Reply to Dating a Red Piller

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "Dating a Red Piller"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
[snipped for brevity]  The problem is that the philosophies underpinning this advice are toxic. Evangelical Christianity wants people to treat their sexuality carefully and with love. To not give your body away  and to be careful in who you choose to trust with it. This is good advice. But of course it is based on the idea that a man is entitle to his wife's virginity and therefore a woman's body is not solely her own. The toxic underpinning philosophy creates the direction that you slide down the slippery slope. And its a slope that leads towards repressed sexuality and misogyny.

The toxic underpinning of the red pill ideology means its good advice is muddied by everything that surrounds it. It creates a framework where the good advice is based in something that makes you fundamentally respect the women you are dating less. You have assigned them a worldview and motivation structure that frames them as shallow and transactional. Therefore you are permitted to behave shallowly and transactionally. You believe you would not have had dating success without this, so your girlfriend/wife/whatever is a shallow creature who had to be manipulated into loving you. The justification for your behavior, which is not bad on its face, reveals ugly things about the way you see the world. Your means to achieving the end of a successful relationship have laid toxic seeds that will eventually, IMO, poison the relationship. [/quote]

I think this is where you miss the point of the red pill theories on partner count.  For most, the impetus to seek a spouse with a low number of partners is not motivated by religious morality, but rather by an empirical judgement (which may of course be in error) that the greater number of partners a woman has had, the greater the chance that she is pining for “the one who got away,” which can have toxic effects on a relationship, and the more likely she is to be “settling” sexually for her long term partner, which can have toxic effects on the sexual aspects of a relationship.  Men simply cannot intuit the idea of marrying someone you are not really sexually attracted to, but as I have grown older and wiser it seems to me that it happens all the time.  The partner count issue is not moral (for most) or transactional; it’s risk management.

Cue the chorus of people who will call that insecure.  It’s not insecure if its accurate.  There’s always someone better.  If a woman has had 30 partners, what are the odds that you, groom, are the one that really knocks her socks off? Or are even in the top 3?  A lot longer than if that number is 4.   This issue may not be that important to women, but it is to men.  [/quote]

I’m unsure what point of mine you believe you are arguing against. Because this response doesn’t seem related to my point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say? My point is not about any one specific aspect of the red pill stuff, it’s that the entire mindset is tainted by the toxic and misogynistic base level beliefs that inform even the harmless and even good pieces of advice.[/quote]

Ok I think I fixed this formatting[/quote]

Apologies if my point wasn’t clear.  As I understand your position, it was that notwithstanding accuracy on some (I’d say many) points, red pill theories are inherently tainted by misogyny.  I read your post to reference Evangelical theological principles related to chastity and the “transactional” approach to sexuality as evidence that what you say is true. I believe that claim is incorrect, as red pill theories are actually premised on other things, as I tried to explain.  Does that clarify where I was coming from?  I’m not sure I can be much clearer.  [/quote]

You quibbling with the precise accuracy of my metaphorical parallel vs addressing what I am actually saying. I think that is a disingenuous way to argue.

I said that Christianity's views on sexuality are tainted by misogyny, as a comparative example to how red pill theories are inherently tainted by misogyny. Perhaps you disagree with my read on Christianity's views on sexuality but I was simply using it to explain how I feel about red pill theories, not to prove the inherent misogyny of red pill theories as the two are pretty unrelated to one another. [/quote]

Fair enough; I didn’t mean to quibble.  I thought you were providing some explanation of the reason you thought those things.  I disagree on the alleged misogyny of either (although I recognize that there are misogynists that glom onto both; every religion, ideology, or theory attracts its share of bad and dysfunctional people).[/quote]

I think you did mean to quibble, as it allowed you to not have to address the core point.

I think it is fairly difficult to claim that the underpinnings of Christianity's view on sex are not rooted in historical misogyny (of course, what isn't?). The edicts about saving oneself for marriage are tied to the idea that women were seen as property to be purchased with a dowry and then to fulfill their role as producing heirs. That is simply the world the bible was written in. And its rules are tied to those philosophies. Women's exclusion from the priesthood is anchored in the same concepts. These sexist underpinnings 100% have impacts on how the church implements these teachings today. As is evidenced in communities like the one the Duggar's inhabit, where a woman is subservient and is expected to dress modestly and produce an insane amount of children. If you are denying the sexist underpinnings of Christianity than I feel like you are simply not going to see sexism where it is present anywhere. Bad actors glom onto the sexist aspects because the sexist aspects are there to glom onto.

The Red Pill subreddit, which is, to my understanding, the genesis of the movement defined their mission as: "The recognition and awareness of the way that feminism, feminists and their white-knight enablers affect society."

That is sexist language. They use that 'recognition and awareness' to try to give men advice on how to be more successful at dating. But the presumptive philosophy is that they need to change the way they show themselves to the world to get around feminism. The core belief is that feminism, feminists and male advocates are bad things. And the reason a person does something does matter when it comes to picking a life partner. Do I want to date someone who spends time at the soup kitchen in order to post about it on social media and look good? Well they're doing good work so who cares you might say. But their motivations reveal something about who they are. So if you are a guy and you are confident and calm and assured and clear with your intentions then hey thats great! But if you're doing it because you believe that I (or whoever the target of your conquest is) am too easily allured by the douc4ey alpha man and therefore have to be treated differently to be convinced that you alone will spark fire in my loins, then that is gross. And if I found that out I would dump you. Because I would like to have sex with someone who likes me, respects me, thinks I have valuable thoughts, wants to engage with me intellectually, not someone for whom every interaction is a goal towards sexual conquest. The underpinnings allow you to think of me as less than fully human, therefore permanently poisoning the potential of a future relationship. At least a relationship with some feminist like me. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics