So the Red Pill subreddit, as you may recall, is a place for dudes to discuss the devious and possibly not altogether ethical or even consensual strategies they’ve come up with to … have sex with anyone they want. But their real goal is not just to have sex, but to control other people’s opinions and thoughts of them doing so. They want to silence all critics, and then even demand praise for their morally reprehensible or at least morally questionable actions.
Woah. It feels like my brain was just taken over for a second. Did I even write that? I don’t think I did. I swear I’ve read most of that paragraph before.
Oh wait.
Oh yeah. That’s where it came from. I must have been possessed.
The Red Pill subreddit, where lying to women to get them into bed is perfectly acceptable but a woman having consensual sex is a reprehensible, narcissistic slattern with a gymnastic hamster for a brain.
NOTE: I found this quote through the always helpful Blue Pill subreddit.
Sometimes, believing that they believe their own drivel is difficult, but the stream is endless.
cloudiah – Bwahahahaha!
sarahliz – PUAs have a better line in pretending to each other they’re having SO much secks with SO many HB10s. Red pillers haven’t got past the frothrage phase.
Does anyone else remember a commercial for a TV show of Brave New World a while back that had a voice over going “What if you could have sex with anyone you wanted? What if anyone who wanted could have sex with you?” Creepy music ensued. Minor derail. That is what this reminded me of. Creepy dudes.
I just remembered something a friend said a decade-odd ago, to some jackass who was getting sulky/nasty because she wasn’t interested in him. “I’ve heard it all before, boys all say exactly the same thing. If a girl won’t have sex with you she’s frigid or a lesbian. If she has sex with anyone else she’s a slut.”
It shut him right up.
Yazikus – ewww, creepy indeed. No mention of anyone not having sex with people they don’t want.
That’s what creeped me out about that whole “Poly is the best and everyone should be into it!” line Dvarg mentioned some so-called sex-positive types pushing. Consent or acquiescence seems to be the default.
::hurls::
Hah! Good on her. I wish I had the ability to come back with quips like that. Sadly, usually it is a day or so before I think of the clever thing I ought to have said.
She was old enough to have seen surly young men in action for years and be wholly unimpressed by them, and she had a supply of sharp answers at the ready, and didn’t hesitate to use ’em! 😀
I’d say so. Ugh.
Like many of you, I used to be confused as to what could be so reprehensible about women having consensual sex with other adults. Luckily, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with many people about this issue, and they’ve been able to give me a whole range of reasons why women having sex is so wrong. Some examples:
– I can’t believe you’re even asking that question. I mean, it’s pretty obvious. Stop pretending like you don’t understand.
– I don’t have to justify my beliefs to you.
– It’s… slutty.
– They just don’t respect themselves!
I hope these explanations are as illuminating for the rest of you as they have been for me.
MY EMPHELLA SHELL JUST ARRIVED
… normal service will now resume.
kittehs, I wanna picture.
Popping in to say: The guy appears to be wearing a Rirakkuma outfit. (It’s a bear.)
But that’s okay. I thought my capybara was a hamster for the longest time too.
Chris Wilson:
Hi, great to meet you! There are far more older feminists here than you might think and you are more than welcome to join us!
I find this attitude incomprehensible.
We’re badbadbad if we choose to have sex with people we like but we should be forced to have sex with people we don’t like, so rape becomes the only acceptable “sex” we’re allowed?
That’s really warped and I wonder just how many hamsters they’ve run to death to reach that conclusion. Or are they saying that they (real men, as opposed to “manginas” and “white knights) are so unattractive to women that the only way they can have any sex at all is to rape? This train of thought goes to incredibly dark places and I really don’t want to follow it any further.
cloudiah, a pic will be forthcoming! It might be warm enough to wear the dress this week.
The 1921 dystopian novel “We” also features a society where people can’t say no to sex, because supposedly sexual frustration is such a bad thing that it ought to be the case that everyone can just demand to have a certain number of sexual encounters with anyone they want to.
Only the story that ensues is actually about our male protagonist being demanded to have sex with a woman he’s a bit freaked-out by. Eventually our male protagonist becomes completely obsessed with this woman despite still being a bit scared of her and… I felt, on reading it, that it’s a bit of a BDSM fantasy, despite nothing overtly BDSM:y being involved (like, no whips or ropes or spanking or anything like that). A bit refreshing though that it’s the woman who has the dominating role.
