

> "The wonderfully diverse entries in this volume investigate the tensions between feminism and manhood, engaging the personal and the political, the moral and the epistemological. The authors' explorations of the strengths and weaknesses of male subject position challenge simplistic interpretations both of the subject/object distinction and of epistemologies based directly on social identities. This collection makes an original and substantive contribution to feminist theory..""
-Alison M. Jaggar University of Colorado, Boulder

After reviewing this for you, I can't find anything about mainstream feminism that supports your argument. I could keep going, but I think I've gone well beyond satisfying your demand:

> How about you point me to some influential feminist sources that specifically fight against unrealistic beauty standards heaped upon men? Pointing me to a source that simply doesn't shit on men for not fitting into traditional male beauty standards is not enough. Also, pointing me to a source that gives only token acknowledgement to male issues is also not enough.

> I am a man who is very ugly and very unmasculine. Show me some serious feminist voices that are neither hostile nor indifferent to the issues I face.

> I don't care if it caused it. It condones and at times promotes it - that's my problem with it.

Everything I've cited seems to be the exact opposite of what you claim. Oddly enough though, TRP tells you to be a stereotypical hypermasculine male, so I don't know why you're siding with them.

I've got something that hardly anyone ever reads, but it way shorter than a book...

It's a bit dry... But if you want to know what science has discovered about male/female attraction (and know how to use google scholar to follow up areas of specific interest from the citations it uses) it's a great starting resource as it's the meta-analysis of the field.

Evolution of Human Mate Choice

OTOH, if you actually want a book. The best resource I ever found about female sexuality attraction (focussing on the long term) was

Married Man Sex Life Primer by Athol Kay

I am going to apologise in advance if this sounds unclear but this is me trying to articulate a world view I have developed over years of contemplating the existence of mankind and reading volumes of what others have concluded (this, this and this among others)

Before societies and civilisations were formed, groups existed by meeting the challenges of basic survival:

• If we do not collect enough food, we will die of hunger
  
• If we do not remain vigilant in our defences, we will eventually die from predators and attackers picking us off
  
• If we do not construct means of conflict resolution and resource distribution, we will die from killing each other
  
  Each of the above led to an exponential growth in all the areas of human development:
  
  
• hunting to secure more sources of food, cooking and curing to extend the life span of edible food.
  
  
• tools to augment the physical capabilities of humans (hunt and attack from a distance, or make clothing and housing),
  
  
• skills and arts to improve on the methods of the above
  
  
• oral written recording, social structures to better manage groups and train future generations in the collective knowledge
  
  Groups therefore developed systems and tools to more efficiently meet these challenges.
  
  The more these groups grew into societies and civilisations, the more efficient their methods of survival, the larger the distance between the group and these dangers.
  
  Societies reach a fork in the road where they have two choices:
  
  

1. Remain on the path of continuously improving their methods of survival. Improve their technology, defences, distribution mechanisms.
   
2. Settle into an equilibrium with their environment and focus inward on goals they previously could not entertain. This could include wealth, pleasure. It can also include spirituality, cultural or individual identity
   
   I have concluded from my years contemplating this cosmic riddle, that taking the second path which leads to an equilibrium generally leads to the society leaving it's survival capabilities to stagnate and atrophy. This might sound like I am saying the society is decaying but it's actually the opposite, they have reached such a status in terms of organisation and command of their environment that they can exist and thrive in a stable state almost indefinitely.
   
   That is, until they come into contact with a civilisation that remained on the hard road of honing the mechanisms of survival. Building on the fundamentals of survival (by that I mean tool building to production, skills to science, tribal councils to political machinery) do not lead to equilibrium, they lead to conflict yes but ultimately growth and strength.
   
