A lot of Men’s Rights Activists, would-be pickup artists, and other so-called “Red Pillers” like to complain that feminists have so muddied up the issue of sexual consent that men today can never really be sure if the sex they’re having is actual consensual sex or some newfangled variety of rape.
But in fact the ones doing most of the muddying are them — in some cases because they would like to roll back the progress we’ve made on the issue of consent over the last several decades and return to a world in which pressuring and manipulating and even directly coercing a woman into saying “yes” to sex they don’t want was considered an appropriate “technique” in a man’s dating playbook.
Most of them would prefer not to state this outright, and instead talk endlessly about the evils of “regret rape” and an alleged epidemic of “false rape accusations.” But once in a while they let slip what they really mean.
Case in point: a highly revealing, and heavily upvoted, post from the Red Pill subreddit in which one aspiring “game” master calling himself Archwinger expresses his dismay that so many people think “any attempt to coerce a woman into sex is automatically ‘abuse.'”
He goes on to argue, remarkably, that his refusal to see coerced sex as rape or even abuse is a sign of just how deeply Red Pillers like him respect women.
Our detractors assume women are idiots, and therefore, it should be a federal offence to ever attempt to coerce a woman into sex, because women that agree to be with such men are apparently, by definition, mentally impaired.
In his mind, caring about abused women, and trying to understand the many complicated reasons they may choose to stay with abusers, is a sign that feminists “assume women are idiots.”
The occasion for Archwinger’s little rant was a post elsewhere on Reddit — he doesn’t link to it —
telling the tale of a 17-year-old girl and her controlling, manipulative, abusive 23-year-old boyfriend who took great pains to isolate her from her friends and family, demand sex on every occasion they would meet (and threaten to dump her or kick her out of his house if she didn’t comply), and some other really shitty behaviors, like physical violence and driving off and leaving her in another state.
The kicker: the abusive boyfriend in the story was said to be a big fan of, you guessed it, The Red Pill subreddit.
Archwinger quickly tries to distance The Red Pill from this douchebag, declaring him to be
a sniveling loser who had to resort to insecure, jealous, and controlling behavior because he didn’t have options with other women, wasn’t an attractive or valuable man, and was desperately afraid of losing this girl.
In other words, as Archwinger writes, “this guy isn’t the ‘alpha male’ a Red Pill guy strives to be.”
Archwinger seems to have forgotten that various “Red Pill” and “game” gurus regularly recommend “gaslighting” and other forms of emotional abuse in order to keep wives and girlfriends, as they see it, in line. Indeed, you may recall the time that the repellent “pickup guru” Heartiste actually suggested that a number of the abusive behaviors listed on the Duluth “Power and Control Wheel” — a tool used by anti-domestic violence counselors — were great ways to get the upper hand with women.
Even more ironically, after dismissing the “sniveling loser” of a boyfriend who is so un-alpha he regularly threatened to break up with his girlfriend if she wouldn’t have sex with him right then and there, Archwinger turns around and suggests that this kind of manipulative abuse isn’t abuse at all.
Assuming there’s “no perceived power disparity or significant age difference or anything like that,” Archwinger argues, telling a woman to “[h]ave sex with me or we’re through” isn’t abusive; it’s just a simple question a woman can say “yes” or “no” to. He complains that
The modern, anti-Red-Pill viewpoint is that no woman would ever put up with that garbage. The only correct choice is for that woman to dump the “abusive” shithead she’s dating (because any attempt to coerce a woman into sex is automatically “abuse.” You’re supposed to buy her jewelry every weekend, not say a word about sex, and hope she fucks you out of the goodness of her heart).
Well, no. No one needs to buy anyone any jewelry. And no one is required to pity-fuck anyone “out of the goodness of [their] heart[s].” If your girlfriend has sex with you, it should be because she wants to have sex with you (as you do, with her).
It’s kind of amazing that Archwinger — at least as he frames things here — seems to see no third option between a direct demand for sex in the form of manipulative ultimatum and a creepy, passively aggressive “Nice Guy” attempt to guilt trip women into having sex by buying them expensive presents.
There is another way, guys: you could just fucking ask her. Not out of the blue with someone you don’t know, and not rudely, but in some appropriate manner, at an appropriate time and place when there’s some evidence that she might be interested in having sex with you as well. The exact wording of your question isn’t really terribly important; just ask.
Naturally, the assembled Red Pillers largely agreed with Archwinger’s creepy, rapey analysis.
