Vagina and Consequences
Loretta Lynn was singing about a different pill altogether.
Over on Married Man Sex Life, doucheblogger Athol Kay has provided the ladies with a helpful checklist of the things they need to do, or to be, or to do be do be do, to become the ultimate “red pill” girlfriend or wife. But the women he describes sound a lot less like Trinity from The Matrix than the robotified housewives from The Stepford Wives.
Mr. Kay’s list of demands is too long to quote in its entirety, but here are a few of the choicer items:
(4) Understands that there is a sexual marketplace, and that women have an earlier peak of sexual desirability than men do.
Presumably if she forgets this, her manospherian swain will happily neg her back to a properly less-positive assessment of her rapidly decaying beauty as a woman over the age of 14.
(13) Understands that divorce sucks and is more akin to getting treatment for cancer than having cosmetic surgery.
I sort of agree with this one, actually: for women married to Athol Kay’s followers, getting divorced would be a lot like removing a malignant tumor.
(14) Likes men in a general sense for who they are and what they do, rather than detesting all men in general and making an exception for the tiny few in her nuclear family.
(Huh. Project much?)
(15) Understands the risks both men and women take in having serious relationships, and is willing to negotiate ways to verify trustworthiness in each other. Sees doing this as evidence of true commitment rather than an insulting invasion of privacy.
I have no fucking idea what he’s talking about here. Lie detector tests? Waterboarding?
(20) Doesn’t keep the Red Pill a secret from those that need it.
That’s what we need, more women lecturing women on how terrible they are.
I’ve saved the best for last:
(3) Understands that what she does with her vagina always has some sort of consequence.
Seriously. Please think twice before tattooing Homer Simpson on you hoo-hah! (This has actually been done. You’ll have to look up the pictures yourself.)
In the comments, BlackCat adds a 21st item to the list:
(21) Understands that current society/public opinion, the vast majority of churches, and almost all laws, courts and government agencies dealing with families are all biased heavily against men, and that until the incentives and disincentives return to a more balanced state, men are completely justified in being gun-shy and avoiding commitment and other entanglements as much as possible.
Corollary to (21): Appreciates the men, especially informed (red pill) men, who are willing to take the chance at a relationship despite the above, and goes out of her way to prevent them from being taken advantage of, and to publicly denounce those who do take advantage of them.
So come on, gals, start lining up for your chance to jump through endless hoops for the chance to get with a dude who thinks he’s doing you a gigantic favor by even considering dating you in the first place!
While we’re at it, here’s my favorite scene from The Stepford Wives (the original 1975 version, of course), in which [SPOILER ALERT] Joanna, the new gal in Stepford, discovers that her friend Bobbie is no longer the free-spirited Women’s Libber she thought she knew.
Posted on September 14, 2012, in antifeminism, antifeminst women, ladies against women, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, patriarchy, PUA and tagged anti-feminism, antifeminism, misogyny, pickup artists, PUA, stepford wives. Bookmark the permalink. 444 Comments.
I’m not a woman, but somehow I think that women have a better idea of the consequences of using their vaginas than this wanker does.
That clip only reinforces my hypothesis that “The Stepford Wives” is one of the scariest films for women. Watching those women being slowly rooted out and killed by their own husbands, only to be replaced by unthinking machines, I think that the implicit question is “Is that really *all* my significant other wants from me?”
Of course, in all healthy relationships the answer is a resounding “No!” but even acknowledging the question and contemplating the possibility is *terrifying.* The fact that men exist that would answer with a “yes” just makes it scarier.
Woo, I’ve got the jibblies now.
Okay, I’ll bite: how should a couple negotiate ways to verify trustworthiness?
If you are committed to someone you can’t trust implicitly, you really shouldn’t be committed to them.
I’ll wager the ladies are stacked up three deep waiting to date these guys. Really. They must be.
I don’t know, but I’m thinking it might start with something like he demands she wear an ankle monitor and she agrees.
I was thinking either ankle monitor or one of those electronic pet collars.
LOL!! Yeah, and have an Invisible Fence® style “Woman Fence” installed.