   To sort of clarify:
   
   the native americans and their culture had a full command of their environment, they no longer feared nature and their fellow man posing an existential threat to them. As a result they diverted their attentions inwards, towards the meaning of nature, spirituality and identity. That was great when they were the only ones roaming the lands in full command of it. Unfortunately, having not built on their already solid base from 20,000 years of survival skills/mechanisms in the americas, they left themselves defenceless in the face of a civilisation that was forged in the fires of centuries of chaos, war, conquest and disease. Technology, politics and the art of war are not these monoliths that are thrust upon humanity. They are incremental advances over centuries by hard work, risk taking and sacrifice from millions of society's best and brightest. The fatal flaw that the native americans committed was that their best and brightest gradually turned away from working on the basics of survival and instead chose to focus on the metaphysical. The rich and beautiful culture they accumulated was useless as tools in the face of gunpowder, iron and germ warfare.
   
   ---
   
   How does this relate to the trends in western countries in relation to restructuring the systems of gender identity? I believe that it is a small thread in a grand tapestry of ideologies meant to create an artificial form of equilibrium, drawing the energies of its citizenry down a path diverting them from building on those tools/mechanisms based on the basics of survival and into the metaphysical/spiritual. The general consensus being that society has reached a peak that leaves them unchallenged by outsiders: the advances of previous generations in science, technology and military prowess have been perfected, are no longer a pressing matter for society at large.
   
   There is nothing inherently wrong with seeking an equilibrium or focusing on the metaphysical, it is the vector that society is set to follow, the vector veering away from the basics of survival, which is the danger.
   
   Hope that clarifies my initial reply.

https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465058728

Heads up : Author is black guy. World known intellectual. He owns multiple books about race, discrimination and economics. There is huge amount of numbers there gathered from last 60 years.

​

> It’s like we have to do this once a week now. Y’all need to work on your memory recall.

You need to work on your attitude. Virtue signaling doesnt make your arguments more valid. In the end, if you really wanted to see larger picture, you could google numerous literature outside of feminist narrative.

When you are ready, please enlighten me and show me statistics for :

-income compared to whites

-family wealth compared to whites

-middle class status

-education

-life expectancy

Compared to black people in 2019 from your knowledge and perspective. I wait.

Wow, not my experience but than again I have spontaneous sexual arousal like 15% of women and 80% of men. My (39f) sex life with my hubs (38m) is fucking awesome. Most women aren’t “LL” they have what’s called responsive sexual desire, along with 20% of men. Unfortunately most haven’t read come as you are which is sad because mixed match desire types can work well together if they try.

Eh, it goes beyond sexual strategy. You can use it to get better insight into how such imminent people as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Barack Obama reached the commanding heights. They all did it differently, but some of the principles they used are universal. They chose to leverage their respective strengths differently.

Not just males either. Oprah Winfrey, Martha Stuart, Madonna - they all use various principles of persuasion to their advantage. The 48 Laws of Power is good exploration of these principles in a historical context.

Nice. Great post. I couldn't agree more. So I'll just help (circlejerk?).

The intuitive, irrational, and crazy part of my personality I only just started developing as I realized I mistyped myself as an INTJ for over 20 years (unhealthy INFJ for that long). The book Antifragile by Nassim Taleb points out the valuable Dionysian part of our nature and just how fragile these social-economic models are in the face of time.

When BP asks "Fine. RP works, but will that make you happy in the long-term?" the jaded RP reply is "Probably not, but what choice is there for men like me?" Others live and die by the Redpill, but can anyone really believe Chateau Heartiste is a happy, healthy, secure individual? No extreme personality and total rejection of the Other emerges from a healthy psyche. You can't take a man who naturally values long-term mating into a short-term mating box and not expect -- nevermind. You already get it.

>Thank you for that article, it did clarify your argument about cultural communities in America immensely.

I recommend picking up a copy of American Nations for yourself; it's quite illuminating. Our Patchwork Nation (book & website) and The Nine Nations of North America are also worth a look, but they are a bit ahistorical and place too much emphasis on economics rather than culture.

> I have to ask what the intentions are behind rejecting science...

