Blue Pill Arrogance of the 80s

80’s dating as portrayed in films of the era.

Readership: Men
Theme: Dating and the SMP
Author’s Note: This post was cowritten by Jack and Deti. Deti mentioned some of these films in several comments.
Length: 2,300 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes + a total of about 37 minutes of video excerpts from old movies.

Teenage Romantic Comedies of the 80s

This month’s theme is about Dating and the SMP. To kick things off, this post will review several films from yesteryear that I’ve collected here for the sake of having a little snapshot of 80s pop history. This should give us an idea of how far we’ve regressed.

The Wedding Singer (1998 ca. 1985)

In 1985, Robbie Hart (Adam Sandler) is an engaging and entertaining wedding singer from Ridgefield, New Jersey. He is engaged to his long-time girlfriend, Linda (Angela Featherstone), but she dumps him at the altar because he became a wedding singer instead of a rock star.

Robbie meets and befriends a waitress, Julia Sullivan (Drew Barrymore), at the reception hall where he regularly performs. Julia is also engaged, to businessman Glenn Gulia (Matthew Glave). Hart promises to sing at their wedding. Through a series of unbelievable twists and dramatic turns, Julia decides to jilt Glenn and go for Robbie, just in the nick of time before the wedding.

Redpill is seeing through the lie that Julia would have left handsome, rich, jerky Glenn Goolia for Hart, simply because he’s so sweet and funny and Glenn is a bit of jerk! We know what would really go down — She’ll F*ck the musician and marry the rich jerk. AF/BB in action!

A Red Pill analysis would immediately see this sitromcom as a recipe for illicit sex on the fly!

  • Aspiring rock star musician who has a tryst with an engaged woman — check.
  • Rich guy who habitually cheats, even after marriage — check.
  • Engaged woman has a liaison with a musician in her wedding troupe — check.

But incredibly, all these tropes flew under the radar because the entire movie casts Robbie Hart (Adam Sandler) as a hopeless doting idiotic simp who can call upon the immediate sympathies of rock star Billy Idol, Hell’s Angels thugs, bottom level SMV oddballs, and everyone else around them. This was held up as an icon of romanticism for the average man.

Some Kind of Wonderful (1987)

Working class misfits Keith Nelson (Eric Stoltz) and the tomgirlish Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson) are “good friends” (AKA the friend zone).

Watts dumps her best friend/first love (Keith Nelson) with some sappy tripe about wanting to be liked by him, and then immediately picks up with another guy.

But when Keith asks out the most popular girl in school, Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson), Watts realizes that “her feelings for him are much deeper”. In today’s Red Pill parlance, we would say that jealousy and preselection kicked in.

Meanwhile, Amanda has an ex-boyfriend from the rich side of town, Hardy Jenns (Craig Sheffer), which offers us an example of hypergamy. He also fits the bill as a Chadwick who plots trouble for Keith by inviting him and Amanda to a party after their date. Keith finds out about the plot, believing Amanda to be party to it, but goes ahead with the date anyway. In spite of this, he spends money he saved for college and roped in Watts to be a chauffeur to help make the date special. (He’s gotta work for her love and “convince” her!) At Jenns’s party, the timely arrival of other “misfits” saves Keith from being beaten up. Keith tells Jenns he is “over” and Amanda slaps Jenns’s face. In the end, Amanda decides that Keith is “too Beta”, and that she needs to learn to stand on her own — a nice homage to the Strong Independent Woman (SIW) archetype.

At the end, Keith catches up to Watts and they kiss, supporting the idea that men will take whatever they can get, and that the determined tomgirl wins in the end — more reinforcement for the SIW archetype.

Red Pill Analysis: Watts is a gold digger and branch swinger. She leads men on in an effort to make other men jealous. She habitually judges men, and calls them stupid and pathetic to their faces. She reads sex into every single statement, makes it out to be contemptible, and projects that onto men. Yet, the men are always on the ready to come bouncing back at her beck and call. That’s P*ssy Power!

Amanda is kind of the opposite from Watts. She’s pretty and sweet on the outside, but its all for attention and popularity, and therefore she’s totally unreliable as a partner. At the least expected moment, she’ll dump the guy she’s with just because she feeelz like it.

But somehow, we never identified these behaviors as being common, much less as attention wh0ring, female hypergamy, and branch swinging and how the men themselves enabled it. Instead, young men of the time watched this movie and idolized Watts as the perfect hot babe who “just needs a little lovin’.”

Pretty in Pink (1986)

Andie Walsh (Molly Ringwald) is another girl from the wrong side of town who is set forth as the zenith of beauty and love to die for. The movie drags us through the typical high school drama surrounding socioeconomic class based cliques, and Andie’s escapades with a few admirers, including Steff McKee (James Spader), Phil “Duckie” Dale (John Cryer), and Blane McDonough (Andrew McCarthy). At the end of the film, dopey drooling Blane declares his undying love for Andie at the prom. Then her date, Stuckie, calmly folds his hands and tells her to go to him. Stuckie immediately gets picked up by another girl who’s even hotter.

