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.
Actually, the ethical approach common among feminists is much more like Kantianism than anything else. I thought that you, Mr. Philosophical, would be able to understanding that via reading so many feminist blogs.
Um, actually I’m betting it has at some point…
You know, I’m pretty sure people who kill, hurt, and rape people often see their victims as less than human, so…. yes.
Also, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, how is it just “true” that young women are more attractive? (your first comment here, remember?)
@fade
Yeah well, a group of people can come to the conclusion that one person is more attractive than the other. But of course that is not meant in a ontological sense.
If you believe this why should anyone care what you think?
How would you know? Are you polling the commiters of potential crimes to ask them why they didn’t do it?
For someone who has claimed to read many feminist blogs, he sure knows jack shit about what objectification actually is.
“Objectifying” someone means failing to treat that person with respect, failing to see the other person as a person just like yourself. It has got nothing to do with whether you believe in intrinsic value or not, or with any kinds of religious or metaethical issues.
And really, everyone knows this. Energomash is just trolling by showing off that zie once looked up some article on metaethics on Wikipedia.
Besides, if you really only find women under 25 sexually attractive, and you’re absolutely convinced that you won’t change your mind when you get older yourself, what’s the point in marrying AT ALL? Wouldn’t it be more rational to just have one night stands and/or short relationships with women whilst you’re young enough yourself to be able to hook up with 25-year-olds, and then stay at home and masturbate at pics of young women? (Rhetorical question.)
What is your point? You say “it’s not misogynistic to say young women are more attractive*”. Now you’re like “people only have value the beholder gives them (drawing the conclusion from you comparing humans to art earlier). So… If misogynists only value women for looks, they’re still misogynist. I don’t really see what you’re trying to debate here.
*which w/e, I don’t really care what age people think women are attractive at, unless it’s below 18 (coming from someone above 18) because that’s creepy.
@ Energomash
No intrinsic value? Excellent, please report to the rendering plant for extraction. On an elemental level you’re worth $4.50.
@Fade
It didn’t stop communists to ‘mistreat’ millions of people. Communism and humanism are closely related so lets be realistic here.
This? This attitude right here? This is why I only date men who are very sexually confident.
Life is too short to put up with kind of insecurity.
But that’s plain ol’ materialism, I dunno what, if that’s the case, the “ontological” is doing there except making it sound more smarter.
My cats have personalities. One of them is standoffish but appreciates a good pat now and again. The other is skittish but likes to be near people, Beloved in particular.
My MIL’s dogs have personalities. One of them is obnoxious. The other one is part blue heeler, and feels compelled to herd everything, and considers it his job to protect my MIL from such threats as the blender and Irish jigs.
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, then it’s not worth anything.
Dude, stop bogarting that joint.
Which is why when those paintings by Picasso, Monet, and Matisse were stolen in Romania recently and then burned to ash, nobody gave a shit. OH WAIT.
It really isn’t.
Let me make a survey of all the crimes that didn’t happen.
I hate to be the one to disillusion you, but this particular woman was 50 lbs heavier, dealing with mental and physical problems and nowhere near as on-point, svelte and attractive as I am now at 30+. I mean it’s in the eye of the beholder and all, but I can’t help but think that when you say things like that you mean “young women who aren’t attractive aren’t even people and therefore aren’t worth talking about:.
@ Energomash
No, humanism and communism are not closely related. You can make a case for atheism and communism, though at the same time that logic firmly links catholicism and fascism.
Humanism =/= Atheism
drats “nowhere near as attractive at 25 as I am at 30+”. Stupid brain tricking me into thinking I wrote a complete sentence when clearly
What do these guys do when they run into a woman who looks vastly younger than her biological age? For example, my mother is in her 50s, but there are people who will swear up and down that she’s in her 40s or even late 30s. Is a woman still “spoiled milk” if she remains young-looking?
(I’m lucky that I inherited the young-looking gene(s), although right now all is does is attract pedophiles and get me side-eyed by bouncers.)
