Rollo Tomassi has been an ardent defender of Red Pill as a theory, not an ideology, political movement or religion. In his article “The Political is Personal”, Tomassi wrote the following:
“This is the degree to which the Feminine Imperative has been saturated into our western social fabric. Catholic women in the Vatican may have very little in common with Mormon women in Utah, but let a Mormon woman insist the church alter its fundamental foundational articles of faith with regard to women in favor of a doctrine substituted by the Feminine Imperative and those disparate women have a common purpose.
That is the depth of the Feminine Imperative – that female primacy should rewrite articles of faith to prioritize women’s interests…
It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.”
In “The Believers” vs. The Empiricists”, Tomassi writes:
“Red Pill people… believe that whether something is “good” or “bad” is a matter of opinion, and that all systems of morality are things societies invented to get a result, and it is therefore pointless to argue about whether something is “evil” or not, instead of about what effect it has. They are moral relativists… They believe that the goal of a debate is to establish what the facts are, and how this knowledge can be used to control outcomes. They argue about what is true.
They believe that debates are a cooperative process between two or more people who have the shared goal of achieving a more accurate picture of absolute reality, and that, while people may stick vehemently to their positions, they can also reverse them on a dime if new information comes to light, because the only real attachment is to the truth. They believe debates occur between theories, not people. Thus questioning someone’s character is off-limits, because it is irrelevant.”
So, as we can see from the quotes above, Rollo reflects the feeling of many Red Pill people that Red Pill is and must remain theory (or a collection of theories) about intersexual dynamics. And it must stay out of political, racial and other arenas and strictly stick to intersexual dynamics.
We Can’t Avoid the Necessity of Religious and Political Reforms
I totally agree with Tomassi that that both men and women across political and religious spectrums will close ranks and join together when Red Pill theories are presented.
The feminine imperative was kept bound and in check by patriarchal societies which existed throughout the world for six millennia. It was only during the mid-19th century that Secular Humanism based on the combination of individualism, naturalism and blank slate released the feminine imperative from the control of patriarchy.
And once it did that, the feminine imperative brought us the feminine reality.
But again, what was it that released the feminine imperative to do all the damage it has done to Western civilization? It was Humanism.
In “Unmarriageable”, Tomassi gives the following lamentation:
“The way we do marriage today has the potential to be the most damaging decision a man can make in his life. It may even end his life. But despite all that I still believe men and women are better together than we are apart. We still evolved to be complements to the other.
It’s the coming together and living together, and all the downside risks to men today that I have no solution for at the moment. Maybe it’s going to take a war or a meteor striking the earth to set gender parity back in balance, but at the moment there’s only a future of sexual segregation to look forward to.”
If Tomassi and other Red Pill folks want to keep Red Pill non-political and non-religious then more power to them. But I would argue based on Tomassi’s own comments they can’t really solve the underlying problem and all Red Pill is then is a band aid to help men have sex in a feminine primary world with no answers for getting out of it.
But as Bible believing Christians, we must delve into the political and religious side of this. Humanism unleashed the feminine imperative upon Western civilization and the only way to put the feminine imperative back under control is to return to patriarchal and religious societies once again. A return to Christian patriarchy would solve the problem of the feminine imperative.
Now I know right now that seems like a fantasy. And Red Pill folks, Humanists and many Christians reading this are all laughing. But let me tell you about a man who laughed about gender equality almost 250 years ago.
In 1776, John Adams wrote the follow response to his wife Abigail who asked him to push the founders for women’s equality with men in the new America nation and this was his famous response:
“As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh…Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems… and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight”.
The “despotism of the petticoat” meant the “despotism of women”. John Adams predicted that if the Patriarchal order which had served human civilization for six millennia was given up, that it would be replaced by a new Matriarchal order. In other words, John Adams predicted what Red Pill calls “the feminine reality”.
It took almost 200 years for what John Adams laughed at the possibility of to be fully realized.