With "science" lets be specific, as people (conservative or otherwise) tend to accept and promote scientific findings which confirm their biases. When people complain about conservative opposition to "science" they typically mean the following:

Rejection of Evolution

This position is assumed by many Evangelical Christians who embrace Biblical Litteralism. It is an article of their faith that the Bible, which states humanity was created in it's current form, is the true and inerrant word of God.

I think it's noteworthy that this issue has become more controversial, not less, over time; i.e. there are more people in America today rejecting evolution than there were in the 80s and 90s. I believe that for many Evangelicals rejecting evolution has become a necessary affirmation of their faith as part of the broader fight against Liberal cultural imperialism, which tends to be secular.

Rejection of Climate Change

The environmental movement in America is largely based in the liberal cultures of the Left Coast and Yankeedom (digression: I hate that name and tend to think of Woodard's "Yankeedom" as 'Greater New England'). In fact, the Left Coast was dubbed "Ecotopia" in The Nine Nations of North America, because of the importance of the environment to that culture.

This means that the primary proponents of climate science are the cultural enemies of America's Conservative cultures. By itself that would make the science suspect to those cultures.

Addressing the issues raised by climate change will require even more use of the federal government to enforce a cultural value of the aforementioned liberal cultures (specifically, environmentalism). It should come as no surprise that Conservatives increasingly suspect it's simply all propaganda meant to justify ever more cultural imperialism by the left.

Rejection of "Social Science"

On this front I have a lot of agreement with Conservatives. Much of "Social Science" seems, at best, to be a pseudo-science, heavily influenced by the biases and assumptions of its practitioners. Much of it also emerges from Universities based in liberal cultural regions, which explains why conservatives reject it.

Put simply, when it comes to the conservative "rejection" of science, what they are really rejecting is the arguments of Liberal Cultures, even when those arguments are right. The sad truth is, it doesn't matter if you've got the facts on your side, when the people you need to persuade can't trust you.

Scenario: two people come to you, asking you to choose a side in their argument. One is a trusted community leader or the representative of an industry that provides something you value and employs thousands of people. The other is someone who holds your beliefs in contempt and who promotes values you find offensive. Who would you believe?

Rejection of Healthcare

The great irony of the current health care debate is that the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) was based off a plan from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank). So why are Conservatives so adamant in rejecting it?

Again, it's a matter of trust. All they can see is an effort to bring healthcare under the control of the federal government, and thus under the control of the liberal cultures.

If a conservative President had proposed the plan they would have supported it. Instead they are opposing it, because they don't trust the intentions of the people pushing it.

Rejection of Education

I actually went to the trouble to look up the Common Core standards which conservatives are up in arms about. Frankly, I found them so vague and innocuous that I suspect they were only passed as a "feel good" measure to make it look like the administration was taking education seriously.

Nothing in them innately challenges conservative cultural values, so again I believe it's simply a matter of trust. It looks to them like Liberals using the federal government to indoctrinate their children, so they are fighting it tooth and nail.

>there are instances in which the conflicting values of a larger nation must be resolved

Very true, but unless you are going to use force, such resolutions require compromise and compromise requires trust. The cultural imperialism of America's liberal cultures, their open contempt for conservative values and their willingness to use the federal government to enforce their values on conservative communities, has destroyed any hope of establishing such trust.

>The fight for Civil Rights was an extremely controversial movement at the time, and many communities rejected it as progressive imperialism, which it certainly was. It was also the minority demanding change from the majority. If you look at it like that, making many people change for few might seem unfair but that is an extremely limited way of seeing. First of all, what exactly did the majority have to give up?

What the majority had to lose, was exactly what it did lose: the national consensus. In the wake of the Great Depression the Democratic party forged a political consensus between Americas various cultures, which allowed the nation to progress economically and stand united in the face of foreign threats.

That consensus, which prevailed into the early 1960s, saw America rise to the status of a global super power, entailed the strongest sustained economic expansion in our nation's history (before and since), and vastly expanded the middle class. That consensus was based on a social contract which entailed the liberal cultures ignoring the racist policies of the south.

