Over on The Red Pill subreddit, the Red Pillock who calls himself 1Ronin11A comes so close to asking the question that could shake his Red Pill world to its foundations. That question is: Why do we Red Pillers hate and fear the women we have (or at least want to have) sex with?
Instead, he decides to ponder what he calls “the supposed contradiction that results from our simultaneous disdain for sluts but willingness to still have sex with them,” which he declares is not really a contradiction after all, because, well, they’re sluts, duh!
“We Don’t Hate Sluts; We Just Recognize Their Low Value,” he declares in the title of his thousand-word post, apparently forgetting that “disdain” is in fact a synonym for “hate.”
So let’s break down his stupid argument, shall we?
As 1Ronin11A sees it, the essential problem with sluts is that they don’t understand the basics of sex economics — pussyconomics, if you will. Instead of hoarding their sexual assets like Scrooge McDuck hoards gold, thus increasing their value, these women just give sex away!
Sluts aren’t just women with “too many sexual partners,” 1Ronin11A declares.
What really makes a slut so despised is their disregard for their own inherent value, and the fact that they give it away so freely.
Women are the gatekeepers of sex, something inherently valuable to men. Men have built and destroyed great empires and many lives in pursuit of the sexual pleasures of beautiful women. We assign (often foolishly) great value to sex. We view it as something worthy of conquest, of effort, and acknowledge that women have the right to withhold it for only the men that have proved themselves as deserving of it.
Well, at least he’s acknowledging a woman’s right to say no, a concept a lot of Red Pillers have a great deal of trouble with.
Instead, a slut gives that value freely to many different men based on fickle “feelz” and fleeting emotions. In doing so, her sex becomes less valuable because it’s given so freely.
While women are the gatekeepers of sex, Ronin11A goes on to argue (or, rather, assert), men are the gatekeepers of commitment, which is
the one thing men have control of. This makes the White Knight, the FriendZoned, the Nice Guy, the male equivalent of the slut. Why? Because … the White Knight/Nice Guy offers all of the commitment, without making the woman prove herself first as a quality woman. In doing so, he reveals that his commitment is of little value since, surprise, it’s given so freely to any woman that walks by. …
Unsurprisingly, women get very upset by the manner in which men treat sluts while remaining oblivious to the fact they treat White Knights/Nice Guys with the same disregard and disdain.
I haven’t run across a lot of women who disdain men because they have too many female friends. When women complain about “nice guys” — as 1Ronin11A would know if he paid attention to what women actually say when the topic comes up — it’s generally because these alleged “nice guys” expect to be rewarded with sex for their alleged niceness.
“As men, we don’t hate sluts,” 1Ronin11A reiterates,
we simply recognize their offering as low-quality and low value, and unworthy of commitment. We use them for the easy sex that they are, just as women use the Nice Guys as emotional tampons and ATMs for free drinks.
The irony is women understand this, even if it’s on a subconscious, almost biological level. It’s why they never date the Nice Guys until their physical currency begins to wane. It’s why they get so upset when they’re pumped and dumped or called sluts, as they recognize they’re being accurately identified as being disposable and of low value to high-quality men.
1Ronin11A’s argument is an old one, and one that only makes sense if you buy into his basic premise — that sex is a thing that belongs to women, and that commitment is a thing that belongs to men.
If, instead, you see sex as activity that women, or at least a substantial portion of them, actually enjoy, the entire ideological edifice of Red Pillism falls apart. The women that Red Pillers call sluts have sex with the guys they have sex with not because they’re sexual discount outlets, but rather because they want to have sex with these guys, and these guys want to have sex with them.
That sounds like a win-win situation to me, not some kind of terrifying vagina market collapse.
It’s amazing how much more sense the world makes when you assume that women are human beings.
But that’s one fact that Red Pillers can never admit. At its essence, Red Pill ideology is all about denying the basic humanity of women in an attempt to keep them shamed and subservient. That’s why Red Pillers get so worked up about feminist attempts to get rid of the stigma attached to the word “slut.”
As if on cue, 1Ronin11A ends his excursion into Slut Theory by ranting against the slut walks of recent years, which he describes as
the social equivalent of unions, essentially trying to lower the standards bar while raising the asking price simultaneously. If the value of slutty women is artificially raised, girls won’t have to try so hard to be feminine, charming, actually got to the gym to maintain an attractive figure.
“Artificially” raising the “asking price” of “slutty women?” Uh oh!
Red Pillers may not-so-secretly hate the “sluts” who are willing to have sex with them, but they’re absolutely livid about the “sluts” who won’t.
@Chiomara:
Ah, but here’s the thing. Sex shouldn’t be given, it should be conquered. It’s a special prize for the best man.
How will you ever know if you’re indeed best if you’re just given the award before even partaking in the competition?
p.s. the competition is between you and other men. Homosocial approval is what drives these guys, not sexual desire.
> Bina
I agree on that. I find disdain worse than hate.
Hate basically just mean you do not like someone (strongly). But you can hate and still acknowledge the value of the person, like when you hate the person because the person has qualities you do not have and you would like to have (envy).
With disdain, you just belittle the person.
Well, in their case, it is often a mix between disdain and hate, so…
Florkje:
I agree a huge aspect of it is for the approval of other guys, but in addition to that, there’s the “conquest” itself. Since it’s a game, in the individual conquest sense, when they get sex, they win. And since they win, the woman loses. This is why I think it’s impossible for someone to follow the whole “game” thing and not end up hating women. Every time they have sex, they defeat the woman. She lost. She’s a loser. They’re not going to respect a bunch of losers.
On the flip side, this is why the idea that a woman wants sex too, and *gasp* the guy is also giving her sex is so repellent. If the woman is getting sex from the man, that would mean he was being defeated! He is the loser… Can’t have that.
@ Tessa I was about to write a sputtering rebuttal of what you said, but actually it does make a lot of sense, [thinks more] but also not.
Let’s work towards a Unifying Conclusion (my fave one).
In this analogy a woman is
a) A prize
b) A prey
A hunter is not in competition with either of them, only with other hunters.
Here comes the philosophical question I don’t have a real answer to: Is the ‘conquered’ woman a loser or a prey? Because the feelings towards these two things are completely different.
Also, when the woman getting sex from the man means that SHE gets her way and thus defeats HIM, doesn’t that in a way mean that the prey has at the same time become an equal? Acknowledging that men and women might have a similar agenda? Because that would be anathema to the fundamental PUAMRA mindset…
All input & co-ponderings welcome 🙂
If you can open any lock, you’re not a master key, you’re a thief, and you should be in jail. People put locks on things for a reason. If you’re freely invited into someone’s vagina, then obviously there’s no lock there, and the analogy falls apart.
@ buttercup
Some years back one of my friends locked herself out of her car at court. She actually put out a Tannoy saying that there was a tenner in it for anyone present who could get her in “no questions asked”. That of course was a consensual arrangement.
@ florkje
Much as I’m not a fan of hunting (unless it’s as a genuine food resource) most hunters at least pay lip service to ‘respecting’ their prey. That’s certainly not the case with MRAs.
I don’t think that even prize or trophy is an appropriate analogy. People value those.
The mindset that most tallies with that of MRAs and their seeing everything in terms of conquest is that they simply regard women as “the enemy” and they rejoice in their enemy’s defeat.
ETA: hence their paradox of simultaneously seeing women as useless imbeciles and wily manipulators. They need to justify themselves as superior to a contemptable enemy but also claim that the fight was so difficult they are true heroes.
@Axecalibur – yep, I totally have a (virtual) crush on you. I just love your comments so much 🙂
@Kylo Ronin – Godzilla vs Biollante: I KNOW, RIGHT?
Excellent, insightful comments. They shed light on some of my past interactions. I get clearer all the time about some things that went down. The truth may be painful, but it’s always a good thing.
@Carol
Richard Feynman? “Worthless bitches”? That amiable genius?
I had to look that up. And then I found out about how he bought a woman a sandwich and screamed at her when no sex was forthcoming.
And from what I can tell, he wasn’t embarrassed about putting it in his book! What a nasty piece of work.