Yeah… Riiight!!!

Duckie is the quintessential case study on what not to be and do as a man.

Redpill is seeing through the lie that some guy wrote in my HS yearbook: “Stay sweet and the girls will love you to death.”

Say Anything (1989)

Let’s not forget Say Anything, where babyface John Cusack does the ultimate in creepy by going to his ex-girlfriend, Lone Skye’s house at 10 p.m. holding up a boombox and blasting Peter Gabriel’s song, “In Your Eyes” – and this was touted as the very pinnacle in sexual attractiveness and relationship skill.

Here’s an excerpt of this movie for the younger audiences. The part described is shown at 3:03.

In all actuality, this was merely a display of desperate male thirst, which women eat up as a form of attention and validation. Considering all his humility and wearing his heart on his shirtsleeve, a Red Pill assessment would predict that Ione Skye’s character (Diane) would never go back to Cusack’s character (Lloyd). But this is not what we see in the movie. Instead, Diane goes to England on a college scholarship, and she reconciles with Lloyd, and invites him to travel to Britain with her. So in the end, Lloyd leaves his life to be with her. How f’ing Blue Pill is that? HE is leaving HIS life to follow a woman!

I know of too many relationships and marriages that have fallen apart or suffered mightily because he moved for her. He left a career or opportunities to follow a woman. Women hate it when men do this. Women have no respect for men who do this.

The thing is that this was the cultural zeitgeist circa 1977-1990. This is what boys were being raised on. This is what boys were being told to do and be. This – especially Say Anything – was held up as the gold standard for how women wanted to be treated and swooned over and claimed moistened their nether regions.

Pure bunk, every last bit of it.

Case Study — Jack’s Youth Pastor endorsed Say Anything

When I was in high school, I asked my youth pastor for some ideas about where to go and what to do on a date. Without hesitation, he told me to go see the movie, Say Anything, so I put that movie on my “to do list”. So both the content of that movie, and taking dates to see it, and movies like it, became my benchmark of male Christian behavior towards women.

But I never got many dates, and the few I had didn’t last longer than a couple outings.

When I told him, “It’s not working”, he told me, “Just be yourself.”

I asked him, “What do you mean, ‘be yourself’?”

He just sighed and glared at me as if I said something rude.

Overall, I could pick up that there was something he was not telling me. At another occasion, he confided in me that he had “dated hundreds of girls” while he was in high school and college. Since he was my youth pastor, I interpreted “dated” as something quite innocent, but by the time I reached my 30s, I realized that he was using this word as a polite euphemism for sex.

Yeah… my youth pastor!*

* For reference, my youth pastor was born in 1953, which puts his formative age right at the height of the Hippie movement of “Free Love”.

The Human Be-In (1971). Note the dazed child at right.

Looking back through the Red Pill Lens

When I watch these old films now, here’s what I see.

  • Arrogant, self-centered teenage women.
  • Pedestalized girls high on P*ssy Power.
  • Men giving women the P*ssy Pass at every turn.
  • Women picking and choosing among the men, double dipping, dropping one to pick up with another, and it’s all done with no common courtesy whatsoever.
  • 70+% of these movies are consumed by female dialogue.
  • The controlling, angry father archetype makes an appearance in every single movie.
  • Men are dressed in the height of fashion (hairspray, round sunglasses, leather ties, trenchcoats, etc.)
  • All the men are stuck in a hopeless Blue Pill mindset, doing backflips for modest female attention, a date, or a kiss. Chivalry anyone?
  • Men have the deer in the headlights look, always looking at the girls with gaping mouths.

What is really amazing to me now is that we men swallowed all these Blue Pill tropes hook, line, and stinker. Only a select few men, like my pastor, were truly in the know about women, but they betrayed us all by pressing forth the Blue Pill standard.

Red Pill showed it for the BS it is. This isn’t how you get attractive. The truth is…

  • Women want a sexy man who is already attractive to be accommodating and compliant towards her, and her alone.
  • Women want a guy who could totally cheat on her anytime he wants, but he doesn’t.
  • Women want a guy who is nice to her and is a total A-hole to everyone else.

That was, and still is, the truth.

Red Pill movies were present in the 80s, but few and far between

There were a couple exceptions to all the Blue Pill crap of the 1980s.

The Karate Kid (1984)

The Karate Kid depicted the lead character, Daniel, as a struggling young man who found a masculine mentor and role model in Mr. Miyagi. Daniel had some Game and was nice enough looking.

