It’s been a while since we checked in with LaidNYC, the alleged pickup artist whose sperm is LIQUID GOLD and whose wisdom about women, and life in general, is liquid, well, something else. Let’s see what we can learn from him.
In one recent post, Mr. LaidNYC brings his unique perspective to the question of raising boys, a topic I’m pretty sure he has no actual experience with. Well, after reading his advice, I can only hope that he has no actual experience with it, and that he never gets any. Some of his insights:
Marry a HAWT chick:
Choose his mother carefully. You are only half responsible for the genetic outcome of your child. You want a thin, young, healthy wife to help assure a healthy child. The mother should embrace the idea of wifely submission and a captain-first mate relationship in which she is not the captain. This will be your son’s first relationship model and it should embed natural gender roles in his mind forever.
Make sure your son knows he’s cockblocking you by even existing, and that you’re making a giant sacrifice by sticking around with mommy, even though she’s no longer the hottie she was when you married her, and you could TOTALLY be dating hotter chicks if she weren’t around.
Make him aware of your sacrifice. As a guy with game, you will likely be passing up lots of pussy and fun times if you choose to have kids. Make him aware of this. He should realize his existence is a gift from you. This will make him respect you more, and a child who respects his father has higher self-worth because he instinctively understands that his father is his genes.
Pay him money to approach HAWT chicks at Farmers’ Markets before he even reaches puberty. Because that’s not weird or creepy at all.
Have him approach girls. When he’s cute and pre-pubescent, take him to a park or farmers market and have him approach smoking hot babes. Give him cute stuff to say, he’ll have a 0% blowout rate. Make it fun for him, not “daddy is making me talk to girls again”. Use monetary incentives if necessary.
Get him a dog, because bitches are bitches amirite high five bro! No, really, that’s his argument:
Get a dog. A dog teaches kids how to love and how to be in charge of something they love. The parallels between dog training and game are staggering.
Also, be a drunk and a letch, because somehow this will benefit him.
Set up some dominoes for him to topple. This is fun. Buy a small piece of bar so he can easily be a bartender when he’s 18. Befriend families in the neighborhood who have hot daughters so he can have an in to fuck them. … Be a regular at a bar or strip club and pass the status on to him.
What kind of status points to you accumulate, exactly, by being a creepy old dude hanging out in a strip club all the time?
Speaking of creepy old dudes, let’s take a look at another post from LaidNYC with the seemingly inoffensive title The Walls of Facebook, in which our hero villain explains some research he’s conducted by creeping through the Facebook pictures of teen girls.
Back when I still had Facebook, I was routinely shocked at HOW MUCH hotter girls, even in their early to mid twenties, used to be just a few years earlier.
In fact, Facebook shows that when women peak is even younger than anyone blogging under their real name would care to admit. Common red pill dogma states that women are their hottest between 18-24.
I say this is bullshit. Try 15-19.
Even that is generous for modern girls in prosperous countries. If she’s going to college to binge drink on weekends and swipe her mealplan card at the buffet line, her peak likely ceases her first semester at around age 18.
True female peak, on average, is probably around 16-18.
High schoolers.
Yep, this is the same guy who was just giving advice on how to be a good parent.
He continues:
Now, we in the red pill community try to stretch that peak to 23 or 24 because most guys don’t have the chance to bang high school girls. There’s the law, different social circles, cock-blocking parents, etc. So we lie to ourselves a bit and claim the 22, 23 year old girls we date are still at peak. Close enough for government work.
Yes, that’s right. He just complained about COCK-BLOCKING PARENTS.
I was going to keep going and go through a couple more posts of his today, but, honestly, HE JUST COMPLAINED ABOUT COCK-BLOCKING PARENTS. I’ve had enough of this creepy bullshit for one day.
Monster – yes, and once someone’s an actual adult, ie. a woman, she becomes a “female”.
A friend of mine explained this to men once in the context of the (extremely sexist) culture she grew up in. OK, so imagine that the idea that women are equal to men isn’t even worth considering -it’s clear to you that even if women live to be 90 they are still less intelligent, less spiritual, and less everything than men, and the idea of them even aspiring to relate to men on an equal level is ludicrous. In that context, how do you figure out when they’re old enough to have sex? Well, puberty is all you really have to go on, since from your perspective women are never going to become adults in the same sense that men are.
It’s disgusting, and depressing, but there is a certain horrible internal logic to it from the perspective of a virulent misogynist.
So, Blackbloc, are we just dumping the art-defacing thing down the memory hole, or what? Because I’m still waiting for an explanation of that.
