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.
By not being an asshole.
Energomash: Yeah of course women are people. Do you think PUAs want sex with toilets, credit cards or animals?
I don’t know what they want sex with, but it doesn’t seem to be real women.
So what? He has a point. Young women are more attractive, whats misogyn about that?
By itself, nothing. That he says women who aren’t attractive are “used up”, worthless, equivalent to a clogged toilet, or a stiffed check: that’s misogyny, straight up.
Flip the roles, and see if you think someone saying that about men wasn’t being a tad beyond the pale.
Wow… made of fail.
If there is no “intrinsic” value to people, then the entire fa&ccela;ade of the MRM falls apart. Lacking in intrinsic value they have no reason to declaim that women being set above them (which is what they claim is the case) is wrong.
Instead they argue that people most decidedly have such an intrinsic value, and women are lower in same then men.
If you don’t think that (and I don’t believe you for a second) then why don’t you kill/abuse/otherwise harm them?
Why be at all fair to any other person?
Right, because you don’t believe that; you thought it convenient to say as a set up to the second bit of balderdash.
You are creating a false-dichotomy. I can value someone as a person, and see them for their individual qualities. If they have no intrinsic worth then the only value they have is as they relate to me (see above, re moral values in relation to dealing fairly with other people).
But neither of those addresses the issue of objectification. Objectification isn’t about the individual’s value, it’s about the viewers lack of consideration of that value; in a way which harms the other.
When I am on the street (in NYC) I see a lot of women whom I find attractive. Some of them (at this time of year) are dressed in ways which are moderately, to fairly, revealing. I appreciate it. I look. I don’t stare. I also don’t interact with them any more than that.
I don’t yell out, “Hey baby, can I get summa that!?!”. I don’t stop, watch them approach and turn to follow them with my eyes until they are gone. I don’t actually change my course to follow them. I don’t think of them as meat. I see them as people, who chose to dress in a way I found pleasant.
And that’s ok. I wear clothes which I think make me look good. Sometimes people make it plain they are noticing (there was a guy at the local gay bar who moved over so he could get a better look as I walked past; it was a little objectifying, but he stopped with that, so I can take it as read; he liked what he was looking at).
But you want to pretend it means, “I think she’s hot”, not, “All she’s good for is looking good and fucking”.
See above why your epistimologic model is immaterial to the intrinsic value of people. If you want some clarification, read Kant.
Energomash:
Ah… not so much an ontological materialist, as a solipsist. This explains a lot of the assholery.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Interesting conflation.
Not all acts of inhumanity are crimes. Not all acts are criminal in all contexts.
Lets look at combat zones (something with which I am a bit familiar). I could shoot anyone in an enemy uniform. Further, if I thought I, a fellow coalition soldier, or a civilian was at risk of attack, I had liberty to shoot the percieved threat.
I happen to (as an observer) value my own life a fairly highly. I was on a convoy and this vehicle pulled in between us, and the vehicle behind (it’s called, “breaking convoy”). I put my weapon on burst, and contemplated the occupants (it was a brown mercedes, four men, aged 25-40, two had mustaches, the other two had mustaches and beards, the driver was wearing a white shirt). Guy in the back leaned forward, between the seats and took something out of his shirt.
I’d have been within my rights to light them up, empty 30 rounds of 5.56 ammo into the driver, and the rest of them.
I didn’t. Why? Because I valued their humanity, and took the moment needed to see it wasn’t something threatening in his hand.
Meh, he just sounds like a little shit who got to college and suddenly realized that he doesn’t have to do what his parents say anymore. He probably eats frosting out of the carton and watches all the TV shows he was forbidden as a kid, too.
I missed this.
There’s a difference between respecting someone’s personhood and acknowledging that someone is known as a “person.” Looks like Mr. Philosophical doesn’t really care about nuance here.
To whoever said this – haven’t time to read the thread yet – codswallop. There’s nothing uniquely human about personality. Try interacting with mammals, birds, fish …
@katz
Hey, I eat frosting out of the carton 😉 Especially if it’s chocolate.
Infact right now I wish I had some chocolate icing/useless comments.
“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.”
Sorry, my posts are all over the place so I realize that, out of context, it might sound like I was making an argument about PUAs, specifically, misusing language. I was just following up on another comment in which I said male and female are adjectives that work only, to my mind, if you have a noun (senator, participant, grocer) to describe. The lovers of EP appear to be using “male” and “female” to make their arguments sound more intelligent by echoing the language of scientists.
Scientists, at least in the field of human psy, prefer the term “participant” to “subject” because the language does not dehumanize those who are part of the study. “Subject” has a connotation which is steeped in unethical, dehumanizing practices and modern psy researchers are attempting to move away from that stigma.
So, I’ve been sick for several years. It started with some neurological problems related to an autoimmune disease, but in the last year my condition has become very serious and I’m basically house-bound/bedridden.
So the question is, if now and in the future I am more of a burden on the world than able to contribute (from a utilitarian perspective) or nobody values me because I’m grumpy and feel like crap, doesn’t saying I have no “instrinsic value” as a human being imply that I should just go kill myself now? Or that my husband or the state should do that for me?
In the way the idiot troll said it, that is exactly what it implies. Which is why he can just go fuck off.
@baileyrenee
Sorry, english is not my first language but I’ll try.
Objectification means: To have certain emotional dispositions towards a person or object. You react in a certain way to that person or object.
It also means to treat people as a means to an end (sexual gratification in this case)
But all this is only possible because women are human. PUAs do not want to have sex with lifeless objects or animals…get it?
@baileyrenee
Sorry, english is not my first language but I’ll try.
Objectification means: To have certain emotional dispositions towards that person or object. You react in a certain way to that person or object.
It also means to treat people as a means to an end (sexual gratification in this case)
But all this is only possible because women are human. PUAs do not want to have sex with lifeless objects or animals…get it?
I don’t know, I still don’t think Energomash knows what objectification means. Especially since what he said just made no fucking sense.
Ergonotroll: wrong again.
…I can’t even find a dictionary definition of the word that says this. What the hell?
Again, yeah, but you’re playing a lot of word games to avoid dealing with those words.
Like so.
So, I’ve been sick for several years. It started with some neurological problems related to an autoimmune disease, but in the last year my condition has become very serious and I’m basically house-bound/bedridden.
So the question is, if now and in the future I am more of a burden on the world than able to contribute (from a utilitarian perspective) or nobody values me because I’m grumpy and feel like crap, doesn’t saying I have no “instrinsic value” as a human being imply that I should just go kill myself now? Or that my husband or the state should do that for me?
In the way the idiot troll said it, that is exactly what it implies. Which is why he can just go fuck off.
I make frosting and then eat it out of the bowl.
Actual transcript of what happened in the room when I read this.
Me: THAT’S NOT WHAT ‘OBJECTIFICATION’ MEA — ow. *uncontrollable coughin*
But even /with/ your BS definition, you left “certain emotional disposition to that person OR object”, which means you are not even successfully proving that PUAs who objectify women think women are human EVEN BY YOUR OWN FREAKING DEFINITION
(Dave, please ignore moderated post–I apparently logged in is some weird way. Thanks.)
Personally I would have liked to settle down in my twenties. But my partner simply wasn’t ready. I had to wait almost ten years while we both went off and did our thing. But he came back to me. I guess the milk was still good 😉
Energomash, as a professional ESL instructor, I am circling your last comment with a big fat red pen.
@katz
But making frosting is such a paaaiiiiiin. /whiny voice.
Though seriously, I only ever bother when I have to do it to decorate pretty cakes. ::throws saccharine sparkles in the air::
Thank you, hellkell, for my guffaw of the day.