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.
Just because we are “anti-pua” as you say, does not mean that we are expected to be endlessly polite toward disagreeable persons such as yourself. Our patience, unlike human stupidity, is not infinite.
Exactly. Such a question is only invasive if it’s one that is deeply personal and private. Or one that constitutes a form of harassment.
auggz.:
Yeah, I know,.And that’s the saddest part. Even their fantasies are boring.
Someone who doesn’t view people as having value is *something* if not a sociopath or psychopath. Or maybe they just don’t care. I had no intentions of being abilist. I have an uncle who is a legitimate psychopath and has done terrible things to people, so maybe I’m a bit lax with the term.
Negging? LOL. We are just DHV (demonstrating higher [sexual] value, to quote the PUAs).
“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.”
State that in coherent English, please. It reads as thought you are trying to make a point about the therapist-client/patient relationship.
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.
No. They stay silent because (puts on the Hat of Professional Questioning), by asking an open-ended question and leaving the subject to answer all of it more information is elicited. Since much of therapy is based on getting the subject to drag their issues/beliefs/fears/concerns into the light so they can look at them it’s counterproductive to not let them speak.
It’s the opposite of objectifying them. It requires the therapist to accept them as unique beings, with unique problems. If they were objects the therapist would sit them down, tell them what was wrong with them and send them on their merry way.
The single digits are getting smaller.
Pecunium — ok so you actually shot right handed…with a dominant right eye…how the FUCK does that work? No seriously, cuz finding a left handed bow is Not Easy, and I refuse to wear a wrist guard after catching a 50? lb string under it (holy fuck did that hurt). I’d love to make use of the collection of targets and pseudo-range here, but my father’s bow is a rightie.
And the tree stand makes sense, always shot from the ground so I didn’t even think of that.
W00t for the crassula gollum — did I show you the parent plant?
And, uh, regarding Amazon breast “removal”…breast ironing is a thing. (Link’s to wiki, so SFW)
General comments —
Yeah I don’t ask nosy questions unless I’m fairly sure they’d not be considered to intrusive or offensive. And to have a feel for that means knowing the askee at least fairly well.
And psychs tend to be silent? Can someone tell mine that?
@pecunium
Yeah, but his life outside of his job is none of your buisness. Any questions about it could be crossing a certain boundary.
“If they were objects the therapist would sit them down, tell them what was wrong with them and send them on their merry way.”
We’re you serious about having her call you if she pulls that “if he cares about you” stunt again? Cuz I really want to hear you tell my psych off.
“Since much of therapy is based on getting the subject to drag their issues/beliefs/fears/concerns into the light so they can look at them it’s counterproductive to not let them speak.”
Which is why I find your open inbox far more useful. I babble quite effectively left to my own devices (oh yeah, you read That Email yet?)
“she just kinda summarizes what I said so I can understand my feelings better”
That’s also just a good way to ensure effective communication — “you’re saying x, right?”
“Yeah, but his life outside of his job is none of your buisness. Any questions about it could be crossing a certain boundary.”
One that could well get a reply of “would you like more water?”, but, in any case, isn’t objectifying. Which I’m fairly sure was the point you were trying to make when you brought up waitstaff.
…Okay. Nobody here is advocating that you disrespect your waitstaff by asking them personal questions, because that would be absolutely crossing a boundary. However, that boundary is not maintained treating your server like zie is a lamp. It is maintained by respecting hir human dignity and right to privacy.
Argenti: ok so you actually shot right handed…with a dominant right eye…how the FUCK does that work? No seriously,
At the risk of being flip: Just fine.
I need to get a bow again, so maybe I can show you (and I do the English, “flex”, as opposed to the “continental” draw, but that’s not really relevant, unless one has an archaic bow, with no shelf, in which case it’s mostly ambidextrous).
Take the knock in your right hand.
Pull the string, until it’s touching your cheek, just outside the corner of your lip/against your cheekbone.
Make sure you’ve rotated your left arm, so the elbow is pointed out.
Release the string.