The Karate Kid 2 (1986)

In the sequel, Daniel picks up with a Japanese girl, Kumiko, which makes sense in light of his being mentored by Mr. Miyagi. They also make a better couple too, partially because the girl is humble, pure-minded, family oriented, and not encumbered by feminist indoctrination. This allows Daniel’s heart to come out in a more authentic manner. (Red Pill readers should notice all the IOIs she sends to Daniel in the video below, and also how Daniel’s eyes light up in a way they didn’t with Ali before.) These days, W/LM-AF pairings are generally scorned, which in retrospect, kinda confirms the films’ Red Pill status.

The Last American Virgin (1982)

No discussion of this is complete without discussion of The Last American Virgin, which was the most Red Pill movie of the 1980s. That’s if you don’t count the sex comedy movies like Porky’s and the like, which weren’t really Pill movies — they were self parodying gaffes in which the directors poked fun at common icons of non-masculinity, and essentially said, “if you want to be a decent guy, don’t f***ing act like these guys”.

The thing is, although Red Pill wisdom was to be found here and there, it was far from young men’s consciousness as being the norm. Even when it appeared, it was not well explained, and was generally assessed as a problem specific only to losers — not as the norm.

Epilogue

Blue Pill mentality has always had the arrogant notion that the man can pick and choose whatever woman he likes, and it’s just a matter of convincing the girl of his “undying love and devotion”. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Men of this mindset have absolutely zero women knocking on their doors at 2 a.m.

And yet, we arrogantly believed that all would be well.

This naïve arrogance shows up most frequently when men rate women on the 1 to 10 scale. Although this in itself is not naïve nor arrogant, it’s just a short hand way of communicating a woman’s relative SMV. However, it invariably shows up as a Beta mindset of pedestalizing women, and is somewhat juvenile too. I don’t know where this comes from, but I’ll guess that maybe watching too much p0rn amplifies this metacognition.

From a practical standpoint and also in accordance to Scott’s Axiom, women do the choosing. Men and women would be infinitely better off by following the Volitional Model of Cascade Courtship (2021-11-15). Instead of discussing attraction ratings, men should be discussing how women display IOIs and to whom, and why, how their honey craft skills make them feel, shared values, and overall how well a particular woman fits into a certain man’s systemic world view. These are things that translate directly into real relationship potential.

This entry was posted in Attraction, Clothing, Convergence, Courtship and Marriage, Desire, Discerning Lies and Deception, Female Power, Feminism, Handling Rejection, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Indicators of Interest, Introspection, Male Power, Media, Meet Cute, MGTOW, Incels, Models of Failure, Personal Presentation, Persuasion, Purity Culture, Relationships, Reviews, Satire, Self-Concept, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, Socio-Economic Class Studies, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Blue Pill Arrogance of the 80s

  1. cameron232 says:

    The Wedding Singer was set in the 1980s but was made in the late 1990s. There were Blue Pill and Red Pill elements in the movie. Linda was in love with (local) rockstar Robbie from years ago, but had fallen out of love with romantic wedding singer Robbie. That’s Red Pill. As far as Glenn and Julia, Julia wouldn’t have defected on Glenn until some point well after the wedding (assuming Glenn didn’t dump her first). Julia didn’t know or even suspect that Glenn was cheating or that he punched out Robbie. Only the audience (and Robbie) was given this information. Julia wouldn’t have dumped Glenn for being a bit of a jerk. She only saw small glimpses of his jerkiness (contrasted with Robbie’s fun, sweet romanticism) – e.g. Glenn’s not being enthusiastic about wedding planning details, etc. Glenn wasn’t interested in picking out flowers – Robbie was busy being Julia’s bestie – looking at dresses with her, etc.

    What would have happened in real life is that Julia would have married Glenn and had a least one kid with him before discovering his cheating. She would have forgiven him but he’d keep doing it. Eventually she’d divorce him and then Robbie would be there to get the single mom and help raise Glenn’s kid.

    I have a female friend from High School who married Glenn Goolia – I mean the same exact guy – and she’s now a single mom who hasn’t seemed to find a beta to step up, at least last time I checked.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. cameron232 says:

    Fast Times at Ridgemont High had some Red Pill. Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character loses her virginity to and gets pregnant by the jerkoff, slick-talking, ticket scalper guy. He denies it’s his and wants nothing to do with her, so she aborts the baby. The nerdy, Henry Winkler like guy (the actor not the Fonz character) who befriended her then gets a shot with her after the jerk guy is through with her. We all saw this sort of stuff in real life when we were young.

    I thought The Karate Kid was a bit Blue Pill. Daniel was skinny, boyish looking, and a bit dorky. The bullies were way bigger, hawter guys, but somehow Daniel got the hot girl. IRL, Johnnie and Chosen would have gotten the girl.

    Like

  3. redpillboomer says:

    “Red Pill showed it for the BS it is. This isn’t how you get attractive. The truth is… That was, and still is, the truth.”