“So yeah, baby, I’m gonna need all your passwords, I’ll be checking your phone, and there’s Lo-Jack on your car, but don’t you EVER think of even so much as glancing at my computer screen while I’m watching porn. Hey wait! Come back!”
“Vagina and Consequences” sounds like a little-known NM ghost town.
And clearly, he needs to be given complete access to her cell phone and laptop, as well as passwords to any email or social media accounts.
Ninjaed by hellkell!
Huh. Most of these apply to men as well. Where are you getting the Stepford thing from?
People should have requirements and expectations for a serious partner. Settling for just anyone is a disaster waiting to happen.
The items go back and forth between reasonable stuff for any gender and batshit MRM/PUA brainwashing.
Translates as: must look above average. Men aren’t liberated from the gynocracy unless their babes are decent looking.
Translation: women don’t normally understand personal qualities as positive things, and just focus on appearances. What’s misogyny?
Translation: I’m going to be pretty jealous and controlling because I’ve bought into a bunch of misogynistic ideas on the Internet about how your sexuality is a commodity you use to buy men. And that’s my commodity now, damnit.
Translation: not only must your husband rule your sexuality, you have to buy his stupid PUA bullshit about what turns you on as well. Women’s sexuality is less pure, honest, and decent than men’s.
Translation: Red Pill women don’t have their own sexuality, they have Red Pill sexuality in order to liberate men from not getting laid enough in this misandrous society because alpha males.
Take the Red Pill today, and you, too, can construct a conformist relationship based on what a backwards misogynistic quarter of the Internet thinks!
Duh, Sharon. There’s nothing wrong with having expectations, but when they’re unrealistic and borderline abusive, that’s a problem.
They’re really sticking with this bullshit meme that religion is female dominated, aren’t they? Yup, that’s why the religious men of Missouri just overrode the governor’s veto of their bill allowing employers to refuse to cover birth control and sterilization. And that’s why they’re passing around a pamphlet at the Values Summit that tells women to dress modestly because they’re “forcing” men to think lustful thoughts about them. Because religion is female dominated.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/14/851401/values-voters-women/
I read the whole list. I wonder what constitutes the 10% he thinks doesn’t apply to men?
Sharon: There are some I’d have problems with even if it was 100% egalitarian. My partner checking up on me to see that I’m not breaking their trust? The idea that whether I’ve fucked lots of other people before is one of the most important traits about me? Whatever a “Fitness Test” is (am I making my boyfriend run a mile before I agree to move in?)? Fuck that.
I mean, if that’s your thing, knock yourself out. But just as you’re allowed to have whatever relationships you like, I am allowed to think that your relationships are probably terrible.
Great, more men who think like NWO.
Hey, why has this particular Pell iteration managed to elude banning so long?
Also, Athol gets major bonus points for appropriating a sexism-challenging quote from the Matrix and twisting it around to mean that “Red Pill women” are basically just women with guy values.
It’s a good movie but it’s more than a decade old, ffs. Make up some vagina/inception metaphors or something.
How would a sexual marketplace even work within a relationship? Does he mean she’s just supposed to accept that he’ll leave her at some point when he considers her too old?
I queef in your general direction, Kay.
Viscaria: Either it’s not Pell, or we haven’t poked him to enough yet. Or he got some Boots of Pellsplosion Resistance +2.
I think “Vagina and Consequences” sounds like a game show.
Yeah, I’d really like to see some clarification for this one. Getting the creepy impression of someone paranoid and obsessively jealous speaking from the experience of having his ‘trustworthiness verification tests’ backfire.
No, with guys like Athol Kay, everything is completely one sided. He has very high expectations of women but doesn’t want women to have any expectations of men. He wants women to act like Stepford wives, because they would only focus on keeping men happy but have no needs of their own.
That movie clip made the original Stepford Wives look likes it’s probably a better movie than the one I saw that had Nicole Kidman and Matthew Broderick.
I’m thinking Ms. Seemins is a different returning troll.
@bionicmommy: the original is worth watching, and the book’s good too.
