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.
PUA idiots, that’s who.
@pecunium
Objectification is not always ‘bad’. For example Surgeons have to treat their patients like objects, or else they couldn’t do their work.
Also, if you treat the waiter (non empathic) like an object he can hide behind his role, which saves him for example from nosy questions about his private life.
*has never called the game on account of injury* I guess that’s not particularly surprising though, considering injury is kinda inherent to my version of a good time (ok, I did try calling the game once but, uh, rapist ex #2, and that’s all that needs said about that)
I’ll join that toast pecunium, long as coffee’s an acceptable drink and death via suicide doesn’t exclude one from this toast (I am way too young for the number of friends lost that way)
And I think you have left and right handed bows confused, cuz left handed bow goes in your right hand (don’t ask me why) — http://www.greeneoutdoors.com/images/photos/bowleftrightwSeT.png (just why are you trying to shoot the ground directly in front of you? Damn thing isn’t a gun, you can be 100% sure it’s not “loaded”)
You have to treat people like things in order to keep yourself from asking them invasive questions?
Nope, still treating them like people, just people with a specific function.
And PUAs don’t value experience because then their dates might realize they aren’t particularly good lovers (if they were, would they really be PUAs in the first place? Begging the question though I suppose)
Non-responsive, and disingenuous. No one has said no objectification is ever justified. Go peddle your papers.
I lived a life where qualified objectification was required. I know all about it.
Tell me how that applies to women as a class, in terms of men wanting to fuck them.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Are … you inside my brain, Viscaria?
::nervously adjusts tin foil hat::
@boring troll
um…now I”m not a surgeon but this statement feels…off.
I’m confused, did the little troll just tell us to be dicks to waiters? Because I don’t ask anyone nosy questions unless we know each other. FFS, stop misunderstanding what objectification is so you 1) can be a sexist dick and 2) can (presumably) be really rude to the waitstaff.
argenti: And I think you have left and right handed bows confused, cuz left handed bow goes in your right hand (don’t ask me why) — http://www.greeneoutdoors.com/images/photos/bowleftrightwSeT.png (just why are you trying to shoot the ground directly in front of you? Damn thing isn’t a gun, you can be 100% sure it’s not “loaded”)
I don’t. Bow goes in the off hand, arrow in the dominant. Pull comes across body, where leverage is greatest, back to the cheek, so the string is just inside peripheral vision, and the arrowhead can be set to the point of aim (with such adjustments as range and wind require).
It’s also harder to roll the elbow out of the way of the string if you don’t cross the body.
Which is why the left handed bow goes in the right hand.
This is why Amazons were said to sear the chests of their children, so they’d not grow breasts on their shooting side.
(he’s aiming down because the image is of someone hunting from a tree stand).
Aw, man… a Wild Philosophy Dudebro Troll appeared, and you all barely left anything for me to chew… I gotta get better at sneaking on from work!
Meh, he’s pretty much not worth the effort now. *Sigh* Maybe next time….
I would actually rather my doctor/surgeon think that they’re operating on a human…. otherwise I think I could wind up with body parts deemed “unnecesary” lopped off (appendix) You wanna know why? Because I’m pretty sure people don’t think consent matters on objects. My appendix doesn’t do anything. A surgeon who thinks I’m an object would say “well, removing the appendix might prevent this body from getting sicker later, so it’s worth it” and then not ask me.
I know objectification isn’t “literally treating like an object” in all cases (like auggzilliary mentioned if surgeons said it was great you were injured because now they got money). Both of these would be assholish moves, and I highly recommend you stay away from the medical career in general.
argenti: The Crassula gollum is potted. The “leave it out” is until the wound seals, then then you put it in the ground and add some water. With luck it will start to look decent by spring.
@Marie
You don’t even have to ask a person nosy question to cross certain boundaries. You can do this by revealing anything about your emotional states to the othet person. Thats why psychotherapist mostly stay silent, because they don’t want to cross boindaries.
Bye the way, i ve been treated very badly (verbally) on this blog. I got get called a troll and other things. Not that it bothers me that much, but i find it hypocritical and a bit amusing because it comes from all these anti puas here (Iam no PUA btw)
re surgeons: As others have expanded: They don’t objectify, they compartmentalise.
E.g. My mother was having an ovary removed (cyst). She was under a local (she doesn’t get on well with general anasthesia). She and the gas-passer were chatting (like ya do), and the surgeon stuck his head over the drape, “Since I’m in here, do you want me to take your appendix out?”.
He could (and did) divide the desire to not “harm” a person, from the need caused by the cysts, and recall that she was capable of agency: Had she been under a general she’d still have her appendix, because she wasn’t an object.
No, they are being treated as subjects because they are consenting to the operation. If they were being operated on against their will, then they would be objectified and dehumanized.
You can also do so by, you know, not asking nosy questions about his private life. Or not doing anything similar to him. Not being a jerk to a waiter doesn’t require treating him like an object.
You’re grasping for straws.
okay, how is calling you a troll bad energomash? I mean, you started out saying the post in question wasn’t bad because you think young women are hot. Is there really anything you classify as bad people are doing to you other than not putting up with your shit?
Please stop proudly displaying your ignorance.
Also, if it’s okay to treat a waiter like an object, then it’s also okay to treat him horribly – like a mere means to an end. Sounds respectful to me!
If Ergonotroll treats his waiters like objects, I bet he eats a lot of spit.
I’m confused, did the little troll just tell us that having emotions crosses certain boundries?
Dude, did you even read what you wrote when you came here? You basically came in and acted like the whole post was stating the ‘fact’ young women are more attractive, when there was a looooootttt of dehumanizing shit in it. It wasn’t just the author saying he liked younger women.
Energomash: Bye the way, i ve been treated very badly (verbally) on this blog.
No, you haven’t. You’ve been called an asshole,and dishonest. The latter is plainly true. The former is, based on your statements about intrinsic worth, and how to treat people is a defensible claim.
You may not like it, that doesn’t make it bad. It doesn’t even make it mean. It is what it is. You have expressed asshole ideas, and been called an asshole. You have been dishonest (either about your beliefs, or your understanding: I’ve been generous, IMO, about which I decided it was: That is to say I am taking your statements about your philosophical beliefs at face value. That makes you more of a chuckelheaded idiot than I have called you, but I am not one of the more abrasive sorts here; take that for what it’s worth).
Oh, no, someone used mean words for you! Let me get my tiny violin.
Boindaries?
I’m sort of confused about the, “personal questions” thing. When seeing someone treat waitstaff as objects it’s things like, finger snapping and a lack of please and, “I’m paying good money to eat here, I deserve to be the center of the fucking universe”.
Asking a question would be admitting the waiter was more than just an automaton required to service the customer; that he had a life outside the bounds of the restaurant.
…do you think you’re being negged?