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.
Oh dammit. I didn’t realise that if I’d offered up my beauty and fertility, I’d now be dining off a lifetime of top quality masculine support. What a shame I held out until my 30s and had to settle for a loving partner.
Energomash said:
“So what? He has a point. Young women are more attractive, whats misogyn about that?”
In this context it’s misogynistic because it assumes that physical attractiveness is all women have to offer and that thier lives are essentially worthless “spoiled milk” when they hit 30. Women are people and there are far, far more important qualities than youth and physical attractiveness. Any man worthy of the term realizes this and doesn’t consider his wife (or any woman for that matter) to lose her value on ther thirtieth birthday.
And the main reason for straight women getting married at later ages is because they need more time in school to have a better chance of finding a job with a living wage. So LaidinNYC is really fighting against urbanization and the expansion of educational and career opportunities for women. No wonder these same kinds of men despise women with successful careers.
Energomash also said:
“Yeah of course women are people. Do you think PUAs want sex with toilets, credit cards or animals?”
That argument would be a little more believable if they weren’t comparing us to toilets, credit cards and animals quite so frequently.
David, my comments don’t seem to be appearing. Am I in moderation for some reason?
I love the caption to the top picture XD
@energeh or however you spell it
I assume boring troll. Anyway, Older dudes who go after younger women get all the side eye from me. (At least exclusively younger women. My dad is married to a younger women, though she is past the ripe old age for 30, and I don’t judge him for it because I know they actually like each other, not that he’s just going after younger women because older ones are all icky and wrinkly.)
Lol, bad troll taking everything literally. No, you twit, we just don’t think they treat women well. Because comparing women to credit cards, toilets, and milk, are dehumanizing (or just plain weird, but no options take in mind she is a person not a product.)
@tarnishedsophia
Good point. Do I still have to find a women to get married when I’m very young? Should she be young too? If we’re both old, who is getting scammed? /trying to apply misogyinst logic to my potential future life.
@Seranvali
I saw one of your comments. (two if you count the one I quoted.) :/
energomash
did we read the same post? He didn’t say young women more attractive (it’s bs to state your opinion as fact anyway, though) he said older women are WORTHLESS and also compared them to food.
The PUAs seem to care more about getting sex than respecting other human beings.
should clarify – he thought they were worthless because they’re not attractive. So not only does he think older women are worthless, he thinks the only thing that matters about a woman is how hot she is.
For some reason, this argument is getting so boring to me. Maybe because I have no desire to be validated by a creep. Though I can’t help to hope that if he actually does go out and try pick up women, they avoid him. Or at least that they ‘pump and dump’ him, to use PUAs finest vocabulary. (noooooes! That’s impossible: women don’t have sex for pleasure! *entire worldview collapses*)
XD
@auggziliary @thebionicmommy
I’ve read some feminist blogs and they always criticize the ‘objectification’ of women. I think from a philosophical viewpoint this doesnt make much sense.
1: Humans do not posses any intrisic value.
2: If you value a person because he/she is human, you don’t value what makes them special. You don’t value any specific characteristics like intelligence, personality or looks! You value an abstract entity and not the actual person.
@Energomash.
wow. I think that is a really cruddy way to try to justify being an asshole. Also, I think humans DO possess intrisic value, sorry. I can value my brother as a human AND because he’s smart and funny and we play fight a lot. Those aren’t contradictory
Why exactly would a PUA care about marriage, again? I thought PUAs, in theory, were concerned with sex and getting lots of it. Hmm. LaidinNYC should hustle over to r/redpill. I think their conversation would be more to his bent.
Oh dear. Bent. That just came out. Oh. There, I did it again.
BZZT. Sorry, wrong. Thanks for playing!
30? Hell, they’ve apparently lowered that to 23!
@fade
You can? You mean you can actually like people? Joy? Friendship? What are the alien concepts you speak of?
*leaves PUA land*
@chie
Hey, the sooner I can get of the assholes radar 😉
I contend that humans have intrinsic value, but you don’t need to think that humans have intrinsic value to see why objectification is fucked up. Utilitarianism can also support the moral case against objectification very easily.
As for your second point, I don’t think you understand what it means to value someone as a human being. It is the same as valuing the person hirself – what you specify is merely valuing a human being because of hir attributes, which is the exact opposite of seeing someone as intrinsically valuable. Valuing a person has nothing to do with liking certain aspects of that person and everything to do with seeing that person as an end in hirself.
“I don’t know what objectification means!”
Asshole.
Learn about the difference between subject and object, and get back to us.
@Fade
Right. I agree. You value someone because he/she is for example funny….but only humans can be funny/humorous (or sexually attractive to you). So it is impossible to value one (personality trait) without the other (the human that posses it). Therefore the talk about objectification doesn’t make much sense to me.
And if you think humans posses any intrisic value is a philosophical question. I am an atheist / ontological materialist so i believe humans do not posses any intrisic values.
So. I know there are some atheist manboobzers here. Is this guy right, or is he just an asshole? (I’m betting asshole, but w/e. I’m bored so fun with troll time.)
….
/okay, I do not think you get this.
I value humans b/c they are humans.
For example, I place value on your life.
I place value on my brother’s life.
I value my brother EXTRA because we are friends.
For example, I do not value what you have to say
But I DO value what my brother has to say.
Get the difference?
Hey if that’s how you feel fine; but stating your beliefs as fact is a very poor way to build up an argument.
“So it is impossible to value one (personality trait) without the other (the human that posses it).”
It’s quite possible to hate someone but still value that person as a human being, so no.
Also, are you actually conflating ontological materialism and atheism? I hope you aren’t.
I stated my disapproval with what that post was advocating. LaidNYC is a cool guy, but I totally didn’t get the rational for this 1. I mean, young marriages are failing like crazy, so to fathom marrying someone under 25 would be suicidal. I’d already dished out my opinion on his post as being not too decisive.
I am also an atheist, and largely a materialist.
I believe humans possess intrinsic value.
I don’t see how believing that the material is the source of existence/current state means humans aren’t intrinsically valuable.
“Ontological Materialism” is a new one on me, but I can work out the meanings of words and I have access to Wikipedia. If I’ve got a wrong handle on your fancy-sounding words, let me know, but I don’t think I’m wrong that you think the material is the source of existence.
What I don’t know is what posses have to do with anything.