@calmdown
When I was 15 or so, I think I woulda been the perfect target for pick up artistry. It’s got artistry in the title! And I (very awkwardly) liked girls. I really liked hugs… like really. Looking back it was just a little creepy. I never overstepped any bounds or anything, but it seems kinda pathetic in hindsight. But hey, I touched a girl! I thought sex was scented candles, George Michael, and 40 minutes (saw that number on TV once) of nebulous fondling. But like super awesome. And someone telling kid me that I could get some ass by following these few simple steps? Count me right in, cuz!
Then I woulda read that, and
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/animaljam/images/9/99/Nope-timon.gif
(PS, why the fuck am I sharing so much recently!?)
@Buttercup
*Bows before your majesty*
@Mish
Nobody’s ever said that to me, virtually or otherwise. Permanent grins and giggles <3
Well, as an anaphrodisiac (and very shitty but Religious Reich Approved birth control method), yeah — it’s flawless!
(And on the very off chance that I’d ever cook a guy bacon the next morning, just on the basis of how he performed the night before, I’d steal one of his shirts as an apron first, because spluttering grease is just nasty.)
True dat. They won’t get you out of a skyscraper on fire, that’s for sure. Better take the stairs.
Well, Helen of Sparta was supposedly one of the illegitimate offspring of Zeus (as the pervy swan who raped Leda, knocking her up with twins), but yeah. Pure mythology. All the real empires of the world have been built on sheer greed and power-hunger, not sexual lust. Concubines were merely a fringe benefit.
Yuppers. I get the distinct impression that there IS an element of inadmissible envy here…because if these slutty, slutty women are getting sex way more often (and more satisfactorily) than Red Pillocks, that means that in some theory-wrecking way, those women are better than these men. And we all know how a Red Pillock can’t stand to be bested in anything, right?
I understand this sentiment, but let’s be honest–it turns the term, “libertarians” from “a small but often politically influential group” into “unicorns”. (Ie, you almost never see a ‘true libertarian’ in the wild–it’s all the right-liberts.)
It occurs to me that guys like Roosh and PUA’s who prey on women and use the argument that they should anticipate rape if they are not responsible enough for their own safety are actually quite vulnerable themselves and playing the odds. It’s statistically only a matter of time before one of them “invites” himself into the home of a serial killer who eats his face. For all we know, their herd has already been thinned a little.
Whoa. It suddenly occurs to me how effortless it would be for a female serial killer to secure and isolate their victims. Men are not particularly careful and will rush into unknown situations without a thought if the possibility of sex is in sight. They would be easier pickings than children.
(Note: Not a cannibal serial killer, just a writer. I think about scenarios a lot.)
If we accept that sex is a competition, someone wins and someone loses. The problem is that these men don’t necessarily see the “losers” or “other hunters.” They don’t see the woman turning down every other man in the bar. The only other person they see in this interaction is the woman. So, logically, if he “wins” by having sex with her, she has to lose. She becomes prey that he gets to devour. It’s an accurate description of the situation, but it’s how he perceives it.
If he does factor in the other men (maybe he saw the woman turn down a drink from someone else), she becomes a prize to be won. It’s a challenge. She’s obviously being selective, so if he can convince her to sleep with him, he’s done something that another man couldn’t. He wins, the other man loses, and the woman becomes a prize for him to use as he sees fit.
Neither of these are good positions for the women to be in. He sees the her as somehow lesser in both situations.
These are just my initial thoughts, so feel free to pick them apart.I think this is a really interesting discussion.
EJ: She’s not so much a ‘prize’ as a ‘score’, when it comes to the competition between the men. She’s a temporary acquisition, used to keep a tally. In Manuresphere philosophy, the prize is bragging rights; the guy with the most notches wins the competition. And scores are weighted (like the difference between a safety, a field goal and a touchdown)–a ‘slut’ counts less than a more unobtainable woman, precisely because the latter was harder to get. And, of course, the most valued score is the one who requires deception, or even better, actual force.
It’s literally all about the rape for them.
I really feel like these men just view women as points in a game. They’re basically pool balls that can be pocketed. So “slutty” women are pool balls that move around under thier own power or something? I don’t know, it’s really hard to get inside the head of these fucks without feeling ill.
Feynman’s semi-autobiographical works are a primary source for nerd misogyny, unfortunately. Honestly, majoring in STEM doesn’t make women uninterested in you, being an asshole does.