So, is it so outlandish to believe that Patriarchy, and specifically Christian Patriarchy could return over the next two centuries? I think not.
The feminine imperative was released because of religious (humanism) changes that lead to political changes in this nation. And the only way the feminine imperative will finally be placed back under control is through the same means – through bringing the teachings of the Bible regarding gender back to our families and churches which will then lead to changes in our societies and governments.
It must begin as a grass roots movement. It must start with men teaching men. Then men teaching their women. We need to be reaching our teens when they are young and more easily able to change. And then when larger groups of families in churches band together, they can demand changes in their church leadership and a return to teaching the whole Bible, including the Biblical doctrines concerning gender roles.
Red Pill People Are Not Completely Moral Relativists
Tomassi says Red Pill is completely about scientific theory concerning the behavior of the sexes. That is just about “the facts”. That its not about what is “good” or “bad” or “evil”. But the quote below, from Tomassi’s article “The Desire Dynamic” , shows that Red Pill does actually take moral positions:
“You cannot negotiate Desire…
Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance.
This is why her post-negotiation sexual response is often so lackluster and the source of even further frustration on his part. She may be more sexually available to him, but the half-hearted experience is never the same as when they first met when there was no negotiation, just spontaneous desire for each other…
Genuine desire is something a person must come to – or be led to – on their own volition. You can force a woman by threat to comply with behaving in a desired manner, but you cannot make her want to behave that way. A prostitute will fuck you for an exchange, it doesn’t mean she wants to.
Whether LTR or a one night stand (ONS) strive for genuine desire in your relationships. Half of the battle is knowing you want to be with a woman who wants to please you, not one who feels obligated to. You will never draw this genuine desire from her by overt means, but you can covertly lead her to this genuine desire. The trick in provoking real desire is in keeping her ignorant of your intent to provoke it. Real desire is created by her thinking it’s something she wants, not something she has to do.”
Throughout his writings Tomassi denigrates what he calls “transactional”, or “obligated” or “duty” sex in favor of men only receiving “validational” (genuinely desired) sex from women.
This is taking a moral position.
This violates the male imperative for men to sow their seed as often as they can.
The male imperative is not to have perfect sex with the perfect woman, it is to have sex as many times as possible.
This is actually a glaring contradiction in Red Pill which perfectly aligns with feminist ideology that no woman should ever have to have sex with a man if she does not genuinely desire it.
Conclusion
Red Pill in a sense is only a band aid for the problem of the feminine reality and it has no answers for overturning the feminine reality. The solution to these problems isn’t learning how to game women into having sex, it is about a return to the Biblically based world view that this nation and Western civilization once had. It is about a return to Christian Patriarchy.
Only a society based in Christian Patriarchy can take on the feminine imperative and bring under control as it once was.
And as to the question that is the title of this article “Is Red Pill A Religion?” I would have to say the answer is yes. Any system which offers answers to moral questions, even if it is a naturalistic system like Humanism, is a religion. And Red Pill does in fact take moral positions.
Red Pill is hybrid of scientific research and moral beliefs. So, if we separate the moral beliefs from the scientific research and simply look at the research into human nature this can give us valuable insights.
I look at Red Pill the same as I would a biology or psychology class in college. I know there will be humanist or naturalist teachings in these classes that I will need to weed out. But I can still glean truths about human physiology and psychology in these classes. The Bible tells us that God reveals himself and his truths not only through the Bible, but also secondarily through nature:
“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”
Romans 1:18-20 (KJV)
Is it possible that Tomassi and other Red Pill people have discovered some truths about God’s design in human nature? Absolutely it is possible.
But as Christians we must always remember that our only infallible source for truth is the Word of God.
The next topic we will cover in this series is “Is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative Biblical?”
Biblical Gender Roles 
Hmmm, very interesting!
Men need to remember that they have a will. They need to bring that will into alignment with what God indicates it should be in the bible. This is easy to do when they understand that they are under His authority and answer to Him.
