I’ve learned a lot from the manosphere in the past few years about how to view women from a red pill lens. It’s been quite informative and a lot of it makes sense. I bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Lately, however, I’ve been starting to have a few questions or even doubts.

Unfortunately, the thing that brings people to these spaces is usually some sort of trauma or deep emotional hurt. While I can say that it did bring me an immense amount of relief from my specific pain and suffering, I am starting to wonder how true some of this information is.

One idea in specific is the notion that men today are labeled with negative labels such as cuck, simp, or beta male if he is truly in love with one woman. It’s as if it’s unnatural for a man to want to be in a monogamous relationship with a single woman. And as if it’s somehow wrong for him to ‘only have eyes’ for one woman and to want to make her happy. They call it ‘one-itis’ or they’ll say it’s a symptom of having a ‘scarcity mindset.’ They’ll say it’s because we were raised by single mothers who gave us bad information. Or that it’s because feminism has ‘pussified’ us and that real men don’t fall in love with women.

It’s difficult to have intellectual discussions with these red pill ‘alphas’ because the manosphere is an echo chamber of sorts. Any deviation from the widely accepted talking points are usually met with insults of being called a beta male simp mangina or blue pilled cuckasaurus or something. Even ‘purple pill’ guys are barely tolerated.

I’ve found myself having extreme reactions to people who disagree with those ‘red pill’ truths, though lately, my reactions have been more or less. Well meh… take it or leave it. Good luck with that.

One specific point that I disagree with is where they say that it is somehow unnatural to fall in love with a woman. It think that it is a very natural thing (though I wouldn’t advise it today). If it was unnatural, the fallout of a broken heart wouldn’t be so damned traumatic and PAINFUL for so many men. I suspect that having a wife and family that you’re invested in does something to our minds. I wouldn’t be surprised in the future if we discover some ‘protector’ chemical that gets released in our minds when we attach to a woman.

The idea that it is actually natural for men to fight for his woman … as opposed to simply letting her go seems more reasonable and logical to me from a pure naturalistic aspect. Of course we live in ‘society’ where those types of things are highly frowned upon…. but i do believe that the natural order would be to be ready to ‘fight to the death’ to preserve what we had.

I’m not saying that it’s a great or even good idea to do those things. In fact, I do agree that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be overtaken by love from a woman like that. My argument isn’t whether or not it’s a good idea, but I just believe that it’s a natural thing. If you do a highly addictive substance, you’re going to get addicted. That’s natural isofar as it having a natural/explainable/predictable effect on this human body.

If you attach to a woman, you’re going experience a shit load of pain if you lose her. I’ve heard soldiers’ say that they experienced more trauma from their wives leaving and destroying the family than going to war and seeing death and killing people. To be fair to women, I’ve heard a woman say that she experienced more trauma and pain from being cheated on and left by her husband than being raped at an earlier age. As I’ve stated so many times, this thing hurt me WAY more than anything I have ever experienced up to now.

If it were unnatural to feel so shitty about it, then men wouldn’t work so damned hard and have that instinct to preserve and protect their families at all costs. Ask the pussiest blue pilled guys, and I’ll bet more times than not, most would literally catch a grenade to save their wives and kids.

Think of all of the greatest love songs and ballads written. Written by guys. Romantic poems…. usually men. Epic love stories (not trashy romance novels)…. Men did that. And many of these arose from before the time of 3rd wave feminism and the modern woman. Men go to war and are willing to die if a persuasive leader can convince them that their wives and families are being threatened. We love and we love hard.

I really hate the trend that where red pill guys agree with hypergamy and think that it’s somehow a good thing. I can see the appeal in a sense that it does drive competition. But the explicit endorsement of this seems to be contrary to building the family unit. Especially in a day of social media, women’s entitlement complex, and a “my happiness first” driven society.

I do believe that in truth, men love the hardest in general. Ironically, the exceptions (the narcisstic ones) are the ones who the get the most women. In pragmatic terms, it’s probably best to follow the example of the latter. However, our society seems to… for some reason or another appear to be evolving to where single unit families where men live to die for the their wives and families is coming to a screeching halt. Women don’t desire those men as much and men are learning this the hard way, but at a rapidly growing rate.

Chivalry may be dead. But I do believe that simping is also following very closely behind it.