A few had quibbles. Redpillschool, a moderator of the subreddit, argued — in a comment that won more than a hundred upvotes — that Archwinger was too quick to assume that older men have more power in relationships with younger women. Because women have tits, and tits are power. No, really:
[W]omen are naturally turned on by and attracted to older, established, successful men. But if a man takes advantage of this — he’s wrong. He’s bad.
It becomes politically incorrect to use your advantages to attract women. You should date somebody your own age.
What about beauty? If age and status boost men’s SMV, then beauty and youth are women’s equivalent. Feminists don’t seem to care that a young beautiful woman has such an enormous amount of power, they can make a living off of just having tits, control men, get men to buy them things, and a variety of other things.
This is what Warren Farrell infamously (and a little anachronistically) has called women’s “miniskirt power.”
Another commenter had a more, well, fundamental issue with Archwinger’s analysis.
One issue I have with this post that is causing some dissonance within me is your assumption that women are logical and can think with reason. Though often written with snark, many posts here assume exactly the opposite. Therefore it is often suggested that men treat women as they would children (amused mastery) and take the lead in making final decisions.
Archwinger — you know, the great respecter of women — replied that women aren’t inherently stupid and illogical; society makes them that way.
Women aren’t stupid or incapable of reason. We just happen to live in a society where narcissistic bitches are lavished with attention and praised, and women never have to grow up, so the odds are that one or more women you date during your lifetime will behave in a manner that’s frankly kind of childish, and that you don’t want to validate. (insert obligatory “not all women” and “men too sometimes” language here so that nobody bothers replying with that idiocy)
Contrast that with feminism, which is advocating for a complete removal of all agency and responsibility from women, just not using those words because then it sounds stupid. …
Feminism seeks laws that remove agency from women. Did she have any alcohol in her system, then later regret sex? Rape. Man’s fault. Did she say yes, but not clearly and enthusiastically? Rape. Man’s fault. In a few years, you’ll probably see them push for expanding the definition of statutory rape to include an age difference of more than a certain amount (because a 35 year old man with a steady job dating a 21-year-old in college is clearly all about power and manipulation, because young women definitely aren’t attracted to good looks and social status and financial stability.)
There’s a lot of nonsense in his reply, but it’s that last bit that’s the most revealing: Archwinger understands perfectly that there’s a power differential between a thirtysomething man and a college-aged woman; he just wants to pretend it doesn’t matter.
Archwinger’s post, and the responses it generated, suggest that most Red Pillers are aware, as well, that when women end up “regretting” a sexual encounter that the man allegedly thought was consensual, it’s not because women are flighty and irresponsible and vindictive monsters out to punish innocent men. It’s because the woman in question was being coerced into it. And that isn’t “regret rape.” It’s just plain rape.
Red Pillers, or at least a significant number of them, are well aware that coerced sexual consent is no more valid than a “forced confession.” They just don’t want to remove coercion from their “seduction” toolkit.
H/T — r/againstmensrights
EDIT: A few additions and changes in the penultimate paragraph to make the point clearer.
@katelynjecmen – I’m sorry. That sucks.
My version of internet hugs:
http://i.imgur.com/37tpNYYm.jpg
@Rockstar Dinosaur Pirate Princess – thank YOU, for coming up with such an elegant metaphor and jump-starting so many conversations. Tea doesn’t have the baggage that sex does, so it’s a brilliant way to get people to see the underlying principle.
The red pill really should come with a huge list of side effects and warnings. “May cause impaired thinking and profound lack of empathy. If inflated self-importance lasts longer than four hours, consult a medical professional. Do not take this product while operating internet, keyboards, or other heavy machinery. Women of childbearing age should avoid contact.”
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants “The red pill really should come with a huge list of side effects and warnings. “May cause impaired thinking and profound lack of empathy. If inflated self-importance lasts longer than four hours, consult a medical professional. Do not take this product while operating internet, keyboards, or other heavy machinery. Women of childbearing age should avoid contact.”
Not to mention the risk of minor/moderate/severe genital evo-psych.
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants:
If the red pill were to have the list of side effects on it, then nobody would take it; and that means the grifters like Valizadeh and Elam would need to find productive employment elsewhere.
@EJ Oh, I think the TeRPers would still take it, if they thought it would increase their chances of getting laid. They’d swallow plutonium and jump off a bridge just to up their notch count. It also nicely covers up those nagging feelings of insecurity that come from self-absorption and lack of accomplishment. Instead of spots in front of their eyes, they see scapegoats.
