Inspired by the paternity test post.

It's common for people to understand TBP as being against redpill because it promotes dehumanisation. I think that there is a split between blue pillers. Yes there are some bluepillers who essentially reject for its presentation of relationships as inherently adversarial and not co-operative. Most of these are Boomers who the modern SMP doesn't apply to.

But a lot of BPers, esp. from the new 'haha let's laugh at incels' batch, agree with RP on most fronts (including that the average man is less attractive than the average woman) but disagree with the misogyny or blame-women portion to it (including an insistence that the average woman retains more desirability than the average man over her WHOLE lifetime, that the male Wall is bigger and hits more men than women, etc.) They would be happy to dehumanise men all along provided these attempts at compassion stood between a woman's success in fulfilling her sexual strategy.

This poses a double edged sword when it comes to paternity testing. On one hand, to even assume that she would cheat in the future is a red flag and inspires advice to leave his ass. BP relies on trust (of women) and requires men to depend upon the de-humanisation that a lack-of-trust in one's partner represents. But it doesn't actually go out of its way to ensure women are held to their commitments and promises or to condemn them for breaking it and harming men's faith in women. For some militant feminists, paternity guarding is itself a patriarchal construct designed to legitimise the control of women's bodies for the sake of men's fragile egoes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SRSsucks/comments/47r0rk/paternity_testing_is_literally_misogyny_say/

https://en.gleeden.com/news/infidelity-around-the-world_204.html

Now let's say she does in fact cheat and have him raise another man's child. THEORETICALLY this would be immoral and playing Billy Beta for a fool.

In practice here are a handful of rationalisations for why she cheated

  • He's abusing her and she needs out

  • he's not taking care of her needs

  • he's let himself go and it's unreasonable to expect her to wait this long for him to get his shit together, she needs a kid NOW and it needs to be with a man not a loser

Why does she not leave him? Begs the question, but a few years down the line he has a moral obligation to be a father (of course.) Now whatever his feelings and whatever proof he has of her infidelity, there is no solution to them which does not result in him being the deadbeat dad and her being the victim of an immature fuck boy misogynist.

Since people are gynocentric, the Blue Pill empathy-oriented paradigm can flip quickly to the Red-tinged Purple paradigm of rational egoism (which for women is serial monogamy until they finally meet Mr Right, even if it requires divorce.) It's the free market, git gud or die mad men.

If he suspects the child is not his own and tries to end the relationship and abandon them? Child support or jail, simple as. Best interests of the child always (resulting in children being used as women's pawns.)

The worst part is that if the child isn't biologically his offspring but he fathered them as if they were, then if it's still easy for her to claim custody of them in a parental alienation case.

If you want to understand how peak hypergamous women think then you wouldn't ask here, you would lurk in the likes of mommy groups and feminist tag groups. Here not only is the average male's SMV mocked if he says anything remotely critical of women and feminism (while the average woman's inflated), women are routinely advised to leave their CURRENT partner because of either slight breaks of frame or disagreements in opinions on feminism. You can bet your ass that if he asks for a paternity test or pre-nup, they would advise her to kick him to the curb. Yet, if she cheated? There would, on average, be about 20% of the group saying that she was in the wrong this time, and the other 80% would shout her down as a pick-me bitch.

Bluepill, if it ever did, has no consistent ethical foundation, it is merely reactive to the male chauvinism and polygamous sexual strategy of RP. The foundation of The Blue Pill is not the morality of egalitarianism but the IMmorality of calculated androcentrism combined with the disgust of male vulnerability. TRP is the epitome of androcentrism, and can be criticised on that, but that criticism has no stipulated endpoint. Therefore BP is un-principled and has to be understood as basically feminine amorality rather than a principled anti-abuse paradigm.

Blue Pill and Feminism has been so successful at tying men to this morality double-bind that they even have their alleged opposition do the work for them. Women and men alike are disgusted by the man's vulnerability; the fact that he is even worried about being cucked is pathetic and anti-masculine. But also, if he does stay silent and avoid being a whiney bitch, only to get cucked, the fact he was so beta to let himself get literally cucked is a sign that he needed to stay out of the gene pool. So a man has a choice between being willing to be seen as a bitch with trust issues, or just hoping for the best.

I have presented a rather extreme example here but I hope it illustrates the argument.

P.S. I am wary of the gynocentrism in anti-feminist women and female MRAs too, by the way. One of my friends has just had his daughter taken from him (parental alienation) by a once-upon-a-time Honeybadger. Some red flags that made me suspicious a year before the incident, but that I should have acted on

  • An obsession with growth of misogyny in the men's movement

  • Constantly attacking MRA-MGTOW as bitter incels with no game

  • Being offended by The Wall and saying she's more attractive than most men she interacts with

  • Regularly referring contemptuously to thirsty men in her DMs

  • Talk about having always had to put other people's needs first before her own and tiring of it, finally living for herself