Look at where we are today: declining global influence, rising economic inequality, and extreme political dysfunction. We have arrived at this situation precisely because the national consensus was sacrificed on the altar of liberal cultural imperialism.

That being said, it wasn't the passage of the Civil Rights Act which dealt the fatal blow. That act was, in many ways, simply an evolution of the national consensus. It was the product of a democratic process; passed by an elected congress and signed into law by an elected president.

The legalization of abortion, deregulation of contraception, and abolition of school prayer, were qualitatively different. They were forced on the nation by un-elected judges. These decisions were not the product of a national search for consensus and they galvanized the formation of the religious right, without which the Republican party would not have an effective electoral coalition.


___
> It is infinitely less expensive to fund contraceptive services than to pay for pregnancy and childbirth

This is actually a very short sighted view. Since the wide spread adoption of contraception ,western nations have seen a marked demographic decline. If it weren't for immigration the U.S. population would be declining. Nations with aging and shrinking populations face stagnant or negative economic growth (see Japan).

Unfortunately, importing relatively uneducated workers from the third world to replace highly educated and productive first world workers who refuse to reproduce, is not a viable long term solution. Western nations might soon have to consider banning contraception in order to ensure their long term viability.

>insurance companies already "subsidize" men's sex lives, by covering erectile dysfunction drugs like Viagra. That insurance companies were already covering those drugs was part of the reason why the Employment Equal Opportunity Commission ruled in 2000 that insurance companies providing prescription coverage could not exempt birth control.

That's a specious comparison. Erectile dysfunction is a medical problem requiring treatment. Fertility is not a disease, it is in fact a sign of health in premenopausal women. Comparing one to the other is like comparing reconstructive surgery with purely cosmetic surgery.

It's worth noting that the EEOC is an appointed body, not an elected one. Their rulings are not the product of a national debate in search of a consensus.

>Actually all the Planned Parenthoods in my area provide a big bag of free condoms to any person who asks for them.

Bully for them, but are they being required to by federal law? It's fine for an institution to promote your values in your culture. It's not alright for the federal government to coerce institutions in other cultures to enforce values which conflict with their own.

>>Men pay 70% of the taxes in this country

>And I'm gonna need sauce on this please.

Good catch. This figure is repeated often in the manosphere, so I cited it without confirmation. I think it emerged from this British report, but I can't find comparable numbers for the U.S. Given the disparity between male and female income in the U.S. it's likely men are paying more in taxes than women, but I can't find any hard numbers.

I wish there was good, easy to link advice to give the thousands of men on /r/deadbedrooms besides red pill stuff.

There is red pill "light" in the form of

• No More Mr. Nice Guy
  
• Married Man Sex Life Primer
  
• Mindful Attraction Plan
  
  These are very watered down but already labeled as "abusive".
  
  And of course there is PUA stuff for what it's worth. Much tamer than red pill but already carrying a stigma in the mainstream.

The interesting part of the book is how it compares Canadian culture to that of various regions of the United States. Canadian culture turns out to be most like Massachusetts and least like the deep south. To make this comparison the author had to first describe the various regional cultures of the United States.

An American author did a similar examination with similar findings in this book https://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029

> https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Psychopaths-Saints-Killers-Success/dp/0374533989
> Does Dutton want to be a psychopath himself, or was this merely a topic of interest?
> I'm guessing this self-professed sociopath doesn't read his sources. He probably doesn't have to if he can convince people he does just by sounding confident enough.

To set this argument straight: "He doesn't know why RP or what RP says about DT" or what is it?

>I’m like very personal moral project oriented right now

You might enjoy this book.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Found-Freedom-Unfree-World-ebook-dp-B00M20I134/dp/B00M20I134/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

It's been a while, but I recall the main point was to drop 'social morals' and adopt personal virtues. Supporting why you should do this and some benefits is covered in detail.