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants:
This raises a chicken-and-egg query. Which came first, the red pill or the judging themselves by their notch count?
@Buttercup
Now I have to wonder if someone posed as a Terper and insistently proclaimed that swallowing plutonium and jumping off bridges made one “alpha”, how many of them would actually be dumb enough to do it. (But morbid humor aside, let’s not do that, trying to get them to off themselves is a bit too much. A bit.)
Side note: dammit, now on top of all the truly repulsive shit they’ve done, just to add insult to injury, one of these fucks has infested Warframe, too.
I recently had an argument with a man in comments about an article relating to coercion of anal sex in teen relationships that led to the injury of girls who were under 16. The man in question WOULD NOT accept that the boys had done ANYTHING wrong, and kept cracking on about agency and taking responsibility. Then mentioning yoga pants and Kim Kardashian! It would appear that these girls deserve everything they get because they wear a particular garment, and KK is a lousy role model.
That this is a pervasive attitude is really worrying. These are very young girls who are being expected to handle everything as if they are women of the world of 30. As if there are not significant pressures to conform to all sorts of things, as if girls are all so super confident that they are impervious to unreasonable expectations. Even a young woman in her early 20s is still developing in many ways and ALL of us have fragile self esteem in some ways, or at different times.
That the Duluth Wheel is being bandied around as a tool for a man to get more sex, or a more compliant girlfriend is the most disgusting part of this. It shows that these men are FULLY aware of how scummy they are, and that they are more than happy to be an abuser. I would ask where they get such a disgusting attitude, but I know the answer.
“Contrast that with feminism, which is advocating for a complete removal of all agency and responsibility from women, just not using those words because then it sounds stupid.”
:Facepalm: This is one of those examples bordering on “not even wrong,” because it is so far away from any rational thought that anyone with a lick of common sense is often reduced to head shaking, facepalms and I-can’t-evens. The above statement is so breathlessly stupid…I just can’t even…
Archwing: I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
(Sorry for the anger, folks, but something about Mr. Archwing’s tirade stomped on my last nerve today–maybe it’s the breathless stupidity)
I think what Archwinger said in his last comment was mostly spot on. Western women aren’t forced to grow up and feminists really do seek to remove agency from women. The whole “everything is rape” thing feminists pull is one good example but another one is how feminists complain about “slut shaming and vilify pro lifers. They want women to be able to have sex with as many men as they want without anyone criticizing them for it and without them having to deal with any kind of consequences for it like having to raise a baby. Of course they only want women to have these privileges. They don’t want men to have a legal right to ditch their parental responsibilities, only women.
I don’t expect anyone here to realize any of this because the feminist brainwashing is too severe but that doesn’t make it not true though.
@the 4th survivor:
Okay, so you’re saying that if we disagree with you, we’re wrong, because brainwashing by eeebil feminists. As long as we agree with you, then we’re not brainwashed. Way to logic, man. Works to completely secure your view of the world, doesn’t it?
Feminism IS about agency for women. It is about the choices women have to pursue a career or not, to have bodily integrity, to not be the property of anyone. Heck, feminism is about being seen and respected as a human being–not as some sexual object or chattel, got it? And as for women having sex with anyone they want–yup. We have rights to decide with whom we will have sex with. What’s your problem with that?
Oh funsies, TeRPer ridiculousness!
Man manipulates and coerces one woman: loser.
Man manipulates and coerces many women simultaneously: so alpha.
Red Pill logick for the win!!!
Thank you proxieme
The reason I stated what I did I think is because the counter argument made from someone who has this experience needs to be said, I think anyone questioning either side of the argument has to know the costs of such decisions on another person. I cannot say that my rapist was a red piller as I don’t know, but I do know he gaslighted me a lot, used the power he held over me through a place to live vs living on the street and guilting the hell out of me to get what he wanted out of me. How anyone can justify such a think as normal or the right way to get what you desire is beyond me. But what I can say is that its obvious they feel the need to justify it, my guess is they prefer that these laws go away so that they don’t have to feel like a bad person for doing bad things.
@the 4th survivor,
Just because you think something is true doesn’t mean that it’s so. Unless you’re well-educated on the topic, actually, it’s a pretty good indicator that your opinion is wrong.
I’m not going to bother taking your opinion or statement apart piecemeal; there’s not enough worth addressing there.
It’s a Hollywood fantasy, plain and simple.
