Source
r/TheRedPill•
RedPillSafe

Buyers and Sellers, Which is Which?

Red Pill Theory

I'm writing this post as a kind of damage control on my Haggling thread.

All relationships are a negotiation. Haggling is the process of setting prices in a free market. The sexual marketplace acts like any marketplace with buyers and sellers.

But who is the buyer and who is the seller?

In the "old world" of Marriage 1.0 the general view was that women were property. Just as one might buy a cow a man would buy a woman by providing for her and investing in the children who also became his property. A woman might date many men before marriage who brought their offers to "buy" and she ultimately "sold" to the guy she liked or that the family saw as desireable. (arranged marriage)

So one might see women as the sellers (being the sex object) and men as the buyers in this long lost male dominated society. That was the Patriarchy.

  • But the Patriarchy is dead.

Now we have Marriage 2.0 and the roles seem to be somewhat reversed. In the past a woman could only marry a limited set of men that qualified based on male criteria and once the selection was made it was essentially final. In our free society the women are now mobile and capable of "shopping" for men. They can also easily marry more than once and capture resources along the way. Women have legalized hypergamy.

Men are now the sellers and women are the buyers.

Which clearly changes the game.

In all negotiations the final price is arrived at through some form of haggling, but the roles make a big difference.

Men are now the "sex objects" to women which is exactly what the feminine imperative wanted to have happen. Our sexiness is not as easy to identify as womens sex appeal because many of our desireable elements are in our behavior and not just in superficial appearance.

I'm somewhat disturbed by the brutal reality of this... Red Pill can sometimes hit you as a series of uncomfortable truths.

Ouch !!!

Posted Nov 21, 2014, 12:13 AM UTC · edited

1021
viavitae•

This transaction is male time and attention for female sexual access. It's barter, both parties are selling and buying.

Women are attracted to power. The person who needs the other person less is the one with power in the relationship. Since men need project power to attract the woman, a take it or leave it attitude is what they need to internalize. Women provide the hamstermotive force to eliminate deadlock.

10
[deleted]•

[deleted]

5
RedPillSafeOP2•

Thank you for getting me turned in the right direction.

The haggling thread is being massively upvoted, but probably not making the right point.

1
viavitae•

Good debate is what we are here for. A controversial post is worth way more than a dozen me-too or not-even-wrong OPs.

2
anti_raysis•

And, a take it or leave it attitude is only possible when you have a high smv...so hit the gym.

1
MattBlast•

I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Perspective is very important in this.

Sex

In the case of sex women are the sellers. Women have vaginas, while men seek them. Women are the sellers and suppliers of sex. The vagina is sought after by men, this creates a high demand allowing women to increase the price required to obtain one.

Men, actively looking for vaginas find themselves in a sellers market. There is high demand for vaginas allowing the suppliers to take advantage of the market and offer their goods at a higher cost.

Sex is currently a sellers market.

Commitment

In the case of commitment men are the sellers. men have the ability to commit in the way women seek. Men are the supplier and seller of the commitment. Women are all seeking some degree of commitment from men. The strong demand for commitment allows the providers of commitment to attain a higher price at market.

Women seeking high quality commitment from men find themselves in a sellers market.

Commitment is also a sellers market.

Men and women are both sellers, but in different markets. In the sexual economy you find both sellers attempting to barter their goods for what the other sellers have. In the sexual economy both parties have sellers who attempt to achieve the highest possible value for their respective goods (Alphas, RPW). On the other hand you have sellers who don't truly understand the value of their goods (Betas, Sluts).

In the case of Marriage 1.0 and 2.0 you don't have a role reversal so much as a change in the market value of the sellers goods.

3
RedPillSafeOP2•

That's a good response.

The fundamental transaction between men and women has moved away from a purely one way deal (woman as seller, man as buyer) to a more complex situation where both sides play both roles.

The haggling exists along multiple levels.

One might feel nostalgia for "simpler times" but that wouldn't be Red Pill.

1
JakofClubs•

I don't want to overstretch the analogy, but are women of a given SMV (e.g., an "8") properly seen as fungible goods? Assuming a lack of oneitis.

1
mega_beta•

Since we are the sellers, it's important for us to not lower our standards. It's important to be aware of your SMV and not offer yourself to women who are not a match to your value. Never sell yourself short.

1
RedPillSafeOP2•

In this role reversed world it's actually women that try to haggle our (relative) price down by inflating their price up.