Was John Adams messing around in his response? Or did he handle it the right way that brings life to himself and his family. If she rebels after that, it is her in error, but he did what a man should do. There are many situations where a man needs to assess it, put it under the authority of what is right, no matter how she or the family will respond, and move in that direction. If they don’t follow that is on them.
There is no reason why a man can’t set a direction of patriarchy in his home today. That tone is easier to set when starting out with a woman, but it can be done even in the midst of marriage. Men need to find their will, strength, and grit again. They need to know who they are before they enter into relationship with a woman. A man is free to treat his wife sweetly and bless her richly in love when she follows his leadership and accepts his authority. They need to be able to walk away from a woman who is unwilling to follow them if they are in the dating/courtship process.
For any feminists out there who demand the equality, understand that you will never cherished the right way as long as you hold on to this wrong thing. He can’t bless you if you are demanding it and not allowing him to be a man. He can only bless you if things are right.
If one aims to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ then their ethics flow out of the Word and are self consciously religious. If one desires to shield some thoughts from obedience to Christ, then their ethics flow from their own desires and are covertly religious. Because the human heart is in enmity with God their natural desires are evil. Thus as pragmatic as “red pill” tactics may be, they fall short of higher ideals and the much higher goal of union with Christ. Our focus is not on what works for the moment for personal peace and pleasure, but what pleases our Lord for eternity. The Christian man does not love to get sex, he loves because he was first loved. While he receives pleasure in sex, the more eternal purpose for which he has sex is for oneness with his wife and the picture of the relationship of Christ with His church. Thus, we reject and oppose the “red pill” as a secular philosophy and instead affirm the original counter-cultural view of the Bible.
Jonadab,
I agree 100% with you that we as Christians are called to take every thought captive to Christ and our ethics, our moral decisions, should be based on the Bible. I also 100% agree with you that the Bible was the “original counter-cultural view” as you stated long before Red Pill came along. And in truth I was teaching some concepts that Red Pill teaches, except using Biblical language and not Red Pill language, long before I even found Red Pill about 4 years ago.
I agree that a life which has as its focus physical pleasure is the very definition of lasciviousness (or in modern terms sensuality) which the Bible condemns in Mark 7:22, II Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 4:19, I Peter 4:3 and Jude 1:4.
However, as Christians we must guard against falling into ascetism which the Apostle Paul warned against:
The unfortunate truth is that the early church fathers did just that and fell head long into ascetism. This led church fathers like Augustine to come up with false doctrines like this – “For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting has not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it has venial fault”. To this day there are some Christians who believe the ludicrous concept that husbands can sin by “lusting” after their own wives.
The Bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:7 “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”. God created the male human being to image him, to live out his attributes.
One of God’s attributes is that he does things for his pleasure and desire pleasure. In Revelation 4:11 we read “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created”. In Psalm 149.4 the Bible states “For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation”.
This is why God tells men to satisfy themselves with their wives bodies in the Scriptures state in Proverbs 5:18-19 “18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love”. God was telling men to take pleasure in their wife’s body just he likes to take pleasure in his creation and in his people.
Here is my point. I think we need to be careful of saying “The Christian man does not love to get sex” because that translates to “The Christian man does not love to receive pleasure” and sounds like asceticism which the Bible condemns. Of course, Christian men love to receive pleasure and so do Christian women. And Christian men certainly love to receive and give sexual pleasure to their wives. And as long as we are not making seeking after or receiving pleasure the central focus of our lives to the neglect of fulfilling the greater mission God has for us then there is no sin in seeking after or receiving various forms of physical pleasure – including sexual pleasure with one’s spouse.
I realize Jonadab that you may have been communicating that in your connecting statement that “he loves because he was first loved” meaning that a man’s sexual desire toward his wife and his desire to unite physically as one flesh with her pictures Christ’s desire for oneness with his church.
