Categories
block that metaphor boner rage entitled babies evil old ladies evil sexy ladies female beep boop irony alert kitties laidnyc men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA red pill

Pickup Artist: Marrying a woman over 25 is like paying double for nearly expired milk

I like my women like I like my milk: in close proximity to cats.
I like my women like I like my milk: In close proximity to cats.

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.

610 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ally S
8 years ago

You do treat him/her like….he/she is just a waiter or waitress. A person to serve you food and to satisfy your needs. How is that not objectification?

It is. But it isn’t morally wrong. Because you pay that person and because he/she wants (?) to work there..

Regardless of whether the waiter/waitress is paid and ze wants to work there, treating hir as a mere waiter/waitress is morally reprehensible.

Michael Søndberg Olsen

Seems like it :/ hard for me to tell though.

I think he’s one of those “if I weave enough contradictory bullshit together I might sound profound” types.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“…keep their hair in regs…is objectfying them.” Idk, you certainly nixed that as soon as you could (oh, I figured it out, my braid ends before yours because you’re better at section isn’t the hair evenly in the first place, I always end up with a short one that runs out on me)

sarahlizhousespouse
8 years ago

“Regardless of whether the waiter/waitress is paid and ze wants to work there, treating hir as a mere waiter/waitress is morally reprehensible.”

Has our troll even defined how ze conceptualizes morality?

pecunium
8 years ago

We did, but some people are too thickheaded to admit to understanding the difference.

chibigodzilla
chibigodzilla
8 years ago

I think what Trolley von Trollingsworth is missing here is that you can consider a person a means to an end without objectifying them. For example, the waiter that brings the goblet of beer is just as much a means of delivering the beer to my mouth as the goblet itself. The difference is, the waiter is a person, and should be treated as such.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“Has our troll even defined how ze conceptualizes morality?”

Do we want to know what that definition is?

Marie
8 years ago

Enegermosh

You do treat him/her like….he/she is just a waiter or waitress. A person to serve you food and to satisfy your needs. How is that not objectification?

See, most of us realize waiter/waitresses aren’t only there to serve you food and satisfy your needs. And I’m not sure all of them want to work there (though some may.) Some of them I’m betting are just doing it because they need to pay the bills.

Viscaria
Viscaria
8 years ago

because all the neodada nihilism materialistic filosofies that the troll talked about earlier.

How could we have forgotten those XD

BritterSweet
8 years ago

So…. treating my surgeon like a surgeon is objectifying them. Treating my mother like she is my mother is objectifying her. Treating my soldiers as soldiers, and expecting them to polish their boots, keep their hair in regs, and do their job is objectfying them.

No wonder you don’t have a problem with it, you’re arguing that treating people like people = treating them as objects.

I feel a little iffy about saying this because of how many dudebros I’ve heard calling acts of sexism, objectification and harassment “treating women like women” in order to defend objectifying them.

pecunium
8 years ago

BritterSweet: The problem in the dudebro argument is they define women as objects.

sarahlizhousespouse
8 years ago

“Guys, morals don’t exist, remember? because all the neodada nihilism materialistic filosofies that the troll talked about earlier.”

Well since the troll identified hirself as a materialist, I was hoping that ze would try to defend the usage of the word morality and let a little trickle of transcendental piss down hir leg.

Energomash
Energomash
8 years ago

You people need to distinguish between logical and moral categories. Objectification is only ‘bad’ if i don’t want to be forced into a certain role.
If you are calling me a Troll you are doing just that.

If my girlfriend agrees to be my object of love and desire, there is no problem with objectifying her. The problem arises if that woman does not want to be my girlfriend or object of desire.

pecunium
8 years ago

sarahliz: I did ask him to defend his philosophical position:

Well as ontological materialist i assume that all humans (and other species) want to live. Without this idea ethics would be useless.

So, just because someone doesn’t posses any intrisic value this is no excuse to kill other humans etc.

Why not? A does not follow B. If they have no intrinsic value what matter their desire to live?

The response is this pile of crap about waiters’ having personal lives making them objects.

He has no conviction about his alleged moral views, and is trying to cover it with persiflage.

sarahlizhousespouse
8 years ago

“You people need to distinguish between logical and moral categories.”

Please define your concept of morality and we’ll go from there, little troll.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

“Nihilists? Fuck me, dude.”

pecunium
8 years ago

You people need to distinguish between logical and moral categories. Objectification is only ‘bad’ if i don’t want to be forced into a certain role.

No. Objectification is bad because it always forces the victim into a non-desired role. It’s sort of tautological to imply that this is the problem. I’m beginning to think you have confused syllable count with intelligence.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

If my girlfriend agrees to be my object of love and desire, there is no problem with objectifying her.

WRONG.

Ally S
8 years ago

“neodada nihilism materialistic filosofies”

XD That almost made me giggle out loud in the office.

pecunium
8 years ago

hellkell: the nihilists really tied the movie together.

Ally S
8 years ago

If my girlfriend agrees to be my object of love and desire, there is no problem with objectifying her.

“Consensual” objectification makes just as much sense as “voluntary” slavery (none at all)

Marie
8 years ago

@trollboy

If my girlfriend agrees to be my object of love and desire, there is no problem with objectifying her. The problem arises if that woman does not want to be my girlfriend or object of desire.

Actually, I’m pretty sure your girlfriend is not an object. She is not your object of desire. FFS, this is not hard.

Ally S
8 years ago

If you are calling me a Troll you are doing just that.

Translation: Whatever you say I am, you are! I WIN ALL THE ARGUMENTS

Ally S
8 years ago

Ally, actually it kind of does. BDSM has people who are consensual slaves. Which of course isn’t actual slavery, just like a woman consenting to objectification isn’t actual objectification.

Yeah, BDSM stuff is different because there is no actual subjugation. The concept of “voluntary slavery” that I’m referring to is the very silly idea that it’s possible for one to consent to being an actual slave (a status which is by definition non-consensual).

pecunium
8 years ago

Have fun while I go and make some supper, grab a shower (they are so hard to catch), etc.

1 10 11 12 13 14 25
%d bloggers like this: