@fumbor You know, all the red-pill mammalian dynamics aside, I can understand where this desire comes from. And I think it's good to think about the long term seriously. But even if that's your goal, (which as others have said - is doing it on hard mode in the current climate), you won't get there with anger causing you to be tense about everything. Getting over the anger leads you to the first real choice in life: bang a bunch of girls happily as a life-long bachelor, probably no kids, or no kids you're paying for, and you reap the benefits.

Or, you try to make things work, you play it on hard mode and try to wife up some monkey with ho-potential and balance things.

I'm saying this because you really sound a lot like me from maybe 5 years ago. These things take a while, but I'm genuinely way more relaxed basically viewing myself as a monkey in a large zoo who has the option of playing marriage for a few years if it strikes me. Will my female monkey be loyal? Hopefully. But still, if she isn't, I'll just fuck back off to my banana pile and find a new one, it is not that hard.

Sure, sex is sacred - to a degree. This means biological things: STDs are permanent, children are permanent, etc. But also, if you are so wound up that you're going to kill someone because you're not having sex because they're all disgusting sluts, you're doing yourself harm. So I think the middle-path applies here: don't irresponsibly unleash children on the world. Don't spread STDs. But also don't blackpill yourself into oblivion with over-analysis.

@fumbor Here's a mental angle that I find to be helpful, if a bit harsh.

To the degree that you are selecting women out of your mating pool, you are biologically failing. Most women have ho-potential so if you're planning on writing off all women with ho-potential, you're putting yourself in a bad spot from the start.

Chads accept the in-grained ho-potential and just manage it. Different girls have different levels of ho-potential so you have to balance what you can accept with what is offered, but seeking zero-ho is like seeking zero-risk investments.

Same for fat, ugly, etc. Really, most women are fat and ugly? I mean, there are a definitely some percentage, but I have never lived anywhere where most women were unattractive.

My advice: intellectualize less, talk to more girls even if you don't see it working out, keep things casual and low-investment, realize that we all may be killed by a falling piano tomorrow morning.

Another helpful strategy is to look at the man-hating women out there and consider which logical errors they're making. Some women probably have good reason to hate certain specific men, but I don't think it's reasonable to extend that to all men, and in the same way it's not reasonable to extend some women's behavior to all women.

The red-pill community tends to be full of guys who've had some specific bad experiences so it's easy to over-estimate e.g. how bad women are in general if you only read the most angry red-pill posts. But ultimately this is about acceptance of mammalian biology, not ruminating on anger or past offences.

@TiberiusBravo87 I think there's an interesting aspect to punishing famous people here. Some take it as: "famous people have more power, so they need more punishment". However I think it might be something else going on here.

If an unknown person is punished, it doesn't break through the psyche of the masses because they can't envision that person. In order to provide a good 'training example' for the general population, the punished person should be well-known.

It's the same reason Reddit has down-votes for 'forbidden' comments but you can still see them if you open it up. The actual information isn't forbidden to view, but it's important for the reader to be convinced that this is an example of a 'detestable' view.

I guess what I am getting at, is that if you want to effectively communicate to the population that a certain topic is censored, you need to allow a small amount of 'example leakage' to demonstrate what you're censoring.