It makes total, horrible sense. It conveys very well thier belief that women are only things. Total giveaway.
Interestingly enough she did say that people do grasp the idea that old enough to have sex isn’t necessarily old enough to have a baby, and that people put the appropriate age for that significantly higher.
The young-marriage thing isn’t always an exaggeration; we’ve got plenty of records of women from ancient Rome who were married and having kids as young teenagers at all levels of society. And Roman men got married very late indeed; soldiers weren’t allowed to marry until they left the army at age 30.
By their logic, if anything it should make more sense for women to have an obsession with young men, because while girls between 14-17 might be more fertile in the sense that they get pregnant easily (I’m not sure if that’s true, but we’ll go with it for the sake of argument), girls that age have a very high risk of both maternal and infant morbidity. There are a ton of complications that grow up in girls who aren’t fully grown and yet are giving birth; 17 and under is considered a high risk pregnancy by default because of it.
So if we’re approaching it from an evolutionary perspective, the simple ability to get pregnant isn’t enough. She would have to be capable of giving birth to healthy offspring and surviving to nurse them with no medical care, which teenagers are not well-suited for (and which you can usually tell by looking at them–their bodies are obviously not fully mature yet). I don’t believe teenage boys have a comparable problem with immature sperm or whatever.
So really, if there’s really an evolutionary reason to prefer teenagers, it should be women preferring boys and men preferring slightly older young women. But of course it’s all a bullshit attempt to justify preying on young girls, so it doesn’t have to make sense I guess.
I do just want to quibble with the last sentence in the quote, though. Homosexual behavior* is extremely common throughout the natural world, both in domesticated animals and wild ones. And it isn’t just a “males will hump anything” thing. In animals that pair-bond, some same-sex animals will choose each other as long-term or even lifetime mates. The frequency varies by species (there are some that exhibit a lot of homosexual behaviors, and others that exhibit almost none in natural conditions), but homosexual behavior definitely happens in nature.
I don’t know if there’s an analogue to being trans, but mostly because that’s a rather difficult thing to quantify in animals. I’ve definitely seen animals (again, both domestic and wild) who acted more like the opposite sex of their species is expected to, but since gender is a pretty human idea, I don’t know.
So really, I’d say that both those things are rare, but natural nonetheless.
*I went with “homosexual behavior” because I don’t like the trend of being like, “Animals are gay so it’s okay!” Because it’s true, and it does need to be pointed out in some contexts, but I don’t like using that as a justification for homosexuality. It’s like the whole “is it genetic?” debate…on the one hand it is interesting and important in understanding the full spectrum of human sexuality, but in a world where we’re still fighting for basic civil rights for LGBTQ people, it’s really problematic to rely on arguments that are basically, “they can’t help it!”
So basically, I consider homosexual behavior in non-human animals to be distinct from what we think of when we think about homosexuality, but at the same time there’s enough examples to say that homosexuality is pretty damn natural. 😉
Huh, I was just thinking about why I don’t like the “but I was born this way!” argument. I mean, if it is genetic, hey, no complaints! But if it isn’t and we use that to argue why GLBT people should have equal rights? It can all fall apart, which is, obviously, a Bad Thing. And this is why I’m of the “whether it’s genetic or not, we’re people and everyone deserves the same rights” /tangent
As for animals being trans*, obviously it’s impossible to go ask other species, and idk that species that undergo gender changes as routine really count! but a fair number of fish species change genders depending on various environmental cues or as they age. It’s something genetically programmed for the whole species though, so idk how comparable it is. (Otoh, everyone is genetically programmed with the possibility, environmental cues sometimes make it happen? Maybe it isn’t so different)
I know fish stuff, surprising, I know!
If memory serves, someone made that argument in a theological setting to satirize someone else’s argument. A third person took the argument seriously and successfully argued against it, likely on the grounds of “wut?”
I don’t like it because it shouldn’t matter one way or another. There’s nothing wrong with homosexual relationships and whether a person is born that way or chooses to act in that way doesn’t make any difference as to whether or not homosexual relationships are totally normal and fine.
Yeah, exactly. And hinging that on genetics is a risky proposition if it turns out not to be genetic.
Nynaeve, your baby boy is beautiful. I was sitting in the lounge with friends when I opened the link and we were reduced to a huddling collective of “aaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwww”. Absolutely adorable :3
Regarding trans and animals – I have a hard time believing that any other species except perhaps really advanced ones like chimps could be trans. The reason? Being trans has to do with your identity, the way you think about yourself. I can’t see how it’s possible to be trans unless you’re self-aware in a pretty complex way. (This obviously means that we shouldn’t say that animals are cis either – rather that the whole trans/cis thing doesn’t apply.)