It wasn't until this suddenly struck me that I had to start this thread to try to straighten this out.

1
Flaye2•

I think it still hasn't changed. After all the biological inclination for females to seek out a protector provider remains.

And male reproductive value will always be lower due to the inability to bear children and not being the limiting step in reproduction. Only the advent of the artifical womb can change that.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
PyrrhicIntent•

Based on what I've read around here it seems like:

Beta men sell, Alpha men buy.

Just because you find yourself in a new marketplace shouldn't change the nature of your character.

1
RedPillSafeOP2•

Hmmmmm...

The "old ways" had women selling and men buying. Once the deal was sealed the woman was "sold" and became property and disappeared as a unique entity. (even losing her last name)

The Red Pill philosophy is that the Alpha sees himself as the "prize" and expects the women to get "tingles" in desire for him. He has effectively become HER "sex object" because he acts as the object of HER desire.

The Beta is acting on the "old ways" thinking he is competing with other men to BUY her and seeing her as a "sex object". What he doesn't realize is that he cannot own her as property anymore so even if he got the girl (as a Beta Bucks) he never really OWNS her because the laws now permit divorce rape.

So the old dynamic was:

  • Males "Buy" --> Women "Sell"

...but the newer Alpha frame is:

  • Males "Sell" --> Women "Buy"

The Alpha male is now more of a salesman than a property owner.

However, there is an argument that both buying and selling are going on at multiple levels.

1
R4F1•

In the "old world" of Marriage 1.0 the general view was that women were property. Just as one might buy a cow a man would buy a woman by providing for her and investing in the children who also became his property. A woman might date many men before marriage who brought their offers to "buy" and she ultimately "sold" to the guy she liked or that the family saw as desireable. (arranged marriage)

So one might see women as the sellers (being the sex object) and men as the buyers in this long lost male dominated society. That was the Patriarchy.

There was rarely dating involved in arranged-marriage. This is something you see in modern day, where women date on their own accord (discretely), until their parents get her an arranged-marriage with someone else (i.e. those Indian AFBB stories we hear often). An arranged marriage is where the parents decide who you marry. Then there's the semi-arranged marriage where both partners are strangers, but they decide whether they agree to marry or not (this type often involves "matchmakers"). Then there's the third traditional model, where a suitor asks the parents of the woman if he can marry her or not (he maybe a lover or a stranger to her), and if they agree she gets married to him.

Now we have Marriage 2.0 and the roles seem to be somewhat reversed. In the past a woman could only marry a limited set of men that qualified based on male criteria and once the selection was made it was essentially final. In our free society the women are now mobile and capable of "shopping" for men. They can also easily marry more than once and capture resources along the way. Women have legalized hypergamy.

Hypergamy was always legal and practical. For men and women. Any and every woman in the olden days, would ideally like to get married to someone good looking and well off. At least, well off. No one goes into the world thinking "I want someone poor and ugly". The problem today is serial-hypergamy ("branch swinging") and AF/BB (cock carousel, followed by beta provider).

I don't buy your theory that in v1.0 women were sellers and men were buyers; and in v2.0 men are sellers and women are buyers. If you understand economics, you'd realize who the buyer or seller is doesn't matter; the value of the transaction is EQUAL. If you buy a banana for $2, that banana is the equivalent of $2. The transaction is made possible because both parties consider it as such. If the seller is profiting from the $2, then the buyer is profiting from the use derived from the banana. There is no upper hand and lower hand.

So if i were to buy into this switcharoo argument of yours, it makes no difference. A man is both a buyer/seller, and a woman is both a buyer/seller. It was the case before and it is the case now. The only economic analogy that makes any sense IMO, is that in the past religion/tradition acted as "market restrictions" whereas post-sexual liberation we have a free-market. That being the "sexual market place" (SMP).

Women are naturally higher in demand, because every individual woman has several men approaching her. Whereas every individual man has only a handful to no women approaching him. This is where the powerplay comes in (i.e. branch-swinging, AFBB, etc). Economics is about supply and demand. Not whose the buyer and whose the seller.

1
RedPillSafeOP2•

As for arranged marriage I did say "or". (dating or arranged)

Yes, the transaction now is simply very complex.

Haggling is about establishing price, but who is buyer and who is seller is not as gender mandated anymore.

We have "gender fluidity" where men play the selling role now. (that's new)

In the old days being male meant you owned property... women were the "sex objects" and the "prize" that you owned as property and debate ended upon the point of sale.