​

Regarding the bigger question "Why we don't see the other's point of view": I think we assume the other wants what we want out of the relationship. Meanwhile, men and women are different so want different things. Example: The whole 'female social matrix' is just not a male concept, like at all. Men don't take this into account, not really. And the woman gets mad that the guy doesn't 'just get' how every social outing is important.

Genders are weird.

>Evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years.

I love it when liberals invoke arguments that, in other arguments, creationists invoke. Basically, humans have been around for more than thousands of years (2 million, approximately), human civilization has been around for more than thousands of years, and honestly? If we can see significant changes over thousands of years, we can see less significant changes over hundreds of years - and we do.

It should also be noted that more interacting samples increases the rate of mutation, and tests of fitness - which is exactly what happened during the agricultural revolution. More food meant more humans meant more evolution, and this is the premise behind the book The 10,000 Year Explosion discusses.

>By that logic, if choose to rob a bank, to home and fuck my wife and get her pregnant, my kid has a higher chance of growing up to be a bank robber. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

No, not whatsoever, since that crime was likely motivated by aggression and a lack of respect for social norms that is behaviorally coded for somewhere in your genetics - and that will be carried on if you planted your seed in a woman who bore your child.

Rather than ridiculous, it's basically "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior," which apart from being true within generations, is pretty fucking true across generations thanks to our awareness of genetics, which demolishes blank slate theory that nonetheless dominates the cultural signaling apparatus.

Actually, evolution happens very quickly as populations are isolated and new technology emerges cf. cochran and harpending's "10,000 year explosion"

Those are fictional characters. To say that honor is a masculine virtue isn't to say all men display virtue.

Cool articles. Can you point me to the ones that say women don't design realistic dildos? In fact the first article I read said 30% of all sex toy companies are owned by women. Every sex toy shop I see puts realistic dildos as the most popular type of dildo, and many of the glowing positive reviews come from women.

When searching for these so called 'female products that are SO much better than icky realistic dilos!' on Amazon, they are basically non-competitors. No one buys or likes them.

In fact here's the AMAZING women designed vibrator from the BI article: https://www.amazon.com/Dame-Products-Eva-Vibrator-Fir/dp/B076N4LQ9W?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1&psc=1

Which has....36 reviews and 3 stars. Wow. So revolutionary.

So I'll be really explicit since you're somewhat thick: 1) You have no evidence to show only men design simulated dildos 2.) You have no evidence to show simulated dildos are anything but the most popular type of dildo.

I'm leaving this convo now because it's gross and stupid.

> ... why not focus on a robust and transparent regulatory state rather than against capitalism itself...

This thread isn't made for an economics discussion so I don't want to go too far into it here.

Capitalism in any of its incarnations can't exist without a State. De facto, de jure, it doesn't make a difference. State's themselves are power centers. The only thing that imposes constraints on them is either outside force, or their own populations.

> America will always be essentially capitalistic.

That's just categorically incorrect. Capitalism's been challenged here all the time. Many hybrid socialist models were developed here early in our economic development. The socialist principle that the workers should own the means of production was an official slogan of the Republican Party at one point in our history. The AFL-CIO, socialist and communist parties in the US are the reasons we have an 8 hour work day, occupational health codes and so many workplace protections that persist to the present day. All taken for granted now by people who think history began on the day they were born.

History is full of examples, (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here). And that's just a place to begin.

There's a really good book here about female sexuality.

The idea of context is crucial.

A good analogy is tickling: in one context it's funny if someone tickles you, but in another context it's actually not funny at all (say, in the middle of a heated fight with your partner about something serious).

It's the exact same physical action of tickling.

But the experience of it is at opposite poles depending on the context.

I think that rough/dominant sex is the same way, as with all things to do with female sexuality.

So the valence of how you experience the exact same thing could be flipped depending on (1) whether the man is the right man and (2) whether you're in the right mood.

> Always hide your work. Women don't want to know how hard you work for anything.

Law 30: Make your accomplishments seem effortles