Trust me, this book only makes you unhappy in practical life, not the contrary

Trust me, this book only makes you unhappy in practical life, not the contrary.
Truth should not and does not lead someone to unhappiness. The fact that this does itself a cue that the claims presented are mostly false, or a 'cope' in Yea Forums terms, and not actually a 'red pill'.
Please don't let the author transfer his evident painful life into you by reading this.

Attached: 51O2itsdPqL.jpg (313x500, 40K)

Based cuck

I don't know, man, after this reading this book years ago the way I handle women and relationships has improved by a great deal. From my personal experiences and what I see around me, his observations about the nature of women seems to be correct.

men value sex and claim to be good at sex (which they are not, especially with virgin girls) only because they know it is on sex and harmless fun that a woman bases her decision to let men continue to care for her.

If a woman was able to acknowledge a man in a non sexual way, then men would care more about this way than sex. But that is not the case, women center their life on sex and they love to let compete for them, take only the men who show how well they can entertain women.

The blow back for women is that repulsive, poor men continue to try to be noticed by women and men do not know when to stop.

Another problem for women, is that once a man is chosen by a woman for the fucking and caring, the man thinks he no longer competes against other men, and that woman no longer has any orbiters. The man thinks his victory is perpetual. Then the woman gets less and less harmless fun that she craves, so she choose a few other disposable orbiters. Then the current provider no longer feels acknowledged and begins to seek the validation of another woman.

Also, women do not have babies because ''muh genes'' muh evolution.
Women have babies because
-they love to spread their legs
-their parents push them for grand children
-they get bored and they see the family as a way to keep the relationship alive
-they see other women having babies and being okay with it

This stuff about ''tough healthy males'' comes from the male love to interpret anything through their fantasy of dominance and submission, but this is because they love to confuse dominance with being active and submission with being passive so that they delude themselves that they are not the weaker sex by being so active, whereas their activities turn out to be only making women comfy and make life harder for men.

Women know this male clinging to power fantasies by heart and they have no problem using it to avoid being as destitute as a men can become, while still thinking that those women realize the female fantasy of intimacy, of going beyond passing for and knowing to be slutty goldiggers, by being devoted to the realization of the fantasy of grandiosity of a few men or more commonly by having children and creating a family.

What women want the most is harmless fun and intimacy. THey get to realize their fantasy first when they are young with men, by trying to let their ''ego'' on the side and realize the sexual fantasies of the men who fuck them. WOmen quickly learn that the only healthy way to relate to men is to be capitalistic on the male market.

Women know this male clinging to power fantasies by heart and they have no problem using it to avoid being as destitute as a men can become, while still thinking that those women realize the female fantasy of intimacy, of going beyond passing for and knowing to be slutty goldiggers, by being devoted to the realization of the fantasy of grandiosity of a few men or more commonly by having children and creating a family.

What women want the most is harmless fun and intimacy. THey get to realize their fantasy first when they are young with men, by trying to let their ''ego'' on the side and realize the sexual fantasies of the men who fuck them. WOmen quickly learn that the only healthy way to relate to men is to be capitalistic on the male market.

But The fantasy of being intimate is realized with having children. THis is what men do not understand. Women love ''to be selfless'' by caring about children and they delude themselves that their compassion and unconditional love for the children is a good thing. Childless women direct their retarded compassion towards animals and children they do not know.
So women love children for the intimacy. Women rely on men for the sex and care they give.

only women know how to love:

love of men towards women = love of women towards children = unconditional love (utopian for men, effective for women)

love of men towards children (= an aid to retire and stop their suffering) = love of women towards men = utility towards more pleasures and less pains now and in the future

Have sex

>Please don't let the author transfer his evident painful life into you by reading this.
Alright, ma'am, I'll heed your well-intentioned and selfless advice.

This is not an attack on author. You can bet he genuinely leads a painful life. You'll only be another one if you take in cope ideas of a pain-infested mind. I am only trying to help you user. Also, I am a sir.

