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.
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?
lol, my housemates just invested in a bidet attachment, you can actually get them pretty cheap:
http://www.amazon.com/Astor-Non-Electric-Mechanical-Toilet-Attachment/dp/B003TPGPUW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1347664349&sr=8-2&keywords=bidets
Aworld: have you tried the Cottonelle wipes or something like that? Or possibly showering after the morning paperwork is done.
Maybe showering, gods I should start changing my diet to make my business predictable, or just buy nicer paper, which I’m planning on doing once I move to the nicer dorms with the private bathrooms.
You could try eating more fiber (and maybe consuming less diary). It works for me!
@clairedammit
As a total grammar nerd, and chiming in because you brought it up, I think the problem is that “thinking as why” is the part that sounds awkward. Not actually ungrammatical, but it pings the little editor in my brain. Changing it to “thinking that leads people to” makes the sentence read much better.
It’s the same thinking that leads people to advertise used cars as being “one owner.”
(I love when I can nitpick grammar and style without being annoying!)