Here’s a lefty, with a compound bow, same technique
http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2011/05/19/109205/size0-army.mil-109205-2011-05-20-060523.jpg
And a woman shooting righthanded.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/images/wildlife_images/nasp1.jpg
Yeah, but his life outside of his job is none of your buisness. Any questions about it could be crossing a certain boundary.
Which has fuck all to do with it.
Crossing a boundary requires you think there is a boundary, which means the waiter isn’t an object.
Telling said waiter to call you a cab, that’s treating them as a sort of object (because that’s not in the job description).
Snapping your fingers as if the waiter were a dog, that’s treating them as an object.
Is Energomash trying to get us to believe that treating women like sexual objects is the equivalent of not invading the privacy of servers? And that, therefore, if we believe it is right to respect the privacy of servers, we must necessarily believe it is acceptable to sexually objectify women? That’s… not going to actually work, Energomash, no matter how many odd twists and turns you try to take.
I brought up waitsatff. He decided to run with it. At the moment I’d have to say his understanding of objectification is reminiscent of a well-spun toddler trying to hit a piñata: the club is too heavy, and he has no idea where the target is.
@Viscaria
You do treat him/her like….he/she is just a waiter or waitress. A person to serve you food and to satisfy your needs. How is that not objectification?
It is. But it isn’t morally wrong. Because you pay that person and because he/she wants (?) to work there..
@Viscaria
Seems like it :/ hard for me to tell though.
“At the risk of being flip: Just fine.” 😛
And I’d love to come visit again, even if you haven’t procured a bow for that demonstration. A good reversible bow would be excellent, I learning on the absurdly cheap ones that are just bow and completely round hand grip, no shelf, no molded grip, nada. I’m hoping it’s like riding a bike, or violin, you never really lose it, your muscles know what to do — obviously that won’t help my aim any, but pretty sure I still know the form.
Not that we could shoot at your place anyways…come here, not here here, obviously, but I know a good, usually empty, spot within walking distance (well, by my standards, but not the 5+ miles kind, the 1~ kind)
“Call me a cab”
“Okay, you’re a cab”
Girl, Interrupted (read the book!)
Nooooo… I treat servers like people. Because I’m not an asshole. Thanks for playing though.
So what are they going to do when their wives hit the big 3-0? I’m guessing either have an affair with younger women, divorce her and get a lawyer who will majorly screw her over in the divorce so she’s stuck with the kids and isn’t getting a dime, just plain give her a Dear John letter and leave or just stay and treat her like crap in a passive-aggressive way.
Ergonotroll is taking willful obtuseness to new levels. Bo-ring.
You do treat him/her like….he/she is just a waiter or waitress. A person to serve you food and to satisfy your needs. How is that not objectification?
So…. treating my surgeon like a surgeon is objectifying them. Treating my mother like she is my mother is objectifying her. Treating my soldiers as soldiers, and expecting them to polish their boots, keep their hair in regs, and do their job is objectfying them.
No wonder you don’t have a problem with it, you’re arguing that treating people like people = treating them as objects.
So, are you that stupid, or that dishonest?
“If objectification means anything I want it to mean, it can mean good things! Therefore objectification is a good thing! Therefore I win at arguments! Hooraaaaay!”
“You do treat him/her like….he/she is just a waiter or waitress. A person to serve you food and to satisfy your needs. How is that not objectification?”
Ok, I’ve been polite so far, but are you really that fucking dense? “A person to…”
Yep, a person, with whom you’ll be having limited interaction because you’re meeting them while they play a certain role (waitstaff). Hell, enjoying the view at a strip club probably isn’t objectification, since stripping is what they’re there for. Treating some random woman you just met (or are never going to meet, just stare at) as solely a sex object? Well, see the word OBJECT, she isn’t playing the role of sex object, it isn’t a role she signed up to fill when you two started talking. Much like calling you a cab isn’t a role that waitstaff has signed up for, nor is keeping track of your goddamned exercise routine what your legal assistant signed up for (have I mentioned that I hated that job? Pardon me for not knowing that X day you’ll be in at 9, not 8:30, because it’s a swimming morning)