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.
Slowly, surely, the little blinking caption saying HAY GUIZE I PUT MY HOO-HOO DILLY IN SOMEONE’S CHA-CHA gets bigger and bigger and bigger, edging out the babies entirely until it’s all text and no bairns.
Kinda like subject-verb agreement, but dripping with misogyny!
@Hyenagirl
I prefer to use male and female as adjectives when the gender of a noun needs to be described. If I am making reference to a man who is also a senator and I need to describe his gender I would not readily call him a “man” senator. I would call him a male senator. Male and female as nouns seems appropriate in a scientific paper, but not when describing people in day-to-day life.
Just a personal preference.
I also don’t get the fertility thing. I think it’s an evopsych thing, like where the alpha male impregnantes whole pack/troop/flock/etc, and then leaves the females to take care of the kids.
Except if you look at most tribes, they still had to care for the kids. We aren’t one of those really sexually dimorphic species either. And not every species is evolved for that. Look at robins, the female takes care of the babies in the nest, while the dad takes care of the fledglings. They both help out with the kids.
First six seconds…
Those that try to use EP to plug for certain sexual behaviors fail to recognize that sexual behavior is different between species and differs within species based on environmental circumstance. It also makes an appeal to nature which I find utterly unconvincing.
BTW, I just wanted to add, about the sci paper use of male and female. There is the assumption that when using the descriptors “male” and “female” that we are talking about the experiment’s “subjects”.
These PUAs and MRAs who would warn women of their short shelf lives are just whistling in the dark. As if they could scare girls into their beds! But it isn’t working. It is apparent that a large number of women are leery of, or indifferent to, marriage, for a variety of reasons.
The bottom line is that western women no longer NEED to get married in order to achieve the lives (love, autonomy, security) they want. And whenever I compare my life choices with, say, those of my mother’s generation, I am so grateful to feminism for making this possible.
As for physical beauty, the idea that a woman is considered past her prime at 25 is simply untrue. (Personally, I find women in their late thirties / early forties to be the most beautiful.) I’m not denying that physical beauty is a powerful attribute, but in my experience trading on one’s looks rarely helps a person achieve happiness.
I didn’t meet The One For Me until I was fifty. Although I sometimes wish we had come together sooner in our lives, I am glad I waited until we were ready for each other. My only regret is wasting so much time in my youth worrying about who and when I was going to marry.
As for the intrinsic worth of human beings, what does that have to do with atheism?
Which just adds to the squick factor when PUA’s use it, IMO.
Glad to see swinter back! I hope someone has sent her a welcome package.
I mean sminter1 of course.
To be fair, “participants” is the term used for human beings in most psy experiments. You participate in the study and are called a participant. Scientists, PUAs are NOT.
I don’t give ants intrinsic value so if I find one in my house I often kill it, that way I won’t end up with more. Also if I have ants on me I will get them off without thinking about their life.
True, but participants choose to participate, while subjects may not be give the same courtesy. And the way many of these guys talk, it’s clear that they feel that it’d be better if the “females” were subjects rather than participants.
Off topic, but these bike lights are cool as shit:
http://www.amazon.com/s/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&field-brandtextbin=MonkeyLectric&linkCode=ur2&node=3375251&tag=monkey0c-20
Monkey Light M232 Bike Light – 32 Full Color LEDs – 42 Patterns – Waterproof
MonkeyLectric M210 10 LED Wheel Light
Just stopping by to say that Xen made a great fuckin’ comment.
@rabbitwink
“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,..”
Thank you! I think… it is an attempt to shift the discussion out of the contestable field of the social sciences, and into the ‘objective’ terrain of biology. This is why MRAs are so fond of the term ;’females.’ Women have purposes, projects, ambitions, and goals; females only have drives, impulses, reflexes, and urges. “Females,” whose capacity for agency is reduced to the level of the organism, can therefore be understood and mastered by rational systems of control – this helps to explain the popularity of the word “techniques” (technologies) by PUAs when describing seduction.
The language of science carries the imprimatur of authority. It transforms the arbitrariness and specificity of culturally bound desires into scientifically “objective” drives. The man who openly expresses his fondness for young T&A reveals himself to be shallow, objectifying, and regressive. However, couched in the language of fertility, the same sentiment can try to pass as an unproblematic statement about male biological urges.
The “Caveman Mystique” deals with a similar idea. During the Victorian Period, “primitive” man was looked upon with revulsion; the contemporary attitude however, is one of nostalgia for the caveman, and his rugged ur-masculinity. Invoking the caveman gives scientific license to bad behavior in the way that blaming your faults on the sin of Adam used to.
@auggzilliary
those /do/ look cool. How do they attach? To the spokes or something?