@Energomash
And the people who do treat others as lesser human beings? Like Nazis against PWD, Jews, Roma, gay people, and like a gazillion other different groups? Or the racist American WWII posters, depicting japanese people with freaking yellow skin and other racist caricatures and the japenese internment? You don’t think people valuing others as less for reasons like able-bodiedness, ethnicity, or race ever happens?
Or were you trying to argue something different. I’m being honest when I say I really can’t tell.
Though I’m gonna think Dvar said it better. Even if you don’t give people intrinsic value, you should see them all people equal to you.
@Hyena Girl
Well as ontological materialist i assume that all humans (and other species) want to live. Without this idea ethics would be useless.
So, just because someone doesn’t posses any intrisic value this is no excuse to kill other humans etc.
@Energomash
Do you think “person” is defined as “entity a man would have sex with?” o_O
Actually the fact that the other person will be percieved as more human instead of a uniformed opressor is why they train ministers and priests who work at prisons to be professional hostages. My minister had to trade himself in for the warden once. It’s known that the inmates are less likely to hurt someone who is not in a position of authority.
(and is this technically ‘begging the quetion?” I’m never sure if I’m using that phrase right)
@Energomash
Well then I’m sure we’ve all enjoyed your terribly pointless sidetrack from the topic. Would you care to address your original point?*
*Optionally feel free to go entirely off the rails and entertain us. The pickings are thin for the next yearly competition and someone stepping up their game would be nice.
@Falconer:
Oops, block quote monster! The following was MY text: Well, I believe as well that art has no intrinsic value, but that doesn’t mean that it’s completely subjective or not real. The point is merely that a Picasso painting’s value is a social construct.
One may further argue that all values, even the value of human beings, human rights and all that stuff are social constructs, something we have invented rather than something that’s just there independent of our thoughts and emotions on the matter. That doesn’t necessarily make human value subjective or unreal or arbitrary, it just means that we don’t have any value that was put into us by God, or that there’s some metaphysical “stuff” called “value”, but that value is something we create ourselves.
This is not a particularly strange idea (although I’m not saying you all gotta agree with it, obviously). The thing is, it’s got nothing to do with what feminists mean when they talk about objectification. That’s why I suspect Ergomash looked something up on Wikipedia about metaethics, or maybe even took one semester of philosophy at a university (but understood the metaethics part pretty badly), and now mistakenly tries to use what little knowledge zie has on that matter to bash feminists who protest against the objectification of women.
Fixed that for you.
A person can value more than one trait of a valuable thing. I can say you have value as a human being, and then I can say that I further value you as a person who makes me happy. There are also multiple definitions of “value”. Diamonds have a market value determined by the jewelry industry, a value in dollar amounts. They also have value as a symbol of love, an emotional value. They also have value as a cutting edge, an industrial value.
Because of the different meanings and implications that are packed into a word like “hate”. I hate spiders. Ugh, they creep me the fuck out. Also, spiders are useful as pest control. I don’t hate that spiders exist. I don’t wish them to wink out of existence. They have value. I also fucking hate them and wish they would never be on the walls of my bedroom, or that they would never build their webs in places I would like to walk through.
It takes a certain amount of self-centeredness to believe that because you hate someone or something, that its very existence must be hated as well. There was a girl I hated in college. She and I were straight up enemies and she did a lot of pretty fucked up things to me for reasons I never really understood, and I did some fucked up things to her in retaliation. We hated each other. But she’s not worthless, and I don’t hate that she exists. She has people in her life who love her and I respect and value that.
Um, yes? Most of us manage to not steal shit from people even though there’s zero chance of getting caught. We do this because we have empathy for the human beings around us. Whereas on the other hand, many of us steal from companies with impunity (pirating media for example) and feel not a whit of guilt because we don’t consider those companies to be people.
I don’t know what an ontological materialist is, but I’m an atheist and believe that humans have intrinsic value. My belief in the value of human beings stems largely from my belief that we have one life, and when it’s done it’s done, so a human’s life is immeasurably precious.
@deniseeliza
Very well put.
Near as I can tell, it’s also an attempt avoid the materialism != consumerism discussion.