“Oh, Frank, you’re the champ!“
I’ve read about that and I’m disgusted. They also voted to refuse to accept federal funding to expand Medicaid coverage to people too poor to buy insurance, but not poor enough to get Medicaid under current guidelines. This wouldn’t even cost the state anything, since Missouri is one the states that gets a lot more federal money than we pay in. Yet as a matter of principle, the legislators did that. They keep making decisions to steer the state into Tea Party Hell. Any time I see a headline with “Missouri lawmakers/legislators” I cringe and think “Oh hell, what have they done now?”.
It is. I also have a certain affection for Disturbing Behavior, a teen horror flick from 1998, which is essentially “Stepford Wives IN HIGH SCHOOL!” In a way, I think the latter is based on a more realistic fear: I don’t know how many men would literally murder their wives and replace them with robots (too many, I know), but how many parents would ask too many questions if they could send their problem teen to a weekend seminar and get the perfect kid back in return?
Am I one of the only guys in the world who isn’t paranoid that any girlfriend I find myself with is going to cheat on me, have a baby with another man, and then expect me to pay child support? Or is it that my knowledge is tragically skewed by what I’m seeing on the internet and most guys are actually respectful of boundaries and mature enough to know how to be in a relationship without freaking out at every minor transgression?
You know, I like men just fine. But I like them because they’re people and I like most people. I mean, there are certain traits that are considered traditionally masculine that I especially admire, like the ability to fix things and make useful things, (especially when someone isn’t afraid to tackle a project when they don’t quite know what they’re doing and they see it through), but women do those things too, and I admire them for it just as much. If I admire men because they’re men and not women, that’s as sexist as hating them.
Aworldanon: The latter, fortunately.
In addition to Tulgey’s translation: “When I want sex you will give it to me whenever and however I want it and fulfill my sexual needs without having any of your own because I see you the same way I see a blow-up doll.”
Aworld, yep, what Katz said. Most guys are not jealous and controlling.
awa – I’d like to say that men like you, me, and the other men on this board are the rule instead of the exception, but given that pretty much the entire patriarchal system is set up to prevent the very situation you describe, I have to wonder.
I normally try not to hate people, but the ideas these men espouse are truly despicable, and I want to see every one of them walk through a field of legos.
I love how these PUAs and MRAs have a huge laundry list of traits they require in a woman. They think being an “alpha” is such “high value” that they are entitled to a perfect woman. In reality they’re just ordinary assholes, nothing special, and certainly in no way justified in demanding so much.The “alpha” male hamster at work, LOL.
…I want to see every one of them walk through a field of legos.
As long as when they’re done, we can go make cool shit with all that lego.
Can we make it a lego Taj Mahal? Or maybe an Eiffel Tower?
LEGO® Creator Taj Mahal (10189)
LEGO Make & Create Eiffel Tower 1:300
I kind of want to make a lego rifter.
@aworldanonymous my boyfriend has enough legos to make that happen! He had to hire a storage unit for it! But why should it languish there when it could be doing Good?
Did I mention that I want them to do it barefooted.
Not even socks to dull the sharpness of the corners of the legos.
Has to take the blame for the failure of any prior relationships. Must not trust her own feelings.
Must rely on the man to decide what is or isn’t an issue and not discuss any problems with other people, and she can’t even think about leaving.
Yeah, this is not abusive at all. [/sarcasm]
The original was serious and incredibly disturbing. It was pretty much “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” for women.
What bugs me is how everything in that list is vaguely worded so as to sound reasonable, instead of laying out exactly what it MEANS, leaving just that subtle undertone of squick.
Though speaking even as a demi, the idea that I’d be expected ONLY to have a sexuality with my partner is… creepy as fuck. I mean, my husband’s bi; if he ever stopped noticing beautiful women, I’d be seriously concerned for his mental health.
Cool stuff made with legos #1.
Cool stuff made with legos #2.
“Don’t even look at another man. But I get to look at other women and fuck them if I want to because I’m a man and if I cheat it’s because you didn’t pay attention to this:
and this:
so if I stray it’s all your fault.”
Hey, LBT! You peeps okay? Have you been lurking a lot recently, or am I just blind?