So… where are these dudes? The one’s in the PUA/RedPill/MRM fora who are asking young women to marry them; with a promise of lifetime love and support?
Because the idea they aren’t overvaluing what they are bringing to the table is laughable.
By not being an asshole.
Energomash: Yeah of course women are people. Do you think PUAs want sex with toilets, credit cards or animals?
I don’t know what they want sex with, but it doesn’t seem to be real women.
So what? He has a point. Young women are more attractive, whats misogyn about that?
By itself, nothing. That he says women who aren’t attractive are “used up”, worthless, equivalent to a clogged toilet, or a stiffed check: that’s misogyny, straight up.
Flip the roles, and see if you think someone saying that about men wasn’t being a tad beyond the pale.
Wow… made of fail.
If there is no “intrinsic” value to people, then the entire fa&ccela;ade of the MRM falls apart. Lacking in intrinsic value they have no reason to declaim that women being set above them (which is what they claim is the case) is wrong.
Instead they argue that people most decidedly have such an intrinsic value, and women are lower in same then men.
If you don’t think that (and I don’t believe you for a second) then why don’t you kill/abuse/otherwise harm them?
Why be at all fair to any other person?
Right, because you don’t believe that; you thought it convenient to say as a set up to the second bit of balderdash.
You are creating a false-dichotomy. I can value someone as a person, and see them for their individual qualities. If they have no intrinsic worth then the only value they have is as they relate to me (see above, re moral values in relation to dealing fairly with other people).
But neither of those addresses the issue of objectification. Objectification isn’t about the individual’s value, it’s about the viewers lack of consideration of that value; in a way which harms the other.
When I am on the street (in NYC) I see a lot of women whom I find attractive. Some of them (at this time of year) are dressed in ways which are moderately, to fairly, revealing. I appreciate it. I look. I don’t stare. I also don’t interact with them any more than that.
I don’t yell out, “Hey baby, can I get summa that!?!”. I don’t stop, watch them approach and turn to follow them with my eyes until they are gone. I don’t actually change my course to follow them. I don’t think of them as meat. I see them as people, who chose to dress in a way I found pleasant.
And that’s ok. I wear clothes which I think make me look good. Sometimes people make it plain they are noticing (there was a guy at the local gay bar who moved over so he could get a better look as I walked past; it was a little objectifying, but he stopped with that, so I can take it as read; he liked what he was looking at).
But you want to pretend it means, “I think she’s hot”, not, “All she’s good for is looking good and fucking”.
See above why your epistimologic model is immaterial to the intrinsic value of people. If you want some clarification, read Kant.
Energomash:
Ah… not so much an ontological materialist, as a solipsist. This explains a lot of the assholery.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Interesting conflation.
Not all acts of inhumanity are crimes. Not all acts are criminal in all contexts.
Lets look at combat zones (something with which I am a bit familiar). I could shoot anyone in an enemy uniform. Further, if I thought I, a fellow coalition soldier, or a civilian was at risk of attack, I had liberty to shoot the percieved threat.
I happen to (as an observer) value my own life a fairly highly. I was on a convoy and this vehicle pulled in between us, and the vehicle behind (it’s called, “breaking convoy”). I put my weapon on burst, and contemplated the occupants (it was a brown mercedes, four men, aged 25-40, two had mustaches, the other two had mustaches and beards, the driver was wearing a white shirt). Guy in the back leaned forward, between the seats and took something out of his shirt.
I’d have been within my rights to light them up, empty 30 rounds of 5.56 ammo into the driver, and the rest of them.
I didn’t. Why? Because I valued their humanity, and took the moment needed to see it wasn’t something threatening in his hand.
Meh, he just sounds like a little shit who got to college and suddenly realized that he doesn’t have to do what his parents say anymore. He probably eats frosting out of the carton and watches all the TV shows he was forbidden as a kid, too.
I missed this.
There’s a difference between respecting someone’s personhood and acknowledging that someone is known as a “person.” Looks like Mr. Philosophical doesn’t really care about nuance here.
To whoever said this – haven’t time to read the thread yet – codswallop. There’s nothing uniquely human about personality. Try interacting with mammals, birds, fish …
@katz
Hey, I eat frosting out of the carton ;) Especially if it’s chocolate.
Infact right now I wish I had some chocolate icing/useless comments.
“True, but participants choose to participate, while subjects may not be give the same courtesy. And the way many of these guys talk, it’s clear that they feel that it’d be better if the “females” were subjects rather than participants.”
Sorry, my posts are all over the place so I realize that, out of context, it might sound like I was making an argument about PUAs, specifically, misusing language. I was just following up on another comment in which I said male and female are adjectives that work only, to my mind, if you have a noun (senator, participant, grocer) to describe. The lovers of EP appear to be using “male” and “female” to make their arguments sound more intelligent by echoing the language of scientists.
