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.
Falconer — as pecunium said yesterday, good sex trumps sex with lots of people. And I’ll finish that with — which trumps sex with an upper age limit (lower age limit is Definitely Important)
So brag away if you want, I guess, though that could get a bit TMI.
Yeah I use male and female sometimes, e.g. when doing a statistical review of, say, male rape victims (to use my last stats topic as an example). Cuz “rape victims who are men” is just fucking bulky and unnatural.
@baileyrenee
Saying what other people have said, but I don’t mind male/female when used together. It’s just when they’re only using female for women, and not using male for men. (though as a small personal note I don’t like using male/ female myself, cuz it sounds awkward to me, but I’m not going to think you’re creepy for doing it.)
Oh these guys. This doesn’t even actually make sense, considering most of the other crap they go on about. Women should get married when they are young and hot, to who? One of these guys? Ok, so then we get a situation where a guy marries a young woman, seeing no inherent value in her except for sex and beauty. Then she hits 30 or 35, and he ‘gives her loving masculine protection for the rest of her life?’ No. He leaves her for the 23 year old waitress. Cause he sees her as totally worthless now she’s not conventionally hot. Then she’s a 35 year old divorced woman and obviously is completely valueless. and if she tries to get any money out of her husband she is an evil feminist harpy.
RE: Argenti
good sex trumps sex with lots of people.
Yes. Yes it does. 😀
Though, uh, obviously the two things aren’t mutually exclusive. <.<
Is it just me or is Energomash verging on sociopathy?
I really don’t understand the mindset that people are worthless. Unless you’re a sophist, you realize that (most) others have genuine emotions/feelings, an intrinsic sense of self worth and empathy.
Can these people not put themselves in another person’s shoes? I know they would not want to be thought of/treated like a piece of trash themselves. Heck, if you can’t bring yourself to care about others at least be decent in your treatment of them!
Anyway…
“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. ”
YOUR time and money? Do I know you? Do I even care? Nope. Screw you.
“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.”
Again with the use of the word “girl”. Pedo much? And these guys are a part of a fertility cult, no?
Soylent Green has no objective value!*
*Subjectively it’s $4.99 a box.
I am 100% cool with using female as an adjective, regardless of context. It’s only when it becomes a noun that it tends to ring alarm bells, as in “females are always doing X” and “I met this female at the coffee shop.” But if you’re using male as a noun in the same way, I probably wouldn’t see that as an issue. My two cents!
Slowly, surely, the little blinking caption saying HAY GUIZE I PUT MY HOO-HOO DILLY IN SOMEONE’S CHA-CHA gets bigger and bigger and bigger, edging out the babies entirely until it’s all text and no bairns.
Kinda like subject-verb agreement, but dripping with misogyny!
@Hyenagirl
I prefer to use male and female as adjectives when the gender of a noun needs to be described. If I am making reference to a man who is also a senator and I need to describe his gender I would not readily call him a “man” senator. I would call him a male senator. Male and female as nouns seems appropriate in a scientific paper, but not when describing people in day-to-day life.
Just a personal preference.
First six seconds…
Those that try to use EP to plug for certain sexual behaviors fail to recognize that sexual behavior is different between species and differs within species based on environmental circumstance. It also makes an appeal to nature which I find utterly unconvincing.
BTW, I just wanted to add, about the sci paper use of male and female. There is the assumption that when using the descriptors “male” and “female” that we are talking about the experiment’s “subjects”.
These PUAs and MRAs who would warn women of their short shelf lives are just whistling in the dark. As if they could scare girls into their beds! But it isn’t working. It is apparent that a large number of women are leery of, or indifferent to, marriage, for a variety of reasons.
The bottom line is that western women no longer NEED to get married in order to achieve the lives (love, autonomy, security) they want. And whenever I compare my life choices with, say, those of my mother’s generation, I am so grateful to feminism for making this possible.
As for physical beauty, the idea that a woman is considered past her prime at 25 is simply untrue. (Personally, I find women in their late thirties / early forties to be the most beautiful.) I’m not denying that physical beauty is a powerful attribute, but in my experience trading on one’s looks rarely helps a person achieve happiness.
I didn’t meet The One For Me until I was fifty. Although I sometimes wish we had come together sooner in our lives, I am glad I waited until we were ready for each other. My only regret is wasting so much time in my youth worrying about who and when I was going to marry.
As for the intrinsic worth of human beings, what does that have to do with atheism?
Which just adds to the squick factor when PUA’s use it, IMO.
Glad to see swinter back! I hope someone has sent her a welcome package.
I mean sminter1 of course.
To be fair, “participants” is the term used for human beings in most psy experiments. You participate in the study and are called a participant. Scientists, PUAs are NOT.
I don’t give ants intrinsic value so if I find one in my house I often kill it, that way I won’t end up with more. Also if I have ants on me I will get them off without thinking about their life.
True, but participants choose to participate, while subjects may not be give the same courtesy. And the way many of these guys talk, it’s clear that they feel that it’d be better if the “females” were subjects rather than participants.
Just stopping by to say that Xen made a great fuckin’ comment.
@rabbitwink
“On another topic related to this ridiculous post, since when are PUA’s all excited about being fathers? The “fertility fascination”, if you will. I mean,..”
Thank you! I think… it is an attempt to shift the discussion out of the contestable field of the social sciences, and into the ‘objective’ terrain of biology. This is why MRAs are so fond of the term ;’females.’ Women have purposes, projects, ambitions, and goals; females only have drives, impulses, reflexes, and urges. “Females,” whose capacity for agency is reduced to the level of the organism, can therefore be understood and mastered by rational systems of control – this helps to explain the popularity of the word “techniques” (technologies) by PUAs when describing seduction.
The language of science carries the imprimatur of authority. It transforms the arbitrariness and specificity of culturally bound desires into scientifically “objective” drives. The man who openly expresses his fondness for young T&A reveals himself to be shallow, objectifying, and regressive. However, couched in the language of fertility, the same sentiment can try to pass as an unproblematic statement about male biological urges.
The “Caveman Mystique” deals with a similar idea. During the Victorian Period, “primitive” man was looked upon with revulsion; the contemporary attitude however, is one of nostalgia for the caveman, and his rugged ur-masculinity. Invoking the caveman gives scientific license to bad behavior in the way that blaming your faults on the sin of Adam used to.
@auggzilliary
those /do/ look cool. How do they attach? To the spokes or something?
So… where are these dudes? The one’s in the PUA/RedPill/MRM fora who are asking young women to marry them; with a promise of lifetime love and support?
Because the idea they aren’t overvaluing what they are bringing to the table is laughable.