Pickup Artist: Marrying a woman over 25 is like paying double for nearly expired milk
I like my women like I like my milk: In close proximity to cats.
Red Pill ideology isn’t just hateful and misogynistic; it’s also a remarkably bleak way to look at the world, even for the men who supposedly benefit the most from taking “the red pill” — that is, the allegedly smooth players who boast about bedding so many women on “game” blogs.
Take, for example, what you might call the “spoiled milk” theory of marriage that’s sometimes trotted out on these blogs.
Since women reach their prime young, the theory goes, then rapidly lose their looks and their value after “hitting the wall” at the age or 25 or 30, it only makes sense to marry a woman when she’s young — so you get to have sex with her before she gets all old and hideous.
If you marry her later, this means that someone else has had her at her best — and you haven’t!
As the blogger at LaidNYC argues in a post titled “Don’t Marry Any Woman Older Than 25,”
If you meet your wife when she’s older than around 23 or 24:
You are eating someone else’s cold leftovers, then doing their dishes.
You are showing up to a party after everyone has left and cleaning up after them.
You are getting into a taxi and paying the fare of the person who got out before you.
You are taking the nearly expired milk to the grocery store counter and offering to pay double for it.
He goes on in this fashion for some time.
You are paying for someone’s credit card bill full of reckless spending and partying that you never got to enjoy. …
You are trying to unclog somebody else’s clogged toilet.
Ok, now that last one didn’t even make sense.
Anyway, after running out of metaphors, LaidNYC gets to his point:
A girl who refuses to get married young is offering a raw deal. She is vastly overvaluing her product, and undervaluing your time and money.
Marriage only makes sense for a man when a girl’s prime years of beauty and fertility are upfront payment for a lifetime of loving masculine support.
LaidNYC goes on to suggest that women who are too picky when they’re young will end up regretting it later:
Is it any wonder, then, that as females are delaying marriage longer, they are finding less willing men?
Youthful arrogance is the yellow brick road to spinsterhood.
But I want to go back to that previous bit:
Marriage only makes sense for a man when a girl’s prime years of beauty and fertility are upfront payment for a lifetime of loving masculine support.
Can you imagine a more depressing way to look at marriage? If you’re so twisted by your misogyny that you can’t see value in your wife after she hits the age of 30 or so, and stick with her only out of a sense of obligation because she fucked you when she was 25, well, dude, you deserve to be miserable. And I can only hope your wife leaves you for someone who can appreciate her in the here and now.
Misogynistic assholes are at least as good at making themselves miserable as they are at making things shitty for other people.
Posted on August 6, 2013, in block that metaphor, boner rage, entitled babies, evil old ladies, evil sexy ladies, female beep boop, irony alert, kitties, laidnyc, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, PUA, red pill and tagged misogyny, pick-up artists, pickup artists, PUA. Bookmark the permalink. 602 Comments.
My grandmother remarried in her 80s after several years as a widow. Carrying on with the diary simile does that mean her husband bought cheese or would it be butter in this instance.
These MRAs are the consummate capitalists, aren’t they? Everything is a transaction, including marriage. What year is this, 1352?
No matter how I try the use of females instead of women grates on my nerves like fingernails on a chalkboard. It’s like they’re trying to apply a scientific term to make themselves sound less awful. A bit like how judenhass changed into antisemite (and no, that’s not a Godwin, it was a 19th century German who came up with that special touch)
And a payment for “a lifetime of loving masculine support”? More like lifetime of being stuck with some asshole who openly admits that he only thinks you’re good for sex. Yeah, sounds like a great transaction to me. I’m sure all women would be happy to marry men like this while in their 20s and waste not only their best years with them, but the rest of their bleak lives.
How can anyone be an MRA?
This also assumes that everyone WANTS to get married. Personally, I’d rather be a spinster with my beagle than married to a MRA.
Which is a really good thing for me, since I’m “spoiled” at the ripe old age of 30.
women. Not females and not girls. Women, dammit!
And just to be clear to this asshat. Women are people. Women are not dairy goods, toilets, credit cards or any other object. People.
So what? He has a point. Young women are more attractive, whats misogyn about that?
This seems to suggest that young women are flooded with marriage proposals which tey are refusing callously.