The author sounds to me like his life is pretty nice and not painful at all. He is the least emotional writer I've ever seen on the topic of gender politics

no user. no peaceful, happy-with-his-life being writes a book where he addresses women as 'they' and follows it with things that you see only trolls shitposting on Yea Forums. And writing a book isn't shitposting and moving on. He wrote it and went through the process of publishing it.

Everything he says about women was commonplace for thousands of years in male-dominated societies. Feminism is 100 years old and has led to a people who dont even have children

So unless all those men were miserable for millenia, Im going to go with what they said

>people who don't even have children

This was much more common in olden times than you seem to think it was.

'Were people miserble before?' is an extremely stupid argument by the way.
People before internet weren't miserable either, but most living in current age wouldn't want to go back to pre-internet age. It is called advancement.

>It is called advancement.
not everything that happens is advancement, sometimes it's just a mistake

It is not a mistake if no one wants it back

it's a mistake if the society stops having children and gets replaced by patriarchal outsiders with a high birth rate

That's not true at all. Systems adjust to their current states in a way that makes going back impossible. For example re-instituting slavery or banning women from the job market would collapse the economy in practice. Doesn't mean people wouldn't do it if the negative effects were somehow averted.

>Truth should not and does not lead someone to unhappiness.
based

It's a retarded argument. In practice any information can lead a person to almost any state.

Can someone give a rundown on this book?

Women are whores for both status and money.

Pretty harmless rundown. This is merely the surface. He says no women love true self of a man, just their wealth.

I started watching a lot of le pick up in 2013, for about 3 years, in turn got lean and more forward, and then in turn got a lot of pussy. I would generally recommend it. Important thing is to actually talk with women and see they are just as shit and great as any other human. That is to say, don't get a pol/r9k shithead. Getting pussy by gaming is fun and rewarding for what it is - no need to bash on it because of the stereo type of idiots doing pickup routine in the club and on the street. Those definately exist, but you can take this as contemporary evo spych shilling and learn no matter how accurate it is. It's about navigating yourself and not being autistic with women.

>just their wealth.
What he says is extremely far away from "rich men are attractive", I don't know what led you to give this answer

Attached: fancy_lady.jpg (614x767, 91K)

My answer was extracted from a direct quote that basically says women's love run out as soon as wealth or status of a man run out. I would say this and what I summarized is pretty similar.

that's not what he says though. What he's constantly harping on about is 'frame', which is a more subtle concept. I only half buy the idea but you're not representing it properly

This book is good. OP is a beta blue pill cuck, but unironically.

'Girls will love you, but only opportunistically. If you demonstrate lower value, their love for you will evaporate.'
A direct quote. In the context, you'll see that by opportunistic and lower value, he's actually referring to wealth and status.

provide the context. Because I've read a bunch of his stuff, and 'frame' is not just wealth or status. He is frequently pointing out rich, famous men who he calls betas, and pointing to random broke men as alphas, by virtue of their behavior and mindset

What do you understand by 'opportunistically' exactly? 'will evaporate' implies that she loved at once, and it evaporated once the value she him loved for went down. Obviously it is referring to status, security and not personality since personality can't go up or down.

you have not read the book dude, that is becoming increasingly clear, he talks a lot about what makes men lose frame in relationships. Literally the entire purpose of everything he's written is telling men to reorient their mindset so that their own life, their goals, their perspective, is their 'frame', and not how women see them.

again Idk if I buy it entirely, but stop posting until youve actually read it

>Truth should not and does not lead someone to unhappiness.

Attached: aL9rY7JJ_700w_0.jpg (700x620, 26K)

extremely redpilled

I want it back, the internet is a disease

Just stop using it

Just turn off your computer

Isn't this true for men too tho? I don't quite get how it's exclusive to one gender. It's just a different kind of wealth that's all

Why is a redpill handbook being discussed on a literature board? Fuck off to /pol/ or reddit or wherever your manosphere safespace is.

>Why is a book being discussed on a literature board

This is incoherent and cringe.

Women don't date men, they date standards/criteria.