    — Women want a sexy man who is already attractive to be accommodating and compliant towards her, and her alone.
    — Women want a guy who could totally cheat on her anytime he wants, but he doesn’t.
    — Women want a guy who is nice to her and is a total A-hole to everyone else.

    Good starter list. I’m sure the other guys will modify it a bit. I did a bit of translating for what it is like for an older, married, recently Red Pilled guy (Me, four years in the running); here’s what it looks like for me.

    — A Wife wants a sexy man who is still attractive to other women to be accommodating and compliant (aka faithful) towards her, and her alone… My wife quasi-derisively calls these other women, “My (husband’s) girlies.” These are attractive women, most post-wall (35-40, but a couple under 35), who find her older, RED PILLED husband attractive and sexy. It’s all platonic, but my wife KNOWS that they find me attractive and she lets it slip from time to time in some sort of smart-alleck comment that implies that she’s aware of this attractiveness and that she ‘likes it/doesn’t like’ it. It does help the relationship because even my wife, after 32 years, still feels a little ‘competition anxiety’ subconsciously from hubby’s ‘girlies.’
    — A wife wants a husband who could totally cheat on her anytime he wants because she KNOWS one or more of those women would spread her legs for hubby given the right set of circumstances. He won’t cheat on her because, although he likes the attention, the costs/consequences would be too great spiritually, emotionally, financially, etc. He also won’t cheat because the wife meets his needs, especially in the bedroom.
    — A wife wants a husband who is nice to her, but acts ‘Alpha’ out in the world and mixes some Alpha and Beta traits towards her where she benefits; however, she can’t take advantage of him, aka walk all over him, because his Red Pill lens will not allow for it. And even though every once and awhile, she will call him an ass (hole), she still (secretly) loves the Red Pill version of her husband, and gives her ass to him, as in, “Bang me from behind, baby!”

    Hmm, maybe this is the Red Pill formula for a ‘Happy Wife/Happy Life,’ not that sappy, Blue Pilled, churchian version of HW/HL.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      RedPillBoomer,

      Good point! The dynamics change a little bit after marriage, but for the Christian man, not so much.

      I picked apart the truths behind the Happy Wife, Happy Life thing in an earlier post.

      Σ Frame: Happy Wife, Happy Life (2017-10-20)

      Like

    • caterpillar345 says:

      I still like the saying someone came up with — “Happy King, Happy Kingdom”.

      Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        If you want to push it a little further, you can add “… and Dissenters get banished!” 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “If you want to push it a little further, you can add “… and Dissenters get banished!”

        Or my personal favorite…

        “… and Dissenters get punished with mortifying pleasures that cloud the mind and weaken one’s will to resist!”

        Like

  4. Devon70 says:

    I’m Generation X so I grew up watching these movies where guys jump through endless hoops to get the attention and approval from women. Completely gynocentric movies for a completely gynocentric culture. When you grow up watching stuff like this it’s not surprising men’s self-worth becomes tied to what women think of you. Guys will endlessly embarrass and degrade themselves to get that precious female validation. It’s very unhealthy and I can’t re-watch these movies because they foster the gynocentric mindset.

    Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      Well, I grew up in a time just before you X’ers; and I’ll say the movie angle of Blue Pilling you all got, was beyond ridiculous. Sorry, you got indoctrinated on ‘how to get the girl’ from what I saw in the clips above. Crap piled on top of crap. My dumb generation and the one before it created all that nonsense.

      For my generation, it wasn’t so much the movies, but the songs. Yes, we had classic rock which is still the kick-ass king of music; however, if you listen to the lyrics about women, they’re mostly Blue Pill. So my generation had a bunch of alpha rock stars who women, aka groupies, were literally lining up to bang after one of their band’s performances, yet these guys’ Blue Pillness showed up in their lyrics and their lifestyles when they tried to have just ‘one woman.’ AND, then they got their Blue Pill asses taken to the cleaners.

      The funny thing, is even though I got indoctrinated into the Blue Pill mindset of ‘how to get the girl,’ and followed it, it never worked. Somehow intuitively, I saw at some point how the ‘quarterbacks’ and the ‘Harley McBadboys’ were getting women, and thought something like, “Hmm, might try emulating them a bit.” I didn’t know what I was doing, or how to explain it, but in my pre-Christian youth, ages 19-22, I got some poon with some good looking women by NOT acting the way I normally did. I was in seventh heaven, but still couldn’t explain what I did right, other than, I didn’t act like my normal Blue Pill self, and Voila! I was having sex!

      Then I became a Christian and it was back to the Blue Pill mindedness. Once again, it didn’t work, although I was now endeavoring to do it God’s way, i.e. be a ‘nice, romantic’ guy and ‘wait to have sex’ until marriage. I think God honored it in the long run and gave me a good wife, however the Christian girls in my early days of faith didn’t seem to ‘like it’ anymore than the secular girls did. I know we’ve talked about this extensively on here, and now I fully understand the dynamic, but at the time, it was baffling to me.