I’m 20 where are all my marriage proposals? I want to refuse them so later on I can marry a beta mangina and force him to drink my spoiled milk, hah!
But seriously who the hell do they think is asking these women? I doubt these PUA’s think that young men want to get married before 25 and most people date people around their own age.
So if young men aren’t asking young women to marry them who is?
Apparently in their heads all women under the age of 25 date men significantly older than them who ask them to marry them.
Well I do have one friend my age who is marrying a 35 year old man next year but that is incredibly unusual and considered weird by many.
All the young people I know either do not want to get married yet (men and women), have not been asked or have not yet mt the person they could see themselves marrying.
I can’t help but notice that they decide the women they “don’t want anymore” just HAPPEN to be around the age where women have a bit more experience and are a bit better at spotting the creepers and the PUA tricks these guys use to manipulate women. I’m utterly convinced that this is the primary reason they want 18 year old girls — the less “worldly” a person is, the easier it is to manipulate them. I fell for a lot of shit at 18 that I would never fall for today.
It also assumes that if a woman didn’t marry young, it’s always because she refused to. Never mind that life is complicated and relationships don’t always work out and sometimes men do walk away.
LaidinNYC can go get LaidinHell.
You guys, Keyboardsmash is too alpha to even finish his wo.
“I can’t help but notice that they decide the women they “don’t want anymore” just HAPPEN to be around the age where women have a bit more experience and are a bit better at spotting the creepers and the PUA tricks these guys use to manipulate women. I’m utterly convinced that this is the primary reason they want 18 year old girls — the less “worldly” a person is, the easier it is to manipulate them. I fell for a lot of shit at 18 that I would never fall for today.”
Excellent points here.
@titianblue
Yeah of course women are people. Do you think PUAs want sex with toilets, credit cards or animals?
wow, I thought Mark Minter was unique in his warpedness (I don’t think that is a real word but then again, I am not convinced that these men are real since I don’t see how they could function in the world, Wait, I take that back, I know Mark is real, so never mind!) Apparently when one is banned from the manosphere, there is a new prodigy waiting to take his place. Maybe this guy is him! NEXT.
I just watched The Closer episode that covers PUA (with a little bit of the rapey qualities of the Joe Francis empire thrown in for good measure). One devotee of “Intrigue,” the dead PUA, tries using his PUA skills on Brenda Lee, and not only does she not fall for it, she’s immediately grossed out by it.
The murder victim was filming a show for the fictional channel “Slag” (charming) where he would film his one night stands without their knowledge and then do an entire episode of his show (which was called “Tapped”) for each girl.
Brenda Lee: “He did this to 8 women and he only got shot once?” Okay, that’s terrible but I laughed anyway.
One thing I’ve noticed is that the guys who write things like this seem to view marriage as
A. Something every woman wants
B. An uneven exchange of Wife = Sex, Husband = Money
C. Only in the strictest of heterosexual terms, with no alternatives
What if the couple decides that the woman should work and the man be a househusband?
What if the couple is 2 men, 2 women, a polyamorous group, or some other combination?
What if a woman simply wants to stay single…does her acceptance of “spinsterhood” mean it doesn’t matter if she has fun during her 20s?
And if a man and woman get married at age 20…she becomes hideous 10 years later…and they remain married til they both die at age 80…would these guys consider that “fair”? After all, in their model, the man took care of the woman for 60 years but only got 10 years of premium sex.
Weird way of viewing relationships, that’s for certain.
The objectification of women, maybe? He didn’t just say young women were more attractive, ya know, way to cherry pick,
The expression ‘females’ is the same as one would use when discussing animals. Therefore, IMO its use shows that women are less than human to these tossers. Not entirely surprising, since the lesson from LaidInNYC’s screed is clearly that women are the property of men.
Ugh.
@Energomash:
This would be more convincing if they weren’t talking about women and calling them animals, toilets, etc.
fuck! i turn 26 in exactly two weeks. does this mean i have to convince mr. baby to marry me NOW, or should i just sperm jack him between now and then?