Even if we find another species where sometimes, say, individuals with vaginas to display a typically male behaviour, that’s not enough to label them trans. In humans, the definition of trans isn’t “person with vagina who does manly things” or the other way around, so it seems weird to use that as a definition for other species. The same thing goes for fish that first has one set of genitals and then another one – the definition of trans in humans isn’t “first has one set of genitals and then another”, so why would that be the definition for fish?
I think it makes more sense to argue that animals can be homo/hetero/bi depending on what sex they display sexual attraction/pair bonding behaviour toward. But being either cis or trans would require the ability to think about zirself and have an idea of who zie is which I think is beyond most species.
Also; I’m with everyone else on the “born this way” being a problematic argument anyway for reasons already stated. If it turns out that being HBT is caused by the environment or the result of some (perhaps subconscious) choice, heck, even if it turns out that there is some way to cure people, that shouldn’t matter.
Serious baby is seriously adorable. I just wanna smooch that fuzzy head.
In medieval England, it was not uncommon for aristocrat children aged 12 or less to be married (to each other or to adults) as dynastic alliances. BUT there would be no sex or children until the child themselves had reached a decent age.
THere was a total scandal when Margaret Beaufort was married at the age of 12, not because of the marriage but because her adult husband bedded her and got her pregnant. She gave birth to Henry Tudor (Henry VII) when she was only 13 and everyone assumed both she & the baby would die.
So while society deemed it acceptable to marry that young, they did not deem it acceptable for adult men to abuse their child brides.
/mythbusters
titianblue – yes, I was thinking of Margaret Beaufort before, and what a rarity her situation was (slimy bloody Tudors, bah humbug).
*Waves white rose at Kittehserf*
I checked Wikipedia on Margareta of Denmark whom I mentioned above. So she was married to the 23-year-old king of Norway when she was ten years old, but continued to live with her parents until she was thirteen, at which point she moved to Norway, and “was raised by Märta Ulfsdotter” – indicating that nobody thought she was an adult at thirteen. Wikipedia then jumps to the point where she’s seventeen and had a baby, which indicates that at some point earlier she had begun to live “like man and wife” with the king.
I guess, based on what Titianblue wrote as well, that something like this procedure was standard when a king, duke or the like married a child?
Wikipedia also says that she “early” (whatever that means) became her husbands valued adviser in political affairs, indicating that medieval king Håkan Magnusson had less patriarchal views on women than current-day MRA:s.
I think it was common to use children to build alliances like this and common enough that there were established patterns of how the child was raised etc. No decent parent is going to marry their child-daughter to a king, duke, etc, without ensuring that she was going to safe.
And even if the parent was utterly selfish,from a purely political point of view, they wanted her to stay alive and produce heirs to cement the alliance.
Poor Margaret Beaufort was an orphan ward of state with no one who cared enough about her (rather than her lands & money) to protect her from her husband.
So yes, “cockblocking parents” were there, too.
@Titianblue! *lol* for the cockblocking parents.
And who knows, maybe most men who had a child bride in medieval times wasn’t even that interested in banging her until she was a bit older?
So I went to the Wikipedia article on the subject, and hit some interesting tidbits above and beyond the general picture (which matches what folks have been saying here–you had politically arranged marriages as young as 2 or 3, but the actual thing we think of as marriage was delayed until adolescence).
One bit I found highly intriguing is the notion that for a time, the Catholic Church was a supporter of elopement:
Also, Lucrezia Borgia was married to Giovanni Sforza at the age of thirteen, but the marriage wasn’t consummated until she was about a year older, something that was even stipulated in the wedding contract.
Oh, also, in contrast to Margaret Beaufort, Elizabeth Woodville was a 27-year-old mother of two when she married Edward IV, (who was 22), a marriage that stemmed from love/lust rather than politics. So, suck on that piece of history, numbnut PUA creeps.
This is a little late, but earlier up the thread the idea of a blog on how to avoid manipulative jerks/PUA and sex ed was mentioned; I think this is a great idea, even with sites like Scarlateen (which is an awesome site, BTW) are out there, it seems like there is so much disinformation out there too that the more people there are repeating the truth, the better. And, like CassandraSays said, there just doesn’t seem to be a lot of oppurtinities/platforms for older women to be able to mentor younger women about the techniques and manipulation and shaming and all around bad stuff that these MRAs and PUAs are advocating.
(OT, there now seems to be a string of numbers after my name; I’m the one who’s posted here before as “sparky;” I signed up for Gravatar so I can have a cool picture like everyone else. 🙂 ).