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.
Duuuuuude. You DON’T KNOW WHAT WORDS MEAN.
Go read some, and come back.
(Falconer said it better than I could, but for the record, I’m pretty well an atheist and a materialist AND THAT STILL LEAVES PLENTY OF INTRINSIC VALUE IN HUMANS FUCKWAD)
Ontological materialism is the idea that material reality is all that exists. That’s what I gather from the term itself, at least.
I love when these dudes throw around “philosophy” to justify being gigantic sexist assholes.
No.
Rationale, not rational.
I’m happy to hear that despite your PUA ways you believe a marriage that lasts a long time is something to aspire to.
Happy, and a little confused.
“Not too decisive”?
Is that a typo, or can you elucidate what you meant by that? I’m stumped.
@Marie: I think it depends on what one considers “intrinsic to humans”. It doesn’t really seem to be the atheism that’s spurring that sentiment but the “Ontological materialism” which is “the belief, or assumption, that only material matter and energy exist.”
But, even within that framework, I’d argue that humans represent a fairly unique collection of matter and energy and from that derive value.
TL;DR- I’m going with asshole
@Ally S
How so?
How can you hate someones personality and at the same time not hate him as human? Only humans posses traits like ‘personality’ etc.
Hmmm, this is an interesting question, isn’t it….i myself am not really sure what to believe.
This is the most disgusting thing I’ve read in months. According to you, if a person suffers mental trauma that reduces their intelligence, or personality, or an accident that destroys their appearance, they are now “worth less”.
You, sir, are an awful person. You’ve just expressed the sentiment behind every -ism ever.
“’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’”
Lewis Carroll
@ Falconer
Only the ‘observer’ gives value to things (values them) For example, art is in the eye of the beholder. There is no intrisic value in art (like beauty) This is actually a relational approach that has a lot in common with feminism.
In my worldview, to hate someone as a human is to see that person as inherently less valuable and deserving of humane treatment. But I can regard a human being as equally valuable as I am without liking anything about that person’s personality or behavior.
Example: I think rapists are horrible people, but at the same time, I don’t think they deserved to be raped, murdered, abused, etc. (with the exception of assault/killing in the name of self-defense from the victims). I respect their humanity even though I hate their behavior and personality.
Well, how about you go find it out somewhere different, mmkay? You came in here pretty sure that humans have no intrinsic value. Now you’re backtracking? WTF do you even want?
Stellar logic from Energomash, everyone!
@ Energomash
What exactly is your point beside playing the dictionary game with us?
“’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’”
Lewis Carroll
@fade
I still think that humans have no intrisic value. But another point is if it even matters? Did the thought that this other person is human as well ever really stopped anyone from commiting a crime? I don’t think so.
@chibigodzilla
That was my bet too, I’m just in hyper ramble mode today. Sorry if that was unclear.
@mrfancypants
QFT. Thank you for phrasing it so clearly. (my brain is mush today and I can’t articulate what bugs me about trolls atm).
Ok, I’m going to take a break from my normal mode and agree with troll boy. There is no intrinsic value in art. Art also isn’t human beings, though, so I don’t see the point.
Actually, the ethical approach common among feminists is much more like Kantianism than anything else. I thought that you, Mr. Philosophical, would be able to understanding that via reading so many feminist blogs.
Um, actually I’m betting it has at some point…
You know, I’m pretty sure people who kill, hurt, and rape people often see their victims as less than human, so…. yes.
Also, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, how is it just “true” that young women are more attractive? (your first comment here, remember?)
@fade
Yeah well, a group of people can come to the conclusion that one person is more attractive than the other. But of course that is not meant in a ontological sense.
If you believe this why should anyone care what you think?
How would you know? Are you polling the commiters of potential crimes to ask them why they didn’t do it?
For someone who has claimed to read many feminist blogs, he sure knows jack shit about what objectification actually is.
“Objectifying” someone means failing to treat that person with respect, failing to see the other person as a person just like yourself. It has got nothing to do with whether you believe in intrinsic value or not, or with any kinds of religious or metaethical issues.
And really, everyone knows this. Energomash is just trolling by showing off that zie once looked up some article on metaethics on Wikipedia.
Besides, if you really only find women under 25 sexually attractive, and you’re absolutely convinced that you won’t change your mind when you get older yourself, what’s the point in marrying AT ALL? Wouldn’t it be more rational to just have one night stands and/or short relationships with women whilst you’re young enough yourself to be able to hook up with 25-year-olds, and then stay at home and masturbate at pics of young women? (Rhetorical question.)
What is your point? You say “it’s not misogynistic to say young women are more attractive*”. Now you’re like “people only have value the beholder gives them (drawing the conclusion from you comparing humans to art earlier). So… If misogynists only value women for looks, they’re still misogynist. I don’t really see what you’re trying to debate here.
*which w/e, I don’t really care what age people think women are attractive at, unless it’s below 18 (coming from someone above 18) because that’s creepy.
@ Energomash
No intrinsic value? Excellent, please report to the rendering plant for extraction. On an elemental level you’re worth $4.50.
@Fade
It didn’t stop communists to ‘mistreat’ millions of people. Communism and humanism are closely related so lets be realistic here.