Exactly. And social constructs are real, inasmuch as they have a real impact on people and people’s lives. A thing doesn’t need to be physical to be real. Emotions are real. Thoughts are real. Language is real. And social constructs are real.
RE: Energomash
So what? He has a point.
No he doesn’t.
Young women are more attractive, whats misogyn about that?
No they’re not. Your personal taste does not equal objective truth.
I am an atheist / ontological materialist so i believe humans do not posses any intrisic values.
I am an atheist, and I pity you.
How can you hate someones personality and at the same time not hate him as human?
Easy. I find you personally abhorrent, but I still don’t want you to suffer. Liking someone isn’t the same as VALUING them.
Did the thought that this other person is human as well ever really stopped anyone from commiting a crime? I don’t think so.
It’s stopped me.
You strike me as new to this game. Why don’t you go get out of your Earnest New Recruit stage, get your head out of your ass, and walk around the earth a bit?
Seriously, how many people here are getting Baby’s First Philosophy Class from this guy? Boring as hell. Dude, if you want to masturbate over philosophy, go do it somewhere else. We’re here to mock misogyny, not listen to your soapboxing.
In other news, I’m sure everyone else here would be happy to know that my husband is getting more gorgeous every year. I look immensely forward to getting old, wrinkly, and cantankerous with him.
ALSO HEY KATZ I POSTED YOUR WRITEATHON STORY!
I didn’t know how to define the vibe I was getting until you posted this. Perfect.
Yes!
Now encompass in your mind that… THERE ARE OTHER OBSERVERS, DUDE!
Like, whoa!
Subject, not object!
Mind, blown!
Seriously, this is some pretty basic stuff.
…
Baby’s First Dictionary?
On another topic related to this ridiculous post, since when are PUA’s all excited about being fathers? The “fertility fascination”, if you will. I mean, I know the MRA’s think of their children as property & wail about having their things taken away during a divorce (kids, money, house all seem to go in the same sentence about what they’ve lost), but at no time have I ever heard them wax hopeful about pending fatherhood and their blissful home life.
Is it that they see kids as a way to keep the wife corralled at home and out of reach of other men? There’s never a thread on reddit about “found a hot 20 y/o babe to marry- going apt hunting for place with nursery- so stoked!”, or “yo, my slammin’ 24 y/o wife is due with second kid ASAP- need new stroller- who has deets?”, “yo- got my masculine caretaker hat on bros- taking twins to pediatrician then grocery shoppin to spend my man money. I am ALPHA”. This just never happens, so why the fertility fetish?
“Did the thought that this other person is human as well ever really stopped anyone from commiting a crime?”
So Gitmo and Abu Gharib are more pecunium’s field of knowledge, but yes, seeing the person // people you’re committing a crime against (in those cases torture) is definitely a precursor to committing said crime. If, on the other hand, you see them as fully human, with the same right you have, you don’t just go along with the torture — maybe that means just not participating, out of fear for your job/safety/whatever, maybe that means speaking out against torture once you’re out of the military (pecunium knows he gives me the warm fuzzies for this).
Go google Stanford Prison Experiment and get back to us on the roll dehumanization plays in institutional violence.
I think someone left a freshman psychology survey text in the frat house again.
Rabbitwink — or even the “hey, I’ve got cute babies, wanna see?” that yes Falconer, we do. Spinning it to be DUDE SO ALPHA could take work, merely being stoked at having a kid is easy (when they aren’t being gross or screaming that is)
Me. I almost posted, “So you’re 18 and you took your first Philosophy class in college, and now you know everything. Goodie for you.”
I still remember some of the shit I said after I had a few college classes under my belt and thought I was an expert on the world. LOL at me.
Yeah, anyone else smelling socks? Cuz we’ve done Baby’s First Philosophy course before.
You are so fucking awesome.
@SocialKenny
Oh gosh, he sure SOUNDS like a cool guy! I bet he’d be great to have a beer with! I wonder if, after he finished the beer, he would compare me to the empty glass!! (Because I’m all used up, get it?)*
@rabbitwink
XDDDD
*The real joke is the idea that he would have a beer with me in the first place, because why would he spend time with a woman if it didn’t lead to him getting laid?