      It’s one reason we need to keep Red Pilling men, and bringing them to God. The secular men can get Red Pilled and improve their game and go ‘slut slaying’ as I’ve heard it called; the Christian guys, well, we’re going to all have to keep putting our heads together on how to teach them and coach them. It’s quite a conundrum, and yes I know it’s been explored on this blog. Still a tough nut to crack in my opinion.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        RedPillBoomer wrote,

        “Well, I grew up in a time just before you X’ers; and I’ll say the movie angle of Blue Pilling you all got, was beyond ridiculous. […] Crap piled on top of crap. My dumb generation and the one before it created all that nonsense.

        For my generation, it wasn’t so much the movies, but the songs. […] …however, if you listen to the lyrics about women, they’re mostly Blue Pill. So my generation had a bunch of alpha rock stars who women, aka groupies, were literally lining up to bang after one of their band’s performances, yet these guys’ Blue Pillness showed up in their lyrics and their lifestyles when they tried to have just ‘one woman.’ AND, then they got their Blue Pill asses taken to the cleaners.”

        Since taking the Red Pill, I always thought it to be strange that Chivalry could coexist with widespread promiscuity during the period since the sexual revolution up until recently. But RPB’s comment helps me understand what exactly “broke down” in the 60s and 70s and how Chivalry could coexist with promiscuity (as RPB described about the rock stars and groupies). Before this, Chivalry had some traction because men had sociosexual power and women were expected to wait until marriage to have sex (e.g. s1ut shaming was a real thing). But after young people started fornicating en masse, the locus of sociosexual power was handed over to women and Chivalry became a joke. It was to women’s advantage to keep men in the dark about it, and fornicating men played along with the deception just for the P00n. It’s taken roughly 50 years (or two generations) for men to get the memo. A lot of men still refuse to read the writing on the wall.

        The movies covered in this post exemplify the coexistence of Chivalry with muted promiscuity. With the above things in mind, it becomes apparent that Gen X was raised on a very strange, twisted, and unusually glorified combination of liberated women and obsequious men — a rather evil combination that just cannot exist indefinitely. I would say one of the biggest spiritual challenges to Christian Gen X men is for them to realize this and see it for what it is.

        Liked by 1 person

    • MLT says:

      That is among the reasons, more or less, that movies should be avoided by Christians. I recommend a good book by John R. Rice (1895-1980), who wrote a book on movies and how movies, in general, affect Christians. I read that book years ago. While more or less dated, the principles are there. Film is neutral by itself, that is true. Yet, it is what is put on the film. In other words, content. We Christians need to discern and apply accordingly. I believe Christians are better served watching March of the Penguins, the acclaimed 2005 documentary on penguins, than watching the films mentioned here.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        @MLT,

        “We Christians need to discern and apply accordingly. I believe Christians are better served watching March of the Penguins, the acclaimed 2005 documentary on penguins, than watching the films mentioned here.”

        I agree. Personally, I think crime investigations, documentaries, history channels, and nature channels are about the only Christian-friendly content on cable TV. Anything trendy or culturally based is bound to be heavy laden with various lies, and that includes the News.

        Could we ever hope for a Red Pill Christian channel on cable TV? Heh…

        Like

  5. Lastmod says:

    Odd that John Hughes was considered “trendy” and groundbreaking…. but after these types of movies, and the coda with Uncle Buck in 1989… he went on to do movies like Air Bud, and The Mighty Ducks, and Cool Runnings, and he became a Disney stalwart. Fittingly actually. Movies involving mostly animals or household pets being smarter than people. “Good dog! Your calculations were correct! Now the universe will be saved!!!”

    I saw all the John Hughes flicks when they came out first run in the theaters… including Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

    He made Anthony Michael Hall, Andrew McCarthy, and Molly Ringwald superstars for the time.

    The Wedding Singer was made in the late 1990’s. It did not come out in the 1980’s. Never saw it. Never will. Adam Sandlers toilet and potty behavior was never really my thing. Fitting that Drew Barrymore would be in a film with him.

    Everyone says… ”Don’t be duckie!” and “Don’t be the smart kid in the Breakfast Club!”, and “Don’t act like this guy or that guy…”

    Maybe we all should have been asking why these guys were falling all over themselves for girls that were not nice, not good… not really friendly, and really kind-of b*tchy. Maybe that is the question that should be asked.

    Honestly, if Duckie… or a ‘Duckie” in real life, came to place like this, he would be told to “Hit the gym, and stop being a wuss”, and voila, he would suddenly have “all the girls all over him”.

    You are forgetting genetics. Even Wheat Waffles, Face LMS, and countless others have done real tests where a good looking guy with a fake pic profile conducted chat that was arrogant, boorish, evil, nasty, foul, and had gross behavior to women… and he still got every number. Still had a long list of women waiting.

