The Red Pill is Pro-Woman
There’s a post floating around one of the other subreddits 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. Needless to say, this guy isn’t the “alpha male” a Red Pill guy strives to be. He’s 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.
Somewhere in this story, the woman tosses in the fact that this shithead she was dating was obsessed with reading The Red Pill, which, of course, led to the usual Reddit bandwagon about The Red Pill being a haven for virgin loser sexist rapist abusers. Conveniently brushed off was the fact that this woman, for five years, stayed with her boyfriend, had sex on demand every time, came back to him after every breakup, and put up with all of his crap. Everyone simply concludes, obviously, that this woman had psychological issues, was young and naive and inexperienced, and that her boyfriend “took advantage” of her and “manipulated” her. Because of the way he “made her feel,” she was forced to stay with him, forced to have sex with him on demand, and prevented from leaving him.
This standard surfaces again and again, in various examples--I’m just pulling this one because it’s recent.
If a man were to approach a “normal” woman he was dating, with no deficiencies, no issues, no perceived power disparity or significant age difference or anything like that, and if that man were to say, “Have sex with me or we’re through,” the assumption for this baseline, normal case would be that the woman has two choices: have sex with him, or end the relationship. Also assumed in this normal, baseline case is that the woman has the capacity to make whatever decision she feels is best for her. Maybe she wants to have sex anyway and likes sex with him. Maybe she doesn’t, but gets something else out of the relationship she appreciates. Or maybe she’s offended by this kind of demand on principle and dumps him. But it’s her choice, right? She has agency and makes the best decision for herself.
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). If a woman does agree to sex when demanded like that, that’s obviously the wrong choice, and it is clear, simply due to the fact that the woman made this wrong choice, that she is psychologically impaired and not responsible for her bad decision. Her abuser somehow had power over her and she couldn’t see the truth.
That’s the standard. Essentially, if a woman makes a choice our detractors agree with, she’s responsible and made a great choice. If a woman makes a choice they disagree with, then she was clearly manipulated, controlled, abused, and not responsible for her bad decision – blame the man.
That’s the blue pill, feminist, anti-Red-Pill way. “The choice I would have made is the only correct choice. I’m so right that anybody who does differently is mentally incompetent by definition, and any man who causes a mentally incompetent woman to make a bad choice is an abuser who should have recognized that the woman he’s abusing is mentally incompetent simply by virtue of the fact that she did what he wanted.” That’s the standard. It’s on you, the actor, as a man, to recognize whether or not a woman is competent to make a decision on her own behalf. It’s up to you to know everything there is to know about her and the totality of her circumstances, and to assume that women are mentally incompetent and can’t make good choices unless their circumstances are absolutely ideal. And even then, maybe not.
Ironically, the Red Pill is much more pro-woman. We assume that women are reasonably intelligent people, capable of making reasonable decisions that are best suited to them. That’s where the whole hypergamy thing comes from – we assume women are smart enough to make the decisions that get the best possible outcome for themselves. Likewise, when a man gives a woman a choice: put out or get out, we assume a woman is intelligent enough and responsible enough and reasonable enough to decide which of those two choices is the best one for her. If she walks, great. If she stays, then maybe she wanted sex, or maybe she’s getting something else out of the relationship that she appreciates. But it was her choice based on what she felt was the best outcome for her.
The Red Pill gives women the benefit of the doubt. The Red Pill believes in a woman’s ability to make responsible decisions for herself. 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. You can’t put women on the spot like that! They can’t be expected to make the right decision in those circumstances!
That’s the world of “feelings.” If you pick up a woman at a bar, and she goes home with you that night, but tomorrow morning, she regrets the encounter, then you “manipulated” her into sex. It wasn’t her decision, it was your abuse.
But even if she doesn’t regret her decision, our detractors don’t take her feelings into account at all. They only consider their own. They never would have gone home with you. The only correct decision was to turn you down. Because she made a decision they disagree with, by definition, you abused and manipulated and controlled her.
Thankfully for women, we assume better of them. We’re far more pro-woman than most feminists.