/snark
Uh, we never said they did. However acting like a human being’s only worth is sex, and they can only have sex when they’re “ripe”, and that women(and only women) are the equivalent of objects that are “used up” is incredibly dehumanizing. He didn’t just talk about their youth, he talked about how they were “used” by someone else. It’s not like a woman is some disposable, 1 time use sex toy, and that’s her only worth. Even if sex was her only worth, why would her previous “users” matter? And before you say “the hymen”, first, it’s a myth. Second, it would mean the guy who marries an 18 year old virgin would have sex with her once, not “10 years”. Third, kegels.
Political awareness is the Information Superhighway to professionalism.
Fandom is the hyperspace bypass to slash fiction.
Their obsession with “fertility” is just creepy… Do they assume all men have pregnancy fetishes?
The misogyny is that he believes that a woman’s worth is determined only by her looks. So even if all women look better when they are younger, that wouldn’t mean they are useless when they age.
And a lot of older straight men wouldn’t want to be married to a woman more than ten years younger, because it would put a generational gap in their relationship. That’s not a deal breaker for successful relationships. It’s just that people closer in age are more likely to have more in common, and have common memories.
“Men.” “Girls.” Ick.
Sad little fucks. Dudes, if you can’t form healthy relationships with women, admit it. This pseudo-evo psych shit impresses nobody but your fellow losers. I’ve known plenty of people who honestly weren’t interested in marriage (men and women,) and they didn’t spend any time calculating the optimum marriageable age of the opposite sex. Nor did they try to feel superior by denigrating the opposite sex.
I do love the kitty’s expression in this picture.
Young men are more attractive than older men. What’s misand about that?
*snort*
Oh dammit. I didn’t realise that if I’d offered up my beauty and fertility, I’d now be dining off a lifetime of top quality masculine support. What a shame I held out until my 30s and had to settle for a loving partner.
Energomash said:
“So what? He has a point. Young women are more attractive, whats misogyn about that?”
In this context it’s misogynistic because it assumes that physical attractiveness is all women have to offer and that thier lives are essentially worthless “spoiled milk” when they hit 30. Women are people and there are far, far more important qualities than youth and physical attractiveness. Any man worthy of the term realizes this and doesn’t consider his wife (or any woman for that matter) to lose her value on ther thirtieth birthday.
And the main reason for straight women getting married at later ages is because they need more time in school to have a better chance of finding a job with a living wage. So LaidinNYC is really fighting against urbanization and the expansion of educational and career opportunities for women. No wonder these same kinds of men despise women with successful careers.
Energomash also said:
“Yeah of course women are people. Do you think PUAs want sex with toilets, credit cards or animals?”
That argument would be a little more believable if they weren’t comparing us to toilets, credit cards and animals quite so frequently.
Also, why do they assume women cannot be attracted to a man sexually. If women only cared about money and protection, then literally every woman would never ever talk about how “cute” a guy is. They wouldn’t have sexual orientations, it would just be “wealth sexual”. Ever notice how women go nuts for handsome young men, and not the random gross 50 year old guy with tons of money?
Sure, some lady might marry that guy for money. But it’s for the money. Not genuine attraction. I repeat, NOT ATTRACTION.
Just like how some guy might marry a 50 year old woman who’s a billionaire. No attraction, just desire for money.
MRAs fail to see how the equivalent of a young woman is not a rich man. Women aren’t actually attracted to rich men for their money. Women who marry rich dudes just want the money, not him(in the cases MRAs talk about, I’m not saying a sexy dude suddenly become unsexy when you dumb a billion dollars on him).
This is why they’re not comparable. A dude who marries a sexy young woman for the sex is actually attracted to HER. A woman who marries a rich dude isnt actually attracted to HIM.
Just like a dude who marries a woman only for the money isn’t attracted to HER, and a woman who marries a dude for sex is attracted to HIM.
So the equivalent of a man marrying a young, sexy woman is a woman marrying a young, sexy man. The equivalent of a woman marrying a rich dude is a man marrying a rich woman.
(Sorry for this being long, I’m kinda worn.)
Also LaidinNYC completely forgets about the existence of married poor men, men who are happy with their older wives, and non hetero relationships.
David, my comments don’t seem to be appearing. Am I in moderation for some reason?
There’s also him saying women who have had sex lives are “used”, and that it only applies to women. Vaginas are not rubber bands, people. They don’t get “loose” from sex. The reason older women might have “looser” ones is the same reason muscles get weaker and skin gets saggier with age. Even then, women can still change that. The “worlds strongest vagina” is owned by a woman who is a mother. Seriously, she squeezed a fucking baby out of that thing, and she’s still, um, “tight”. (I feel so gross talking about women like only their “tightness” matters, but it’s for the sake of the argument).
I love the caption to the top picture XD
@energeh or however you spell it
I assume boring troll. Anyway, Older dudes who go after younger women get all the side eye from me. (At least exclusively younger women. My dad is married to a younger women, though she is past the ripe old age for 30, and I don’t judge him for it because I know they actually like each other, not that he’s just going after younger women because older ones are all icky and wrinkly.)
Lol, bad troll taking everything literally. No, you twit, we just don’t think they treat women well. Because comparing women to credit cards, toilets, and milk, are dehumanizing (or just plain weird, but no options take in mind she is a person not a product.)
@tarnishedsophia
Good point. Do I still have to find a women to get married when I’m very young? Should she be young too? If we’re both old, who is getting scammed? /trying to apply misogyinst logic to my potential future life.
@Seranvali
I saw one of your comments. (two if you count the one I quoted.) :/
energomash
did we read the same post? He didn’t say young women more attractive (it’s bs to state your opinion as fact anyway, though) he said older women are WORTHLESS and also compared them to food.
The PUAs seem to care more about getting sex than respecting other human beings.
should clarify – he thought they were worthless because they’re not attractive. So not only does he think older women are worthless, he thinks the only thing that matters about a woman is how hot she is.
For some reason, this argument is getting so boring to me. Maybe because I have no desire to be validated by a creep. Though I can’t help to hope that if he actually does go out and try pick up women, they avoid him. Or at least that they ‘pump and dump’ him, to use PUAs finest vocabulary. (noooooes! That’s impossible: women don’t have sex for pleasure! *entire worldview collapses*)
XD
@auggziliary @thebionicmommy
I’ve read some feminist blogs and they always criticize the ‘objectification’ of women. I think from a philosophical viewpoint this doesnt make much sense.
1: Humans do not posses any intrisic value.
2: If you value a person because he/she is human, you don’t value what makes them special. You don’t value any specific characteristics like intelligence, personality or looks! You value an abstract entity and not the actual person.
@Energomash.
wow. I think that is a really cruddy way to try to justify being an asshole. Also, I think humans DO possess intrisic value, sorry. I can value my brother as a human AND because he’s smart and funny and we play fight a lot. Those aren’t contradictory
Why exactly would a PUA care about marriage, again? I thought PUAs, in theory, were concerned with sex and getting lots of it. Hmm. LaidinNYC should hustle over to r/redpill. I think their conversation would be more to his bent.
Oh dear. Bent. That just came out. Oh. There, I did it again.
BZZT. Sorry, wrong. Thanks for playing!
30? Hell, they’ve apparently lowered that to 23!
@fade
You can? You mean you can actually like people? Joy? Friendship? What are the alien concepts you speak of?
*leaves PUA land*
@chie
Hey, the sooner I can get of the assholes radar ;)
I contend that humans have intrinsic value, but you don’t need to think that humans have intrinsic value to see why objectification is fucked up. Utilitarianism can also support the moral case against objectification very easily.
As for your second point, I don’t think you understand what it means to value someone as a human being. It is the same as valuing the person hirself – what you specify is merely valuing a human being because of hir attributes, which is the exact opposite of seeing someone as intrinsically valuable. Valuing a person has nothing to do with liking certain aspects of that person and everything to do with seeing that person as an end in hirself.
“I don’t know what objectification means!”
Asshole.
Learn about the difference between subject and object, and get back to us.
@Fade
Right. I agree. You value someone because he/she is for example funny….but only humans can be funny/humorous (or sexually attractive to you). So it is impossible to value one (personality trait) without the other (the human that posses it). Therefore the talk about objectification doesn’t make much sense to me.
And if you think humans posses any intrisic value is a philosophical question. I am an atheist / ontological materialist so i believe humans do not posses any intrisic values.
So. I know there are some atheist manboobzers here. Is this guy right, or is he just an asshole? (I’m betting asshole, but w/e. I’m bored so fun with troll time.)
….
/okay, I do not think you get this.
I value humans b/c they are humans.
For example, I place value on your life.
I place value on my brother’s life.