The Church and the Red Pill are both missing the complete truth of God when it comes to sex.
Red Pill only sees the pleasurable and reproductive side of sex. The Church only sees the picture of Christ’s oneness with his church and the reproductive side of sex.
The Biblical truth is it is both.
A man’s sexual desire for his wife images Christ’s desire to be one with his church but it also images God’s desire for pleasure. It is not one or the other – it is both.
Jonadab,
I wanted to address this statement of yours seperately:
Respectfully, I do not believe in the “throw the baby out with the bathwater” approach to Red Pill. I don’t throw Red Pill out any more than I completely dismiss the science of biology or behavioral studies. Unlike traditional Religions like Islam, Hinduism or Judaism, Red Pill is not pure philosophy. It is biology, behavioral science and philosophy all mixed together. My point in this article is that I believe as Christians we can separate out the philosophical side of Red Pill and glean some knowledge from the scientific side of Red Pill.
This is the same thing I have to teach my children as they attend public schools. They can still learn a great deal form their biology courses while dismissing the evolutionary and naturalistic philosophies that are mixed in.
Jonadab,
Another thing I want to mention. My hope in doing this series is to bring some Red Pill people to Christ by showing them how the Bible taught many Red Pill concepts like masculine authority being the birthright of men long before Red Pill. At the same time I will be showing them where Red Pill conflicts with a Biblical world view. The Apostle Paul did this with the men of Athens who lived for discussing various philosophies:
We can show Red Pill people through the truths they have discovered in God’s creation his larger plan for their lives.
My wording was awkward when I wrote that the “Christian man does not love to get sex”. My intended meaning was that sex is not transactional, he does not exchange love for sex. He indeed enjoys sex a great deal and in the vernacular loves sex, in fact he expresses and grows in love for her through sex. But he does not love his wife as a currency to get or purchase sex. He loves because He was first loved, he loves in order to emulate Christ and he loves because he commanded to.
Asceticism teaches denial of pleasure as a means to achieve holiness. That is not my view at all. I believe in taking every thought captive including receiving pleasure on occasions for gratitude and holiness. Not as the Epicureans taught that pleasure was virtue, but as a gift to be received from a generous Father.
I can appreciate the quinine of the Epicureans and give God glory for the savory fair, but I still reject their philosophy. Likewise the “red-pill” philosophy may be helpful in understanding the times and the women produced by this wicked culture, but the philosophy is essentially that of the Epicureans; pleasure is the highest virtue.
Whether Gnostics, Markions, Epicureans, Ascetics, Monastics or fundamentalist Baptist’s the dualism is the enemy of integral sanctification. Neither sex, flavor, pleasure or wine is evil to the man of God, although each may be abused. Because something may be abused is not a sufficient cause to avoid its use or even more significantly used with gratitude to give God glory.
The “red-pill” philosophy is a secular philosophy, the glory of God is antithetical to its presuppositions. Just as I may enjoy and give God glory for the wonder of Chinese acrobats, I need not approve Buddhism or Communism in my awe of human achievement. Instead I find the human achievement a cause to give God glory for what He has created.
Hope that clarifies rather than muddies the thinking.
Jonadab,
Yes that clarifies your thoughts. And I hope my thoughts will become more clear as my series on Red Pill unfolds.
While both different, it is funny that you and The Red Pill both affirm truths that are completely rejected by most of general society, including most modern day Christians.
patriarchy existed not only to control the female imperative, but also to control other men.
Julia, you say “control”, I say “govern” and “order”. Patriarchy is a well ordered arrangement because it is God’s arrangement, all other arrangements are disorders, out of order and broken. Control is not an evil, it is safety. If I do not control my hands on the steering wheel of my truck, my truck is out of control and people will lose control of their well-being and die under 80,000 lbs of an uncontrolled mass. If an officer is not in control of his troops, they might become an armed rogue mob. Being out of control is not a complement, but a situation that requires immediate correction, ie control.