Have you seen the vast amount of losers who still get relationships with women if they want them? You don't need to be a champion to get laid in the US or even to get a woman to bear your children. This is one of the fakest thematics going in the redpill space. The most ordinary Average Joe can EASILY get a wife if he makes the effort to court a woman and is realistic about who he pursues.
Have you seen the vast amount of losers who still get relationships with women if they want them? You don't need to be a champion to get laid in the US or even to get a woman to bear your children. This is one of the fakest thematics going in the redpill space. The most ordinary Average Joe can EASILY get a wife if he makes the effort to court a woman and is realistic about who he pursues.
It's important to account for how many of those folks stay together though. Back before incels were the hot controversial topic, a lot of "red pill" thinking was focused on answering the question, "How come even though I did everything I was told women want, my wife divorced me anyway?"
Some of the popular answers (well, popular among the politically correct anyway) include, "You weren't in the top percent, she settled for you when she wanted children and moved on once she had them" (whether true or not, this is a corollary to the 10%/20%/whatever figure and the source of a lot of the ugly griping about women's behavior when they're "hitting the wall" and such), and "What you were told women want is either incomplete or false, here's what makes you more attractive instead" (which I think тАУ not meaning to put words in his mouth of course тАУ I suspect is the sort of advice our host is referring to when he says that secular men's influencers often have more accurate accounts of relations between the sexes, and which to the point here dovetails a bit better with the idea that you probably can and certainly should try to pull yourself up towards the category of men who "have it together" and can pursue their goals in life whether romantic or professional, etc.).
One of the more interesting takes I've ever heard, by the way, put those two things together and said that while "red pill" accounts of attraction and sex are mostly correct as far as, well, attraction and sex, that on the other hand when women want marriage or children they are in fact more inclined towards the men who behave the way society says women want, i.e. empathetically and trustworthily and such, and that therefore you need _both_ the attractiveness qualities and the trustworthiness qualities. I'm always surprised this idea of a balancing act doesn't get more play among red-pill-adjacent but Christian commentators. Not only would it explain a lot about romance, but in my experience something like it rings true even outside of intimate relationships: if you're going in for a job interview for instance, you have to showcase your strengths to be attractive, then listen to what they need and try to build a connection and convince them you care about them and what they care about etc.
Have you seen the vast amount of losers who still get relationships with women if they want them? You don't need to be a champion to get laid in the US or even to get a woman to bear your children. This is one of the fakest thematics going in the redpill space. The most ordinary Average Joe can EASILY get a wife if he makes the effort to court a woman and is realistic about who he pursues.
It's important to account for how many of those folks stay together though. Back before incels were the hot controversial topic, a lot of "red pill" thinking was focused on answering the question, "How come even though I did everything I was told women want, my wife divorced me anyway?"
Some of the popular answers (well, popular among the politically correct anyway) include, "You weren't in the top percent, she settled for you when she wanted children and moved on once she had them" (whether true or not, this is a corollary to the 10%/20%/whatever figure and the source of a lot of the ugly griping about women's behavior when they're "hitting the wall" and such), and "What you were told women want is either incomplete or false, here's what makes you more attractive instead" (which I think тАУ not meaning to put words in his mouth of course тАУ I suspect is the sort of advice our host is referring to when he says that secular men's influencers often have more accurate accounts of relations between the sexes, and which to the point here dovetails a bit better with the idea that you probably can and certainly should try to pull yourself up towards the category of men who "have it together" and can pursue their goals in life whether romantic or professional, etc.).
One of the more interesting takes I've ever heard, by the way, put those two things together and said that while "red pill" accounts of attraction and sex are mostly correct as far as, well, attraction and sex, that on the other hand when women want marriage or children they are in fact more inclined towards the men who behave the way society says women want, i.e. empathetically and trustworthily and such, and that therefore you need _both_ the attractiveness qualities and the trustworthiness qualities. I'm always surprised this idea of a balancing act doesn't get more play among red-pill-adjacent but Christian commentators. Not only would it explain a lot about romance, but in my experience something like it rings true even outside of intimate relationships: if you're going in for a job interview for instance, you have to showcase your strengths to be attractive, then listen to what they need and try to build a connection and convince them you care about them and what they care about etc.