Speaking of which, 37-year-old Maggie Gyllenhaal just got told she was too old to play “love interest” to a man of 55. When did she become such a crone? Oh well…don’t despair, Maggie, you’re just the right age to play his love interest’s MOTHER!
@the 4th survivor:
Why exactly should women be punished for having sex? Or “face consequences” as you put it? If it’s perfectly fine when men have as much sex as they want (and for the record, it is), why is it wrong when women do the same?
Also, why should women be forced to carry out unwanted pregnancies? Why should men be the ones to decide whether a woman can have an abortion or not? Why is it wrong for a woman to have an abortion, while men should be totally free to ditch their parental responsibilities on a whim?
Could it be because you resent women having agency?
And the whole brainwashing thing? That’s not even an argument. As far as I’m concerned, it’s an empty statement that addresses nothing at all. It’s not like feminists are asking people to drink some Kool-Aid… I mean, swallow a pill, right?
Oh, looky here, Archwinger is getting into how unfair the world is to older men who pursue younger women. As the fourteen years junior spouse in my marriage, I can sympathize with his plight (I mean, I’ve only had like six or seven of my husband’s coworkers ask if I had any hot single friends my age or younger; clearly those dudes are oppressed). So I am sure that this will be reasoned and not at all insulting to either my husband or to me.
1.Penthouse Letters is not an academic journal.
2. If this is an evopsych thing, I laugh. In the standard manosphere version of an ancient world where women are totally dependent on men for everything, and their ability to bear children decides their social status, why would a woman want to hook up with an older dude? He’s less strong than the younger men, less potent, and more likely to predecease you and leave you scrambling for a new protector. It’s a bad survival strategy from my POV.
3. Yes, taking advantage of people does make you wrong.
I dated several people my age before I met Mr. FM. Ditto for him. In fact, when we met he was kind of iffy about pursuing something because I was so darned young. In retrospect I can see that he went to great lengths to make sure that I was safe and comfortable at all times, that I was making decisions based on what was best for me and not what he wanted, and that our sex life was about sharing, not taking. OTW, he was a good human being. Mr. FM’s not a saint, he’s got his blind spots and biases just like the rest of us, but he’s always done right by me. Somehow I think that’s not the case for a lot of age disparate relationships.
So – though I’m obviously prejudiced here – I don’t think that being with someone outside of your cohort is inherently wrong or not “PC.”. It’s only a problem if you’re a creep using your social and financial capital to gain access to vulnerable people with the intention of exploiting the hell out of them. Refusing to date people your own age is kind of a red flag for that. It says that you’re not looking at people as people, but as resources that can be tapped with the right tools.
I was (and am) attracted to Mr. FM’s strength of character, the way he can puzzle out almost any situation, his generosity with his time and talents, his consideration and tenderness, the way he always looks serious and then just busts out a huge smile from nowhere, and how yummy his shoulders look in an Oxford shirt. I was almost done with an economics degree and was headed to the Army, so I could make my own damned money. And I’m not even sure what kind of transitive social status is conferred on a twenty-something woman with a partner in his thirties. Maybe there is some, and maybe it’s a plus for some people, but it never played into any reasoning of mine.
So I’ll grant Archwinger one point since he got the “looks” part right. However, I’ll also argue that if you have something going for you besides your pretty face, money, and status, people will be attracted to you for those things. Who you are is less changeable than how you look or your bank balance, and your character is what keeps people coming back for more. Chances are that you’ll use those good qualities to build a relationship (either long or short term) with another person, not as bargaining chips to attain a trophy.
OTOH, if someone is trying to reel in another person using the trappings of power, and then sees nothing wrong with using those advantages to get the other person to do their bidding – then yeah, that relationship might be built on power and manipulation. Funny how that stuff works.
If you can’t see that Grand Funk Railroad was a far superior band to Led Zeppelin, it’s because of the feminist brainwashing.
I have no idea why my brain junked out “OTW” on the keyboard in that post. I even proofed that post first. Ugh. Should have been “IOW.”
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/692/19789999.jpg
Agency just means the ability to make choices, buddy. Giving women the option to sleep with our not sleep with whoever they like and the ability to end an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy is kind of the opposite of removing agency from them. Removing agency would mean having someone other than the woman herself decide who, if anyone, she was going to sleep with and when if ever she would have kids. You know, like the patriarchy does.
Responsibility is a different word entirely. Though I would argue that choosing not to have a kid that you know you can’t provide for properly is a very responsible decision, so you’re batting zero for two here.