    Duckie could never get that. No matter how much he went to the gym, or how much he wasn’t a wuss. Women don’t like unattractive men.

    That is a fact, something some of us have never had to deal with (because we were not born unattractive). It opens doors, gets you passes, and gets you confidence.

    — The End 🙂

    Like

  6. I had seen people edit Say Anything to have the boombox play 2 Live Crew or Slayer instead of that. I couldn’t stand much of those movies when I was younger, minus a few quotes.

    Like

  7. OKRickety says:

    Not about an 80s movie but I think this tweet from @wisefatherhood today (Feb. 2, 2022) is a good example of Blue Pill thinking about marriage. (He doesn’t seem to be a Christian but it sounds exactly like what I’d expect from most of them.)

    “Advice to young men:

    If you choose the right woman you don’t have to worry about divorce lawyers and child support.
    Don’t be afraid of commitment.
    Become a good man and a good woman will find you.”

    I’m curious. What do readers here think when you see someone make a statement like this? Is it “guaranteed”?

    I know I disagree! You can only control you, not her. If she chooses to leave, that shows her true character. Being a “good man” won’t prevent it.

    What reaction would you expect from a man who did his best to be a good man and vet his wife only to end up divorced by her?

    Like

    • Jack says:

      “Advice to young men:

      If you choose the right woman you don’t have to worry about divorce lawyers and child support.
      Don’t be afraid of commitment.
      Become a good man and a good woman will find you.”

      I’m curious. What do readers here think when you see someone make a statement like this? Is it “guaranteed”?

      (((CRINGE)))

      The implied message is…

      “Man up and be good, Johnny, and you will be rewarded with the (lustful) desires of your heart. Your naivete and self-imposed-righteousness will protect you from harm.”

      In addition to being a continuation of the Blue Pill blabber we know is in grave error with respect to reality, I’ve come to view this perspective as a reliance on “works”, which the Bible warns us against. All marriage is trouble, as St. Paul warned us about, but a relatively trouble-free marriage is a gift from God, not something one can reliably hope for. If a man chooses marriage, then he needs to be concerned about all the female behaviors that Red Pill lore covers, which St. Paul also mentioned (in no great depth). “Being a good man” has practically nothing to do with being Red Pill saavy and successful in marriage. But being obedient in conforming to God’s order of Headship will get a man closer to that goal (at least for some men).

      Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “If a man chooses marriage, then he needs to be concerned about all the female behaviors that Red Pill lore covers, which St. Paul also mentioned (in no great depth). “Being a good man” has practically nothing to do with being Red Pill saavy and successful in marriage. But being obedient in conforming to God’s order of Headship will get a man closer to that goal (at least for some men).”

        Brilliantly put. For the Christian male, it’s not just being a ‘good man’ OR ‘Red Pill savvy;’ but being a ‘good man’ AND ‘Red Pill savvy. That’s it right there. A Christian man needs to be ‘good,’ aka growing in Christ-like qualities AND be ‘Red Pill savvy’ to female nature (and male nature too btw). So, it’s an AND issue; Christ-like (good) AND knowing headship (Red Pill savvy).

        So in my pre-Christian youth I was being a bit ‘Red Pill savvy’ in trying to emulate the guys who seemed to be scoring with the girls, the ‘quarterbacks’ and ‘Harley McBadboys’ I mentioned earlier. I didn’t go full out in the emulation, but apparently did enough, to start getting girls to have sex with me. I was definitely not trying to ‘be good’ because I didn’t know how to do that yet, i.e be Christ-like.

        When I became a Christian, I was ‘being good,’ or at least endeavoring to as I grew in my faith, but I was not being ‘Red Pill savvy,’ i.e. exercising Headship because I didn’t know what it was or how to go about it. I defaulted into Blue Pill chivalry. Somehow in the Christian circles I moved in, I got that it was how you related to Christian women, i.e what they preferred behavior-wise, romantically speaking from Christian men. I don’t recall being specifically taught it, but somehow I picked it up along the way; and of course, it didn’t work at all.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joshx45 says:

        Hi…

        Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      So vetting doesn’t matter? Or is that now “blue pilled” thinking? Or does it now debunk vetting? She is going to rebel no matter what? Looking for the right woman doesn’t matter because AWALT? I didn’t see cringe-blue-pill-thinking in that statement. Sure, a bit naive… and you only can say so much in a tweet.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        Lastmod,
        You’re talking like you’ve never read The Rational Male, Dalrock, Christianity and Masculinity, or Σ Frame before. But I know you have. Try to keep up on what vetting does and what it doesn’t.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        Come on Jack. It was just a TWEET that said: “Hey, if you choose the right one, you don’t have to worry about these other things.” (which is a technically true statement).

        How is that blue pilled? How is that cringe? How is that not vetting?

        …and then, “Become a good man and don’t be afraid of commitment.”