… He asks, minutes before leaving for his weekly D&D game, so any response probably won’t get seen before tomorrow.
Seraph, I too have a certain fondness for Disturbing Behavior, a mediocre but somehow still enjoyable movie with a decent premise.
Yeah, that’s right, I’m bragging about how much elf I’m getting.
@shadethedruid Your queef comment made me snort my tea, and laugh in a manner that sounded like “snarfle!” So yeah thanks :)
Oh, but think of the burden that having the rightful role as head of the household and having the God-given authority over a submissive, subservient and obedient wife must be!! Religion MUST be female dominated, enslaving men that way!!
and then Athol down in the comments writes
“If you want to be someones serious girlfriend, act like wife material. Look pretty, hold a job, keep your apartment clean, be able to hold a conversation, have a personality that someone could stand 40+ years with. Have a low partner count.”
Have a low partner count?? This is even less understandable to me than the whole thing where they’re possessive of their partner’s current sexuality. Like, I think it’s absurd to try to commodify someone else’s sexuality, but I know that jealousy is tough and I GET that some people deal with it badly. But jealousy over PAST partners? Does anybody understand what the mindset behind this even is?
Insecurity that their partner has someone to compare them to sexually? The odd MRA belief that vaginas “wear out” from too many different men? Total fucked-in-the-headedness caused by patriarchal double-standards for centuries?
The higher the partner count (for women, that is…….. this doesn’t apply to or is a non-issue when it comes to men’s past partner count), the higher the chance of infidelity.
Okay, freitag235 understands what the mindset behind it is, I was just disclosing their verbalized rationale for it.
And if a woman has standards, she’s just a controlling bitch. We’re expected to accept them skidmarks and all.
I think it comes from thinking of women as merchandise. It’s the same thinking as why people will advertise used cars as being “one owner.”
If I recall correctly, according to sciencetruthstatistics, a woman with even one sexual partner prior to marriage is much more likely to get divorced that one who has none. The Heartiste Formerly Known As Roissy likes to harp on this. I don’t peruse the manosphere much, but I have yet to see any of these rational, logical scienticians make the connection between a willingness to divorce and sexual mores that permit pre-marital sex: they think that exposure to penis literally makes women more likely to divorce.
There’s also the whole “more penises equals more aging thing,” and probably a bunch of other stupid beliefs, but it’s hard to tell what precise mix of misogyny, pseudoscience, and magical thinking is in play in any given sample without explicit references.
I’m pretty sure abuser types like these want inexperienced women so that they’ll be less likely to realize that there are alternatives to putting up with shit like this.
And now that I look at that sentence, it looks really weird. Is it grammatical? I don’t think so, but I can’t figure out how to write it better. (I figure since I pick on all the trolls’ writing, I should pick on mine now and then.)
“literally” as in causally, I mean. Heartiste has a rather amusing article where he states that the reason is that women who have experienced more than one man can’t be effectively hypnotized by any one man’s penis. (I wish I was making that up.)
Also, what Pam said.
Heartiste would believe that being dickmatized is an actual thing.
Ah yes, of course. We ladies need to be reminded regularly that we are becoming worth less day by day, while men of course have a much more forgiving expiration date on their attractiveness. As long as we accept this gracefully, some asshat will possibly someday deign to consider us for mating.
So tempting. . . .
Ah, this point about putting up with less shit after you realize there are alternatives definitely resonates with me. My first relationship lasted 5 years because I figured all the things that bothered me about the guy wouldn’t be much better with other guys, and I blamed alot of the problems on myself. Then I had a bunch of short relationships and finally figured out what I was looking for and now I’m in another long relationship that’s way nicer. So in a sense they are right, but it’s a sad reason to be right.
It’s definitely better to have experiences to figure yourself and your standards out. This Athol is even talking about standards as a good thing on both sides, and not seeing that he’s contradicting himself by insisting that women shouldn’t have experience to derive those standards from.
Yuck.
I know this is probably gonna be a somewhat stupid and probably gross thing for me to say, but how do I prevent them, I’ve tried everything short of using a bidet or shaving back there, what do?