A “nerd” was originally a working class person who attended an Ivy League school beginning in the 1940’s when schools like Harvard began admitting people who weren’t wealthy. Nerds tended to care about their grades and didn’t fit in with upper class students culturally (there were also “hackers,” who focused less on grades and more on personal projects). All these classifications are somewhat obsolete now (like “gamer”) and nerds and geeks are not stigmatized by society.
@Axecalibur: likewise!
These guys also way underestimate how much of a turnoff male promiscuity can be for many women. YMMV, but for some women being a player is a red flag that signals a lack of commitment, a lack of respect, an inclination to treat women as disposable, and an inability to get repeat customers (probably for a very good reason). In general, conservative, inexperienced women aren’t looking for guys who have had 100 partners (sometimes multiple at once) and who hang out in nightclubs looking for their next notch. Guys like that just aren’t relationship material. It’s OK not to be relationship material, but RPers and PUAs have to be honest with themselves about the type of partners their behavior attracts.
You would think promiscuous guys would be talking up the virtues of promiscuous women, in the same way that fishermen exaggerate how big the fish was, because frankly, calling women trash and used gum and dumpsters but then sleeping with them anyway doesn’t reflect well on their judgment or their super alpha game:
“I found a discarded cookie in a mud puddle. It was half eaten, gross, and crawling with ants, but I ate it anyway! Now award me some Boss Points.”
It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to simultaneously despise something and have it raise your Market Value.
TBH, that does seem to have managed to perfectly capture in prose what the experience was like for everyone who wasn’t the MRA: lots and lots of endless puffery and tedious pseudointellectual lip-flapping followed by a brief and disappointing performance…
@Freemage
I agree that “score” may be a better description here, but not entirely. Sex is still viewed as the prize for winning the game. To keep going with this analogy, maybe it’s that the woman is like a medal that he won for a particular sport and he gets “bro-points” for having won more medals.
This whole concept is just so foreign to me because I don’t think of social interactions as competitions. It’s got to be exhausting to think like that. If someone always has to lose, you have to accept that sometimes it might be you and you’d spend so much time and effort trying to make sure that it isn’t. It’s not that all competition is bad (that’s why we have sports), it’s just that not everything has to be a competition. Sometimes everyone can win and it’s amazing when that happens!
I think these guys have a similar mind set to the Christian Patriarchists, for a man sex is dominance, and for a woman, sex is duty. A lot of them actually believe that the female orgasm is a myth sent by the devil, and men and only men are expected to enjoy sex. You take a look at a dysfunctional family like the Duggars, and see how this brainwashing has created not only Josh, serial sex offender, but young women, his sisters and wife included who make excuses for him.
If a woman has agency, she will not choose to be in a relationship, or even have a brief fling with an abuser. But their religion/cult creates exactly that. Women enjoy sex if they are happy and safe, not feeling they have to be on hand twenty four seven to drop their pants at their husband’s every whim. They actually consider it a ‘sin’ for a woman to refuse her husband sex, so rape is a corrective act, which they say is scriptural (it isn’t) much like the MRAs, they say spousal rape is impossible because marriage is consent.
Here is a link from No Longer Qivering..
Rape is natural and condoned by Jesus himself, apparently.
@Buttercup
Daww, quit encouraging me
But like who, man, woman, or otherwise, wants to hear, ‘Oh yeah. I’m fuckin everybody. All the time. I’m up to… something hundred or other. Lost track, lol. Matter fact, just this morning…’? Of course, YMMV. No shame in your game if that’s your jam. I just wouldn’t lead with that
As per SMV: If we learned anything from the most recent global economic collapse, it’s that you can get people to buy absolute turds if you’re crafty enough. We know it’s nonsense, but they spin it for the sycophants. If you’re not swimming in booty on the daily, it must be cos all the [slurs] are leeching of older rich dudes. I mean, Hugh Heffner exists. Incontrovertible proof! Misandry!!!
When you play the long con, you tend to whittle em down to only the most committed and desperate suckers. Or perhaps not so much sucking. Amirite tho, ladies?
*Writes, ‘I will not tell cunnilingus jokes’ 500x on blackboard*
@ cupcakes
But isn’t gravity “just a theory”?