        And that second part, agreed, is probably not really a good thing to say… but it’s just a tweet. He cannot break it down with big words, a complex treatise and terms and lawyer few will understand. Becoming “good” is about as subjective on how you like your coffee on most matters. I know Red Pill condones lots of premarital sex, with lots of women and then for men to call them “easy” after women give it up…..

        But Blue Pill? Red Pill seems to be afraid of commitment with women looking at a broad “cultural norms” on the Red Pill sphere. As it should be, I might add……

        I’ve read the vetting. If you are deemed an “alpha”, then vetting is good and logical for man to do. If you are not…. vetting is an excuse and seems to be made into the idea that you as a man are not “man” enough to take risks, and go for what you want.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Lastmod,

        “Come on Jack. It was just a TWEET that said: “Hey, if you choose the right one, [then] you don’t have to worry about these other things.” (which is a technically true statement).

        How is that blue pilled? How is that cringe? How is that not vetting?”

        This is a simple IF… THEN… statement in which the cause and effect is all wrong. While it may be “technically true”, it is nowhere near as simple as that for many reasons. It is also too vague to be meaningful, and could be interpreted in a panoply of ways by the reader (which is the political reason why such a tweet can receive many likes), most of which are just wrong. It is therefore bound to be oversimplified and misapplied by the young male reader. Context is everything.

        To break it down further…

        “If you choose the right one…” — Vetting doesn’t help in the final choice, it just narrows down the choices, and even if you find a girl with lots of IOIs and no red flags, there’s still no guarantee that she’ll continue to conform to a Headship structure and that she won’t be a handful after marriage. Vetting offers no promises nor guarantees.

        “…[then] you don’t have to worry about these other things.” — This is misleading because it suggests that vetting and the duties of Headship are a once-and-done deal. It is not. Managing a woman (and family) in marriage is a life long work.

        Also, this statement is misleading because it tries to dismiss men’s real fears, as if all of men’s concerns and the whole of Red Pill lore could be dismissed because vetting. Vetting does no such thing.

        Instead of oversimplifying and whitewashing everything in an attempt to pressure men to “man up and marry that well vetted feminist/churchian girl”, it would serve men better to inform them of the importance of Headship and what they’re up against if they choose to marry. But the tweeter won’t go there because the Red Pill implications of that would not be roundly accepted.

        You’re right that a tweet cannot do justice to the truth of the matter.

        Like

      • Jason Piecuch says:

        Right here: “…if they choose to marry…” (men).

        Men don’t choose. She chooses YOU. Women decide if she will go on a date with you. Women decide sex. Women choose the guy. Men don’t chose the girl… unless he is a 10.

        No man in here is a ten.

        Many men HAVE made the choice to get married, and yet cannot find anyone (due to their own overblown sense of their own physical attractiveness… which is a problem. 😉 Hence the countless webpages, podcasts, groups, channels, info, books, “game” stuff, and blogs like this.

        Men don’t choose. Also now “headship” seems to be the new buzzword. If she doesn’t find you hot, for day one when she meets you… headship will be useless to 99% of men.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Jason,
        True, men don’t have much leverage in choosing a specific partner, but they do have a choice whether to marry or not. Remember, men are the gatekeepers of commitment. It’s just a matter of how much he’s willing to lower his standards. The problem these days is that when a woman is interested in marrying a particular man, the woman is typically well below the attraction threshhold of the particular man that woman is interested in marrying — which is a no go territory for most men. Yes, the right thing to do is to urge those men to marry, but no amount of lecturing and “encouragement” (i.e. that tweet) is going to change the law of attraction, nor will it affect the lopsided, liberalized mating market, which is the larger problem. In essence, that tweet is propping up false hopes, and this is what makes it cringe worthy.

        Pursuing the goal of Headship is mostly useful for those men who choose to make that commitment of marriage. Please be mindful of the context. Regardless of how “useful” or effective Headship is, it’s still the Christian standard for marriage.

        The reason there are countless webpages, podcasts, groups, channels, info, books, and “game” stuff, is that men are ignorant about women and there is a vast hunger for this type of knowledge. Lots of content producers have their own angle, and most of it is not Christian and doesn’t discuss the importance of Headship.

        Like

  8. locustsplease says:

    Your youth pastor had sex with 100s of women in 6-8 years, then wants to tell you otherwise about their behavior. He knows whats going on. He was probably bedding all the young girls at your church and didn’t want any more competition. He knows he didn’t do any groveling to get that many.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      Locustsplease,

      “He was probably bedding all the young girls at your church and didn’t want any more competition.”

      I doubt it. He had a very good reputation as a pastor. He got married young, early 20s. He was happily married, and loved his family a lot. However, his wife had recurrent bouts of depression and insomnia. I can only wonder how much of that was related to his past. I think his avoidance of the topic had more to do with the fact that he was a pastor and he had a daughter.