Red Pill is about accepting reality (no matter how awful) so I accept it's true.

If I buy a cow I typically don't care if it wanted me as it's owner, but since it's my property I will love and care for it.

1
R4F1•

Yes, I did notice your "or", which is why I feel the idea of a woman 'dating' negates the idea of women being 'property'. Women being considered "property" predates dating. Perhaps you should divide it into a v1.0, v2.0 and v3.0 then.

The conclusion of TRP is that there is a problem of serial-hypergamy and AFBB. We both agree to that. But i disagree the premise to how you came to that conclusion. That there is a role-reversal of seller and buyer. When in IMO, the issue is sexual liberalization (which created the SMP, as found today), and not who the seller used to be and who the seller is now.

Because from my perspective, it is constant. That being, women are selling their sex and reproductive rights, and men are selling their protection and resources. This was true back then, it is true now (i.e., constant). Each gender is selling the same they always sold, and the other is buying the same they always bought. What changed is the level of "market restrictions" in the marketplace, or simply the rules of the marketplace. Liberalization means more options, which means women "shop" for the best deals (leading to serial-hypergamy and AFBB).

1
RedPillSafeOP2•

Let me make an analogy:

Marriage 1.0 -> Man "buys" woman. Sale is final. No returns or refunds. (95% of the time the man loves his property)

Marriage 2.0 -> Woman "buys" man. Woman uses man for five years. Returns product and claims it was defective. Receives a cash payout of 50% and residual payments for 13 years (child support) as well as eternal alimony.

Strictly on a contract basis the relationships of buyer and seller are completely different now and the roles are less clear cut.

I'm not sure that the contracts can even be compared because the differences are like night and day.

1
RedPillSafeOP2•

A bit of humor:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/21/penelope-cruz-set-for-zoolander-2

"The actor and film-maker said in 2010 that the sequel would focus on how the fashion industry has moved on in the years since Stiller and Wilson fought it out for catwalk supremacy. “In the fashion world, if you go away for a year, it’s changed - it just happens so quickly,” he told MTV. “I think the idea in the beginning of the movie is that it’s 10 years later, and Derek and Hansel are literally forgotten. Nobody remembers who they are, so they have to reinvent themselves.”"

  • ZOOLANDER 2

It's funny because it's actually making fun of the rise of males as "sex objects".

Sequels seldom are as funny as the original. (the original was hilarious though)

I'm 53 years old. When I was growing up if you mentioned that a man was a "sex object" you would be met with abundant laughter. It really has only been through recent Feminist conditoning that it's now "normalized" to the degree it is.

This also explains all the butthurt racial comments we get here because these guys are trying to be modern "sex objects" but their genes aren't right for it. So Feminism actualy feeds these insecurities.

1
sir_wankalot_here•

The idea of buyer and seller belongs with marriage 1.0. When there where limited channels to market your product there was a clear distinction between buyer and seller.

Today it is more of a mutually beneficial relationship, instead of the buyer being forced to select from a limited set of options.

As OP states this reality is very disturbing for people who do not like change.

0
RedPillSafeOP2•

It's disturbing because it's like I've gone even deeper down the rabbit hole.

What this means is that men are now "sex objects". (sellers)

From the super masculine perspective that is VERY disturbing.

And I'm already "seeing" this while watching tv. It's like once you understand these deeper levels of the Matrix they suddenly become like loud signals that pop up everywhere.

The gender confusion associated with men as "sex objects" is troubling.

I went through the dot.coms in San Francisco and saw the gay view on sexuality and that embraces men as "sex objects" but I had sort of compartmentalized that as a "gay thing", however it's actually everywhere now.

Even Red Pill (despite it's claims to escaping the Matrix) still plays the game as the Feminine Imperative wants it to be played. (just play it better)

It certainly makes one comprehend guys that just say "fuck this" and join the Islamic State and actually fight for something.

Neoreaction is not an "active" thing... it sorts of says:

"Things are fucked up."

...but there is no follow through to action. (at least not now)

Every time you go deeper down the rabbit hole there is more pain.

0
ultrasuperthrowaway•

You are just going through the angry stage of acceptance. Once you can use this knowledge to your advantage and get what you want you'll realize how much better it is for a smaller percentage of men who realize what is happening. I've gotten sexual access to more women than my ancestors could have ever possibly even met in their entire lifetimes.

1
RedPillSafeOP2•

Yeah I know... each time you really "get it" it hurts a little more.

Thanks for the encouragement.

1