"The 13th article of faith: a recipe for dating success. The ladies seek after these things *kisses biceps *" -Foreman
Question #89191 posted on 03/22/2017 12:30 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I was wondering whether any of y'all are familiar with "red pill" or "manosphere" ideology, which seems to be popular and growing on Reddit and various blogs, and what your thoughts or responses are to the subject. Basically, the idea is that society conditions men to not use sexual strategy to their advantage, but that with the decline of traditional social norms they need to assume society isn't looking out for their interests. Some of the basic points of the theory:

1. Women lust after the bad boys but then settle down with the nice guys, and as such won't lust after their husbands the same as their former BFs, to the detriment of their husbands
2. People have a 'market value' in the sense of their desirability; women's tends to go down starting around age 26, men's goes up until about age 35 or 40, and as such there is often a mismatch in couples as they age. Women have it too easy early on, men have it too easy later on, etc.
3. Men should focus on working out, making money, having 'status', and being promiscuous rather than being attached to someone because it is assumed a woman will move to a better man if she can. They should avoid seeming weak to their prospective ladies.
4. Women get away with things men wouldn't, and have much better position in divorce proceedings in terms of getting money, children, etc; in general these blogs advise men to never get married for this reason.

This is shorthand; I'm a noob to these notions so the above explanations might be off. Obviously, many of these ideas run counter to the LDS notion that marriage is good for men and women, and counter to traditional dating advice. With the rise of Trump and all the attacks on political correctness though, these philosophies seem to be getting more fuel these days. Have any of you been exposed to this 'manosphere' line of thinking, and if so what do you think about it?

-Blue Pill

A:

Dear person,

Well, I have now. This sounds a philosophy grown out of a mixture of insecurity, bitterness, and select theories from evolutionary psychology. Frankly, I have little sympathy. I could get behind men getting custody of children more often in divorce proceedings but the prescribed ethic derived from unsupported pseudoscientific evolutionary psych theory (point 3) is idiotic. Also, it makes horrible assumptions about women.

In summary, I'd rather die alone than be with a man who thought like this.

-Sheebs

A:

Dear world,

Whatever happened to both genders getting along?

-Sunday Night Banter