      Like

  9. Scotttt says:

    I missed some good stuff.

    Hear me out on this one thing. Someone upthread pointed how much women love 80s/John Hughes/ROMCOMs. And this is basically true.

    Save one.

    Ask any woman you know about John Hughes, “She’s Having a Baby”, and invariably they hate it. My best friend Garrett has a theory about this. He argues the reason women hate this film is because it looks at marriage comically, but distinctly from the husbands perspective. At the wedding itself, the male lead, played by Kevin Bacon, imagines the priest going into the list of marriage vows, and in his nightmare/fantasy the enumeration of male duties becomes more and more ridiculous until he finally snaps back to reality and says, “I do.”

    His anxiety over what it means to be married in the modern world is all over his narration and eventually one morning, after a particularly heated (not graphic) sexual fantasy dream he has, asks himself, “Are we all just mindless drones following the scent of money? And what was the deal with that weird dream?” Excellent. This is pretty much life every day since I got married.

    The man in the film is all of us, wondering, “What exactly have I gotten myself into?”

    This level of self-reflection about what being a husband and father means in the world of sitcom-retard dads and husbands in commercials who can’t work a vacuum is unacceptable. It was unacceptable even then. Just shut up, pay for everything and remember to leave the toilet seat down, you pig! The main character in the film isn’t so sure about all that, and the movie flopped. It’s my favorite John Hughes film.

    Anyway, I grew up on that stuff. Cameron on here once argued that he feels I am a hybrid in the heirarchy. A “romantic alpha” he called me. It’s true, my natural qualities have helped me attract plenty of cute girls. But that has been in spite of my deep Blue Pill conditioning. I get all weepy at the end of “Sixteen Candles” when they are sitting on the table and the Thompson Twins song, “If you were here”, is brought to a crescendo as Jake says:

    “Make a wish, Samantha”

    “It already came true.”

    Sigh.

    Liked by 1 person

    • elspeth says:

      Good grief, Scott. You are a sap!

      😆

      I’m kidding.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        E-

        Yeah, but you see. I don’t care. I get so emotional around the stupidest things, like if Mychael leaves me a little love note in my wallet to find later in the day, because it’s who I am.

        It took me 50 years to become that comfortable in my own skin.

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        Sentimentality in a man is not at all inherently unattractive. I was just messing with you.

        My hubs, while not quite as sentimental as you, is in many ways more sentimental than I am. But it’s a dovetail type inversion rather than something that doesn’t fit.

        He is, like you, comfortable in his skin.

        Like

    • Oscar says:

      Welcome back, dude!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      “Cameron on here once argued that he feels I am a hybrid in the heirarchy. A “romantic alpha” he called me.”

      Uh…. isn’t that the male romantic interest in every chick flick?

      Like

    • Scott says:

      Here it is.

      Gets me every damn time.

      Like

  10. Lastmod says:

    Stranger yet that I am home listening to a forgotten 1980’s pop record Stevie Nicks “Rock A Little” from the spring of 1985. I was finishing up Jr High (8th grade). That was the “last” summer for me as a kid actually. The following summer I left for West Germany as an exchange student. Then I started working full time summers… college… grad school……

    That was the summer dad dug up the oil tank for the furnance and moved it (a 800 gallon tank, with a simple winch / pulley) with little effort to a small shed behind the house. My job was to fill in the HUGE hole it left in the front yard. I also primered and painted our barn. That thick “Cook and Dunn” paint went on like a paste. I spent most of the summer shirtless on scaffolding painting that d@mn thing. My portable radio was tuned into the local top forty station….. or the oldies station. A rare treat was roller skating on a Friday night in Plattsburgh that summmer. Dad and I didn’t even have a long camping trip that summer. It was the last throes of me living as an awkward teen. I would still play with Legos at home. At the same time, I was starting to get pickier over my clothing. I began to demand a haircut every two weeks, I got my first “fade” that summer. A style I have had since.

    I just remember painting that d@mn barn, filling in that big hole, and painting the garage door, and always having to wash that family car every week.

    While the rest of you were hanging out, heavy petting, getting to finger bang for the first time, actually getting social skills…. I was stuck at home painting a d@mn barn. No I wasn’t paid. My parents never gave me an “allowance”. I was given the privee of being allowed to maybe go roller skating, or perhaps allowed to get a few pricier items for school shopping which always happened in mid August.

    Anyway… this trip down amensia lane is tiring. Here is a song from that Stevie Nicks album from that long ago, final year as a kid…. even though I turned fifteen in June. The 1980’s sucked.

    Like

  11. Scott says:

    That scene from “The Wedding Singer” should be called, “Stuff that never happens to you”, starring “people who are way better looking than you will ever be.”

    Like

  12. Pingback: The Black Pill is the Natural Outcome of the Secular Mating Paradigm | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s