There’s this meme going around in feminist circles according to which women who have sex with lots of men are slut-shamed while men who have sex with lots of women are admired. I don’t think that’s quite true. It’s really common for men to say about other men who have had sex with lots of women that they’re “assholes” or “bastards” for doing so, so there really is a kind of slut-shaming for men as well. The difference is that female sluts are said not to respect themselves, while male sluts are said not to respect women.
It’s all about women supposedly not really wanting sex, only luuuuurve. Therefore, women who have lots of sex are acting against their own best interests, and show a lack of self-respect. Men who lave lots of sex with different women act against the best interest of women, take advantage of women, use women only for sex despite the fact that all women always wanna get into a LTR and then get married, and don’t respect women. So they’re both bad, but for different reasons.
Also, I think this connects to the view that hetero-sex means the woman gives something away to the man. So the slutty woman becomes sort of analogous to a person who shops like crazy, takes loans to cover all the shopping and eventually is completely bancrupt. This kind of person is often viewed with contempt (although pity might be more appropriate). The slutty man, OTH, becomes analogous to someone owning a loan institute giving out loans that takes advantage of people by giving out crappy deals to people who are clueless about economy.
So it’s only immoral if women do it. And since we women know that anything we do is wrong, we had to invent feminism in order to force the rest of the world to accept our evil ways…while at the same time still believing ourselves to be immoral. Well I guess that is at least a silver medal? Man, those burns are still healing from the last blast of stupid from the Manosphere.
Don’t we live in a society saturated with media in which every character, male or female, who is single, is expected to have sex with at least one different person each week? I’m thinking of “Sex and the City” and an old show called “Dream On” (in which Brian Benben plays a sad sack, awkward, nebbishy divorced guy who somehow has sex with at least one Playboy centerfold per episode because this is HBO.)
I liked all those reasons, Viscaria. I will offer some more real life answers I’ve gotten from people trying to justify the double standard.
–A woman’s greatest value is her virtue. If she gives it away to any Tom, Dick, and Harry, then no one will ever want to marry her.
–It’s easy for women to get laid, and it’s hard for men to get laid. (So this means everyone in the world is straight. And if something is hard to do, it’s good. But if something is easy to do, it’s bad.)
–It’s gross because it spreads disease.
–It’s a sin. (It’s like sin lite for men, but ultra mega sin for women, because reasons.)
–Men have to sow their wild oats. They are physically incapable of restraining themselves, so it’s up to women to be the gatekeepers for them. (And they accuse feminists of bashing men?)
Hi Chris Wilson! I’m a second-waver, too, and in fact bought the very first issue of Ms. Magazine. I mostly lurk but read everything here. Back in the day, when I discovered stuff like The Second Sex and The Feminine Mystique, I had major feminist rage. Then my daughter went through that rage at around age 17. Here we are, still fighting the same battles …
I forgot the old classic key and lock analogy. See, men are like keys and women are locks. If a key opens many doors it’s a master key, but if a lock can be opened by more than one key, then it’s shitty.
There are many more sex analogies comparing people to inanimate objects, though. There’s also the microwave and oven one. Men are microwaves, because they got hot fast and they only need a few minutes to complete the job. Women, however, are ovens. They have to preheat and they need a long time to complete the job.
Then there’s the flower one. A woman is like a flower, and the petals represent her purity. When she has sex, she loses her petals, and a flower with no petals is worthless. That’s the one they do in sex ed classes, but another variation of it is the pizza box demonstration, where the teacher says the pizza is a woman, and if you give all the slices away, you’re left with an empty box that belongs in the trash.
I wish I could come up with some analogy to explain the idea of “I don’t care what someone else is doing in their sex lives as long as everyone is a consenting adult”.
–It’s gross because it spreads disease.
That is all.
The key and lock thing makes me pull my hair out, it’s so inane. “These two things hold one thing in common, therefore they are the same in all other ways” is not actually a reasonable statement. Nor is “these things hold one thing in common, therefore they are the same in ways that are convenient to my argument.”
Also, not everybody is cis, and both men and women can penetrate as well as be penetrated by their sexual partners if they choose. Are women who do a lot of pegging like keys? No, huh? Weird.