@Energomash:
You point is a little besides the point you’re trying to make.
If you value someone for their sense of humour, you value them for an expression of their personality. My friend Steve is funny, and always makes everyone feel happy. I wish he’d talk some more.
If you value someone for the way they look, and merely put up with the way they express their personality, you don’t really value them. You value the vessel “They” happen to come in (And you would, in fact, be fine without “them” being in the picture at all, as long as the vessel that’s so pretty stuck around). My friend Steve is hot, and always makes everyone feel happy. I wish he’d stand around in the corner some more.
Alas, mon ami, trying to argue that:
“valuing expression of personality and person” = “valuing phenotypical expression of genetics” is a road that leads to some very, very crooked logic.
As an ontological materialist, believing in the basic reality basis of everything, you would of course take great care in not making the elementary mistake of assigning value to someone based on etheral concepts such as “humor” or “looks”, especially given that those two are generally utterly subjective.
And more so, you’d be utterly wary of making some trap for your value based assignments of others such as easily exploitable loop holes or that value not really being based on any part of them (the difference between valuing someone for who they are and valuing someone for what they are. Steve is funny. Stevie is hot.)
This has been your subject-object lesson for today.
[Hops away]
RE: Chie
I still remember some of the shit I said after I had a few college classes under my belt and thought I was an expert on the world. LOL at me.
I think I’m immensely thankful that it was during college that we finally accepted we were multi, and it was immediately afterward we set out to NZ. I feel like if I learned ANY lesson during my college days, it was YOU DON’T KNOW SHIT, SON.
RE: Argenti
I’ll bet it’s Pell again. He’s the right age and it’s been a while since his last meltdown. Unusually coherent for him this go, though.
LBT — too early to be drunk? He’s missing some key Pell tells if it is him. I’m steeleing myself for the revelation.
I’m sorry, the latest photos I have include their great-aunt and their cousins, who were up for a visit last week, and I don’t have permission to post their images online.
Be assured that the babes grow cuter every day.
Eeeee! (Oops, I was going to fund that one. I will have to fund something else instead.)
So, uh… at what age do men become science experiments in the fridge that should be tossed?
Is that a Pell I smell?
Ha! I wish we could apply that logic to everyone who made that argument. It means no-one would have heard about John fucking Derbyshire.
Falconer — ’tis fine, the point was just that you clearly love your wee ones, and while, statistically, some PUAs are almost certainly father’s they never mention it. Not in an DUE I’M ALPHA way, which I could understand no one saying, but even a “baby, baby is cute, wanna see my offspring?” way, which you’d expect to come up once in awhile since they’re cute when they aren’t puking on you. (And even when they are apparently, my aunt thought it hilarious when her first grand kid puked in the hood of her hoodie. I have no idea how she got the hoodie off.)
They care about fertility, but not the babies it produces, which is extra fucked up.
Versus: twenty tiny fingers! Double the cute!
I’m sorry, but if Energomash is still here, can he even explain what he thinks the word “objectification” means? Because he went all sorts of directions after that and now I barely understand what the fuck he’s trying to say.
Oh, and just to throw it out there, I totally say “female” and “male” sometimes. I don’t mean it in a weird, animalistic way or anything, I just don’t like writing “woman” and “man” over and over again. Please don’t think I’m an asshole.
Sigh. Where’d I put that bottle of Lethe water?
hellkell — approximately 23, because that’s how old I was when my mother decided she did NOT need cow DNA in her fridge (extracted in a genetics class in HS)
Oh. Obviously I need to brag about bangin’ a chick more obviously. /snark
RE: katz
Eeeee! (Oops, I was going to fund that one. I will have to fund something else instead.)