Oh lookie, 4th troll has returned to dispense more nonsense. How exactly is saying that women have the right to choose who they have sex with removing agency? We’re saying we do have agency and are capable of deciding what we do with our own bodies. You’re pretty confused about the meaning of the word agency if you think feminists don’t want women to have it.
Why exactly do you feel the need criticize women for their sex lives? You’re saying it’s bad for feminists to criticize men who have sex without obtaining consent, otherwise known as rape, but it’s fine for you to criticize women for having consensual sex. How does this make sense? You say it’s feminists who are trying to remove women’s agency and then in the very same post you say you and other men should decide who it’s acceptable for women to have sex with and whether or not a woman should be able to get an abortion. Again, you are making no sense. Do you even think before you post? Or are you a bot that just spits out red pill talking points?
Oh, and by the way, a baby is not a punishment. Nor should it be. That’s a really fucked up view.
Sorry weirwood but I’m no troll. I speak the truth. Like I said when I was here last time, just because something hurts your feelings that doesn’t make it wrong.
“You’re saying it’s bad for feminists to criticize men who have sex without obtaining consent”
Are you insane? When did I ever suggest such a thing? You feminists can’t stop twisting words around can you? Never said a baby was a punishment either but getting pregnant when you don’t feel you’re ready for it is a potential consequence and feminists want women and only women to be immune from that.
AA Wills:
“Okay, so you’re saying that if we disagree with you, we’re wrong, because brainwashing by eeebil feminists. As long as we agree with you, then we’re not brainwashed. Way to logic, man. Works to completely secure your view of the world, doesn’t it?”
Feminists do the same. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a sexist pig or if they’re a woman they have “internalized misogyny.” Pot meet kettle.
Mathieu Trembley:
“Why exactly should women be punished for having sex? Or “face consequences” as you put it? If it’s perfectly fine when men have as much sex as they want (and for the record, it is), why is it wrong when women do the same?”
You seem confused. Men who do have lots of casual sex can wind up with a kid they’re not ready for and unlike women men have no legal right to ditch their parental responsibilities. So don’t act like men don’t face any consequences for what they do.
the 4th moron sez:
Feminists don’t pull an “everything is rape” thing. They pull a “sex without consent is rape” thing. Because that’s what rape is.
What exactly makes you think you’re entitled to an opinion about how much or with whom other people have sex?
Babies are punishment for having sex. Good to know. Silly us thinking babies are human beings who don’t deserve to be dragged into the world by people who don’t want them.
Also, babies are not delivered by storks. Before there is a baby to raise, there is a pregnancy to endure which, even under ideal circumstances CAN FUCKING KILL YOU.
Remember what I said about pregnancy? You know how it’s not happening to you? That’s why you get no say. Your contribution to the state of a person being pregnant is a single orgasm. A chore, I know. The pregnant person contributes their entire body for nine months knowing that at any moment the pregnancy can suddenly become lethal. Pregnancy has literally nothing to do with you. Nothing. You have no say.
Further, what men want is the option to bail out on an already existing child, not to avoid a pregnancy. And honestly? I’m pretty sure most women wouldn’t have a problem with not asking for child support from a father on the condition that the father does, in fact relinquish all his rights as a parent. Because fuck you if you think you’re going to never contribute to the day-to-day raising of a child but still get the opportunity to be the cool guy who shows up and takes them out for pizza and a movie once a month and have a say in decisions regarding them.
And fuck you for trying to pretend that wanting the option to not endure a pregnancy is somehow a right that cis men don’t have. Have you failed to notice that you are not, in fact, in possession of a uterus?
Only people with uteri can be pregnant, so that would be why feminists focus on abortion rights for people with uteri (which FYI, can be trans men and non binary people sometimes so you’re wrong that we only care about women not being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy).
Being forced to pay child support is not the same as being forced to give birth. In case you didn’t realize, fathers are not the only parent legally responsible for providing for their children. Mothers are expected to provide for them too. Child support does not cover the entire cost of child rearing. And child support doesn’t exist to punish men. It exists for the well being of the child.
You also haven’t explained why it’s true that sex obtained with coercion isn’t rape. By definition of coercion it is. You also haven’t explained why it’s the truth that women should be criticized for having sex. Seriously, it’s none of your business who has sex with who as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.
4th dumbass sez:
The difference is that feminists are actually factually, demonstrably fucking correct as evidenced by reality.