Scientists, at least in the field of human psy, prefer the term “participant” to “subject” because the language does not dehumanize those who are part of the study. “Subject” has a connotation which is steeped in unethical, dehumanizing practices and modern psy researchers are attempting to move away from that stigma.
So, I’ve been sick for several years. It started with some neurological problems related to an autoimmune disease, but in the last year my condition has become very serious and I’m basically house-bound/bedridden.
So the question is, if now and in the future I am more of a burden on the world than able to contribute (from a utilitarian perspective) or nobody values me because I’m grumpy and feel like crap, doesn’t saying I have no “instrinsic value” as a human being imply that I should just go kill myself now? Or that my husband or the state should do that for me?
In the way the idiot troll said it, that is exactly what it implies. Which is why he can just go fuck off.
@baileyrenee
Sorry, english is not my first language but I’ll try.
Objectification means: To have certain emotional dispositions towards a person or object. You react in a certain way to that person or object.
It also means to treat people as a means to an end (sexual gratification in this case)
But all this is only possible because women are human. PUAs do not want to have sex with lifeless objects or animals…get it?
@baileyrenee
Sorry, english is not my first language but I’ll try.
Objectification means: To have certain emotional dispositions towards that person or object. You react in a certain way to that person or object.
It also means to treat people as a means to an end (sexual gratification in this case)
But all this is only possible because women are human. PUAs do not want to have sex with lifeless objects or animals…get it?
I don’t know, I still don’t think Energomash knows what objectification means. Especially since what he said just made no fucking sense.
Ergonotroll: wrong again.
…I can’t even find a dictionary definition of the word that says this. What the hell?
Again, yeah, but you’re playing a lot of word games to avoid dealing with those words.
Like so.
So, I’ve been sick for several years. It started with some neurological problems related to an autoimmune disease, but in the last year my condition has become very serious and I’m basically house-bound/bedridden.
So the question is, if now and in the future I am more of a burden on the world than able to contribute (from a utilitarian perspective) or nobody values me because I’m grumpy and feel like crap, doesn’t saying I have no “instrinsic value” as a human being imply that I should just go kill myself now? Or that my husband or the state should do that for me?
In the way the idiot troll said it, that is exactly what it implies. Which is why he can just go fuck off.
I make frosting and then eat it out of the bowl.
Actual transcript of what happened in the room when I read this.
Me: THAT’S NOT WHAT ‘OBJECTIFICATION’ MEA — ow. *uncontrollable coughin*
But even /with/ your BS definition, you left “certain emotional disposition to that person OR object”, which means you are not even successfully proving that PUAs who objectify women think women are human EVEN BY YOUR OWN FREAKING DEFINITION
(Dave, please ignore moderated post–I apparently logged in is some weird way. Thanks.)
Personally I would have liked to settle down in my twenties. But my partner simply wasn’t ready. I had to wait almost ten years while we both went off and did our thing. But he came back to me. I guess the milk was still good ;)
Energomash, as a professional ESL instructor, I am circling your last comment with a big fat red pen.
@katz
But making frosting is such a paaaiiiiiin. /whiny voice.
Though seriously, I only ever bother when I have to do it to decorate pretty cakes. ::throws saccharine sparkles in the air::
Thank you, hellkell, for my guffaw of the day.
That canned frosting is nasty.
It’s nice to know that if ever I go and troll I can always fall back on, “Sorry, english is not my first language but I’ll try.”
Try yogurt + powdered sugar + cocoa powder. 3 ingredients.
Yogurt in frosting? Interesting.
@La Strega
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo! It is so yummy and chocolatey and yuuummmmmyyyyyy and chooooccooollllaaattteee! this is an extremely important debate!
@katz
hmmm. I am suspicious of yogurt. -.- How stiff is it? I need icing to be stiff enough that I can work with it. (why I don’t use it from cans much).
Energomash. My first language ain’t English, either. Learn to know what words mean before using them like you’re a robot.
grumpycatisagirl: anytime!
How stiff it is depends on how much powdered sugar you add. This is the quick “I want to eat some frosting” recipe, not the recipe for optimal texture, though. (Sometimes when I’m extra lazy, I just mix hot cocoa powder with yogurt.) The “real” recipe if you’re actually frosting a cake is butter + milk + powdered sugar + cocoa powder, and a little melted chocolate helps too.
Yeah, he can definitely kindly fuck off. And I hope you have more good days than bad Kristineedscats.
Pecunium — can’t tell if your example is you or not you. Wasn’t watching you cooking to tell if you’re a leftie…guessing not since you didn’t know what I meant about shooting with a left handed bow…*is curious!*
Guys! GUYS!! Skittish came over to investigate my hand while I was removing my feral algae and otherwise doing underwater gardening! They may need an “upgrade” to bold and not so bold :)
Relevance? Fish totally have personalities.
@katz
(ignore me if I’m bugging you, just icing is like a million times more interesting than the troll)
Does melted chocolate work well in icing? Normally I use cocoa powder when I do it, but i have to add soooo much more water. It’s such a pain :/
I do as well.
The important distinction (to me) is that in the occasions I say, “female”, I also say, “male”.
It’s the use of one noun form, and one adjectival form which makes me see someone as a chucklehead.
Same for “men/women boys/girls”. Those are matched pairs, not to be mixed withouth reason (and that can be done, because eight-year olds are not men, and calling a woman in her twenties a “girl”, just because she happens to be with children is wrong).
Ernergomash is either an idiot troll (who thinks some weak-ass pretensions to philosophy = clever) or completely failing at empathy.
Becuase, as Dvärghundspossen points out, there isn’t any, epistemic need for “intrinsic value”, but if a person values themself, and can’t extrapolate that sense of worth to others (which is what I think most of us are saying when we refer to an, “intrinsic value” to others), then they aren’t possessed of empathy.
Which is a huge problem.
Why not? A does not follow B. If they have no intrinsic value what matter their desire to live?
And I need to learn how to refresh before commenting!
Well, the nice thing about melted chocolate is that your frosting will set nice and solid. The downside is that you have to frost whatever it is you’re frosting right away while it’s still warm. I usually add it in addition to cocoa.
What is the recipe you use?
Robot 1: What is it to be HU-man?
Robot 2: To be HU-man is to have certain emotional dispositions towards that person or object.
Robot 1: What is EE-motion?
Robot 2: HU-man emotions cause them to react in a certain way to that person or object.
Robot 1: I am glad I have no such EE-motions. To react in a certain way to a person or object sounds most troublesome.
Robot 2: Affirmative.
>>>Only the ‘observer’ gives value to things (values them)
That’s nice, dear. It doesn’t follow from ontological materialism though. That’s a complete non sequitur.
At least if you had claimed sollipsism it would have been a pretty A -> B implication.
>>>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.
The “ontological” is just so you don’t get people confused if they typically use ‘materialism’ under its ‘vulgar’ definition of “an undue interest in money or hedonistic pleasures”. I typically do only use “materialism” in this way but then half the time your interlocutor just misunderstands what you’re saying, especially if you’re using it in a positive sense.
@katz
Remembering from the top of my head, normally I use canned shortening, merange (sp?) powder, sugar, vanilla extract (since chocolate is a pain).
Okay it’s been a while and I’m not sure I’ve got that right… it sounds off, but I can’t say why.
Interesting. That sounds like a very rich recipe.
Oh man, I wish I hadn’t watched a Classic Who episode with Cybermen in it last night, because now I’m hearing that in their voices.
Their gloating, manipulated voices.
Any minute now they’re going to start hurting people and proclaiming that emotions are weakness.
On those bike wheel lights(sorry I didn’t realize the pictures would come up)
If you click the second and third links, you can see a bunch of different awesome patterns.
They are a line of lights you put on the spoke part, and a magnet sensor thing you put on the top of the wheel where it won’t spin. The lights are timed* for specific patterns, basically. When the wheel spins around it makes those pictures. I saw one on another site that had pretty detailed patterns, like one had an exact image of Rosey the riveter.
*the magnet is so the pictures don’t get squished when you’re going slow, and stretched when going fast. The lights are timed with the magnet sensor thing, I think. At least I think it’s how they work.
Damn you, capitalism, stealing all our good words!!
Chibigodzilla… what is… kiss?
And Blackbloc, yeah, it’s either solipsism or sociopathy. I mean, what the hell.
It’s “meringue.”
If I can be trusted with French.
Since this is the first time I’ve heard of LaidinNYC . . . is it too much to hope that this particular blogger doesn’t actually have a following, in the depressing pathetic way that Roosh does? Nobody pays this dude money for his bile, I hope?
>>>Is it just me or is Energomash verging on sociopathy?
Ignoring the ableist underpinning of this question…
Energomash is one of those “Rational Egoists” who are really invested in the Egoist part and forego the Rational one. I mean, i personally agree that humans do not have intrinsic value. I think human value is provided by a common shared social agreement that most, if not all, human beings adhere to.
I, however, am not so gauche as to call myself an ontological materialist and then promptly decide that that must mean that social relations and social constructs, which we observe every day unless we’re willfully blind, are not material and therefore are not real. I mean, that would be kind of *stupid*, is what I’m saying.