I’m sure I don’t know how I’ll cope! (Though if you fund <a href="http://baaing-tree.livejournal.com/520657.html?thread=3514577#t3514577"La Curendara, I will adore you forever. Due to story reasons, I really want it to be posted BEFORE ‘The Angel of Joy,’ and the fan who prompted La Curendara, I’m pretty much positive they can’t afford to fund it.)
RE: hellkell
So, uh… at what age do men become science experiments in the fridge that should be tossed?
Shoot, I was a science experiment from DAY ONE. I’m the cool kind who take over the lab and kick out Dr. Frankenstein for being a hemorrhoid.
“I think someone left a freshman psychology survey text in the frat house again.”
Heyoooo!
I think when these types talk about the most fertile age they couldn’t give less off a shit about actual fertility; They just want a scientific sounding excuse to only sleep with young women.
That’s pretty obvious but I wanted to sound all smart and stuff and say it.
@baileyrenee
Male and female doesn’t bother me one bit when used near each other. Nor does women and men. Or boys and girls. The problem comes when people mix them; generally with man/men mixes with female or girl. Those constructs are bothering and objectifying. But female and male together? Not a problem I think.
Also, bububu, one of my new contacts at the comics circle has offered me crash space for a week in September. I feel so lucky to know such wonderful people. *blubber*
LBT: you are awesome.
ergonotroll:
Let’s not, because you are so fucking wrong that the light from your wrong will take a billion light years to reach the Earth.
RE: Hyena Girl
Hey, do you have a blog or something? I really enjoy listening when you speak and if you write elsewhere, I’d like to see it.
…I kinda wish that if pressed for a sex, we could just say, “emale.” Just to fuck with people and bring on a lot of, “You’ve got LB!” jokes.
Good point HyenaGirl, I get what you mean.
Falconer — as pecunium said yesterday, good sex trumps sex with lots of people. And I’ll finish that with — which trumps sex with an upper age limit (lower age limit is Definitely Important)
So brag away if you want, I guess, though that could get a bit TMI.
Yeah I use male and female sometimes, e.g. when doing a statistical review of, say, male rape victims (to use my last stats topic as an example). Cuz “rape victims who are men” is just fucking bulky and unnatural.
@baileyrenee
Saying what other people have said, but I don’t mind male/female when used together. It’s just when they’re only using female for women, and not using male for men. (though as a small personal note I don’t like using male/ female myself, cuz it sounds awkward to me, but I’m not going to think you’re creepy for doing it.)
Oh these guys. This doesn’t even actually make sense, considering most of the other crap they go on about. Women should get married when they are young and hot, to who? One of these guys? Ok, so then we get a situation where a guy marries a young woman, seeing no inherent value in her except for sex and beauty. Then she hits 30 or 35, and he ‘gives her loving masculine protection for the rest of her life?’ No. He leaves her for the 23 year old waitress. Cause he sees her as totally worthless now she’s not conventionally hot. Then she’s a 35 year old divorced woman and obviously is completely valueless. and if she tries to get any money out of her husband she is an evil feminist harpy.
RE: Argenti
good sex trumps sex with lots of people.
Yes. Yes it does. :D
Though, uh, obviously the two things aren’t mutually exclusive. <.<
Is it just me or is Energomash verging on sociopathy?
I really don’t understand the mindset that people are worthless. Unless you’re a sophist, you realize that (most) others have genuine emotions/feelings, an intrinsic sense of self worth and empathy.
Can these people not put themselves in another person’s shoes? I know they would not want to be thought of/treated like a piece of trash themselves. Heck, if you can’t bring yourself to care about others at least be decent in your treatment of them!
Anyway…
“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. ”
YOUR time and money? Do I know you? Do I even care? Nope. Screw you.
“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.”
Again with the use of the word “girl”. Pedo much? And these guys are a part of a fertility cult, no?
Soylent Green has no objective value!*
*Subjectively it’s $4.99 a box.
I am 100% cool with using female as an adjective, regardless of context. It’s only when it becomes a noun that it tends to ring alarm bells, as in “females are always doing X” and “I met this female at the coffee shop.” But if you’re using male as a noun in the same way, I probably wouldn’t see that as an issue. My two cents!
Godwin already?