The Red-Pill Delusion About Women

How Blithering Genius Gets Women (and Men) Wrong About their View of Relationships

Previously I tackled the question of whether women have evolved to be owned. It is a rather absurd claim, but it is implied in a lot of manosphere and christian conservative rhetoric, so it should not be ignored.

I should point out that this article heavily used AI. Part of the reason is that the misogynistic talking points are so well known and frequently debunked. I don’t need to push that much original thought. However the chosen emphasis is mine.

In this story I want to tackle misconceptions around female sexuality and approach to relationships. It is a continued criticism of Blithering Genius’ story “What if Women Evolved to Be Owned?”.

It is not an intellectual argument—it is a reactionary fantasy disguised as biological determinism. The premise? That women were once “forced” into relationships for their own good, that sexual liberation has derailed society, and that women don’t actually want freedom, but rather to be “taken” by men.

It’s the kind of argument that would make a medieval warlord nod in approval while making anyone familiar with psychology, history, or basic human behavior cringe. Let’s break down why his claims are not only incorrect, but fundamentally dishonest.

A World Without Love? The Cold, Transactional View of Women

Blithering Genius begins by painting a grim, almost dystopian view of the past:

“In the ancestral condition, women were forced to sexually submit to men, just to survive. In war, they might be raped, or taken as sexual slaves. In peacetime, they would need to get married, to have a protector and provider. They were forced to have sex, and thus (without birth control) they were forced to have children.”

Women are reduced to people putting out job advertisements for a body guard. In this cynical world view things like love, companionship and pleasure is entirely absent.

The wording here is telling. The argument assumes that women were never active participants in choosing relationships, only victims or passive recipients of male dominance. There is no mention of love, mutual attraction, or emotional connection—only power and coercion.

This framing is deeply flawed. Even in historical patriarchal societies, women exercised agency within the constraints imposed upon them. They influenced marriage arrangements, pursued desired partners, and, when allowed, even defied social norms to be with someone they loved. Ancient poetry, love letters, and romantic traditions across cultures contradict this bleak, transactional depiction of female relationships.

The core issue with this argument is that it views relationships purely through the lens of male sexual access and female survival—ignoring everything else that makes human connection meaningful. It also conveniently sidesteps the fact that many historical practices—such as forced marriages and lack of bodily autonomy—were maintained through violence, not evolutionary inevitability.

The False Assumption That Women Lack Sexual Desire

Blithering Genius continues with a claim that reads like an incel manifesto:

“Sexual desire motivated men to seek women. Fear and necessity motivated women to accept men.”

Again portraying women as someone merely looking for a body guard. Love, what is that?

This idea that men are driven by insatiable lust while women are essentially indifferent to sex has been debunked by decades of psychological and biological research. Women, like men, experience sexual desire, though the way it manifests is often shaped by cultural, hormonal, and social factors. Studies show that women’s sexual motivation is complex and highly responsive to emotional connection, trust, and social dynamics—not simply a survival tactic.

The idea that women “needed” men and that female desire was secondary is also misleading. In many traditional societies, women were the ones enforcing social norms around sex and marriage. They chose partners based on emotional compatibility, social status, and attraction, not just on who could “protect” them.

Furthermore, the argument that men were “active” while women were “passive” in mate selection ignores the extensive historical evidence of women actively seeking and competing for desirable partners—a phenomenon documented in anthropology, literature, and psychology.

The Claim That Women Are “Waiting to Be Owned”

At this point, the article descends into outright fantasy:

“Women spend years waiting passively for ‘Mr. Right’. What they are actually waiting for, although they don’t know it, is to be forced into a sexual relationship. They are waiting to be owned.”

This is perhaps the most disturbing line in the entire piece. The assertion that women subconsciously desire coercion is not only false, but profoundly misogynistic.

There is zero scientific evidence to support the idea that women want to be “owned” or “forced” into relationships. In fact, the entire history of feminism has been a fight against precisely this kind of control. Like why on Earth would women so actively fight against oppression if they wanted to be owned? It makes no sense. It requires a form of Freudian mental gymnastics to make sense of.

The rise of dating apps, female-led relationships, and increased female sexual agency contradicts this claim entirely. If women wanted to be owned, why do they overwhelmingly seek respectful, emotionally fulfilling partnerships?

Moreover, studies in sexual psychology suggest that women’s desire is deeply tied to autonomy, agency, and the ability to choose their partners freely. The idea that they want the opposite is a projection of male frustration, not a reflection of female behavior.

Blaming Women for Modern Dating Challenges

Blithering Genius argues that the modern dating scene is dysfunctional because:

“Women instinctively expect men to ‘take’ them, but men lack the agency to do that. Women are not willing to meet men halfway, as equals.”

Let’s translate: “Women reject men they don’t like, and that makes men upset.”

The idea that modern dating is dysfunctional only because women reject men ignores a key reality—men reject women too. Both sexes navigate dating with preferences, standards, and expectations. The real issue isn’t that women aren’t willing to meet men halfway—it’s that some men resent not being chosen.

This claim also misrepresents the actual dynamics of dating. Women do actively pursue men they find attractive and desirable, and rejection goes both ways. What frustrates men in some dating pools isn’t female passivity—it’s that women are no longer forced to settle for partners they don’t want.

The idea that women are “waiting for men to take them” is another projection of male fantasy. If this were true, we wouldn’t see millions of women initiating relationships, making the first move on dating apps, or actively pursuing love and sex.

The Fear-Mongering About Women’s “Wasted Fertility”

“Women waste their fertile years waiting for men. They feel no urgency about getting a mate. A single man feels a desperate longing for a woman. A single woman does not have the same feeling.”

This is not true. Women absolutely do feel urgency in finding partners—just as men do. The difference is that women prioritize emotional connection and compatibility over desperation, while some men feel entitled to sex and companionship without meeting those standards.

Moreover, the notion that fertility is “wasted” assumes that a woman’s worth is tied solely to reproduction. Many women choose to focus on careers, personal growth, and meaningful relationships before having children—because they now have options.

The idea that “a single man feels desperate longing while a single woman does not” ignores the fact that many women struggle with loneliness and longing just as men do—but they are socialized to process it differently.

The Final Red Pill Punchline: “Sexual Liberation Destroyed Society”

“Human nature is not adapted to sexual freedom. Sexual liberation derailed human sexuality.”

This is a standard authoritarian argument against personal autonomy. It suggests that the ability to choose freely is unnatural and that social structures should return to controlling people—especially women.

The reality? Sexual liberation did not derail human sexuality—it freed people from forced, restrictive relationships and allowed them to pursue love, sex, and companionship on their own terms.

Yes, modern dating is different from the past. But the solution isn’t to lament the loss of coercion—it’s to adapt. Those who struggle in modern relationships should focus on self-improvement, emotional intelligence, and meaningful connection—not blaming women for their newfound freedom.

Conclusion: A Projection of Male Frustration, Not Reality

Blithering Genius’ article does not describe how women actually behave. Instead, it is a projection of male resentment and frustration onto an imagined version of women who are passive, indifferent, and secretly waiting to be dominated.

The truth is far simpler:

• Women are active participants in dating, romance, and sexuality.

• Female desire is real, strong, and deeply tied to emotional connection and autonomy.

• Relationships work best when they are built on mutual respect, not control.

The real problem in modern dating isn’t that women are too free—it’s that some men still believe women should be controlled. And that belief, more than anything else, is why they struggle.