I value my brother EXTRA because we are friends.
For example, I do not value what you have to say
But I DO value what my brother has to say.
Get the difference?
Hey if that’s how you feel fine; but stating your beliefs as fact is a very poor way to build up an argument.
“So it is impossible to value one (personality trait) without the other (the human that posses it).”
It’s quite possible to hate someone but still value that person as a human being, so no.
Also, are you actually conflating ontological materialism and atheism? I hope you aren’t.
I stated my disapproval with what that post was advocating. LaidNYC is a cool guy, but I totally didn’t get the rational for this 1. I mean, young marriages are failing like crazy, so to fathom marrying someone under 25 would be suicidal. I’d already dished out my opinion on his post as being not too decisive.
I am also an atheist, and largely a materialist.
I believe humans possess intrinsic value.
I don’t see how believing that the material is the source of existence/current state means humans aren’t intrinsically valuable.
“Ontological Materialism” is a new one on me, but I can work out the meanings of words and I have access to Wikipedia. If I’ve got a wrong handle on your fancy-sounding words, let me know, but I don’t think I’m wrong that you think the material is the source of existence.
What I don’t know is what posses have to do with anything.
Duuuuuude. You DON’T KNOW WHAT WORDS MEAN.
Go read some, and come back.
(Falconer said it better than I could, but for the record, I’m pretty well an atheist and a materialist AND THAT STILL LEAVES PLENTY OF INTRINSIC VALUE IN HUMANS FUCKWAD)
Ontological materialism is the idea that material reality is all that exists. That’s what I gather from the term itself, at least.
I love when these dudes throw around “philosophy” to justify being gigantic sexist assholes.
No.
Rationale, not rational.
I’m happy to hear that despite your PUA ways you believe a marriage that lasts a long time is something to aspire to.
Happy, and a little confused.
“Not too decisive”?
Is that a typo, or can you elucidate what you meant by that? I’m stumped.
@Marie: I think it depends on what one considers “intrinsic to humans”. It doesn’t really seem to be the atheism that’s spurring that sentiment but the “Ontological materialism” which is “the belief, or assumption, that only material matter and energy exist.”
But, even within that framework, I’d argue that humans represent a fairly unique collection of matter and energy and from that derive value.
TL;DR- I’m going with asshole
@Ally S
How so?
How can you hate someones personality and at the same time not hate him as human? Only humans posses traits like ‘personality’ etc.
Hmmm, this is an interesting question, isn’t it….i myself am not really sure what to believe.
This is the most disgusting thing I’ve read in months. According to you, if a person suffers mental trauma that reduces their intelligence, or personality, or an accident that destroys their appearance, they are now “worth less”.
You, sir, are an awful person. You’ve just expressed the sentiment behind every -ism ever.
“’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’”
Lewis Carroll
@ Falconer
Only the ‘observer’ gives value to things (values them) For example, art is in the eye of the beholder. There is no intrisic value in art (like beauty) This is actually a relational approach that has a lot in common with feminism.
In my worldview, to hate someone as a human is to see that person as inherently less valuable and deserving of humane treatment. But I can regard a human being as equally valuable as I am without liking anything about that person’s personality or behavior.
Example: I think rapists are horrible people, but at the same time, I don’t think they deserved to be raped, murdered, abused, etc. (with the exception of assault/killing in the name of self-defense from the victims). I respect their humanity even though I hate their behavior and personality.
Well, how about you go find it out somewhere different, mmkay? You came in here pretty sure that humans have no intrinsic value. Now you’re backtracking? WTF do you even want?
Stellar logic from Energomash, everyone!
@ Energomash
What exactly is your point beside playing the dictionary game with us?
“’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’”
Lewis Carroll
@fade
I still think that humans have no intrisic value. But another point is if it even matters? Did the thought that this other person is human as well ever really stopped anyone from commiting a crime? I don’t think so.
@chibigodzilla
That was my bet too, I’m just in hyper ramble mode today. Sorry if that was unclear.
@mrfancypants
QFT. Thank you for phrasing it so clearly. (my brain is mush today and I can’t articulate what bugs me about trolls atm).
Ok, I’m going to take a break from my normal mode and agree with troll boy. There is no intrinsic value in art. Art also isn’t human beings, though, so I don’t see the point.