quote:Originally posted by Shanna: There's a reason they didn't name themselves "The Funny Guy" or "The Accomplished Guy" or "The Confident Guy." They AREN'T those things and THAT'S why are they aren't successful with women.
They think simply be decent to woman earns them romantic and/or sexual interest. And women can read that condescension and its NOT attractive.
This, so much.
Being nice isn't some special achievement, it's pretty much the baseline for "are you basically a decent human being?" It's one of the things you check off when considering dating a person. ("Literate?" check. "doesn't smell too bad?" check. "Confident?" check. "Not a serial killer?" check. etc.) Like, if someone isn't basically kind and considerate there's simply no way I will even consider dating them. I used to, but only for the adventure of dating the "wild party girl" type. I was never very serious about any of them.
Yet the self described "nice guys" seem to think that possessing (or often, faking) those basic qualities of a decent human being somehow earn them the right to sleep with any girl whom they "befriend" with pretty much the sole intention of boning.
Those who think this is a double standard, tell me: if an unattractive, socially awkward, boring girl who you had very little in common with started acting very nice towards you, and then got incredibly angry with you when you didn't want to sleep with her and stopped talking to you, wouldn't you feel a little perturbed? Now imagine that happened to you all the time, and said girls (who seem so friendly when you meet them, and who you treat well and do absolutely nothing to piss off) start spreading rumors about you, and claim you "only want to sleep with bitches" and are too stupid to make good decisions for yourself.
Luckily, we live in a world where women normally aren't under the mistaken belief they are superior to men or that they can somehow own or coerce a man's sexuality, so us men usually don't have to put up with that. Unfortunately, the opposite isn't true.
I get really frustrated with the false dichotomy between "nice guys" and "jerks" too. Often times it seems like being a "jerk" just means:
A) You're sexually attractive B) You're confident C) You're successful and of course, D) You happen to be dating a girl a "Nice Guy" thinks *he* deserves.
Of course, as has been mentioned in this thread, another downside of the prevalence of "Nice Guy" predators in my age group is it makes it more difficult to actually make female friends. Like, there's a nerdy girl I know who I think is pretty cool and have wanted to be friends with for about 4 years now (we've worked together off and on for a while) who I've just finally began to build a friendship with in the past month and a half. She's very pretty and somewhat shy and unassuming, and so "Nice Guys" flock to her like she's a magnet. I think it was me getting married that finally made her realize I'm really, truly not interested in her romantically and caused her to start opening up and trusting me.
I've had other cases where it's taken me months or even over a year to form friendships with women simply because they're so wary of "Nice Guys" that it takes them a while to trust me. It's pretty frustrating.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: To be blunt, it's difficult to take you seriously when you flat-out say things like 'feminists don't tend to care about actual problems'. I...what? Someone who can say this, in such a sweeping way, I'm a little shocked you would make such a brazen statement. I suppose domestic and sexual violence, health care inequality, wage gap, massive political and economic underrepresentation...since these are obviously very real frigging problems, I can only assume they're vastly outnumbered by a bunch of fake problems to make your position sustainable. Right?
Nah I just didn't reiterate my point clearly enough probably. Sorry about that. Been posting more hastily than I'd prefer, in hindsight.
Anyway. Some of those are real problems (I mean some aren't, but wage inequality is a different question ) but addressing those don't address the problematic cultural memes that are giving rise to the problems feminists notice.
For example: Talking about how guys should get enthusiastic consent and shouldn't rely on cues or body language before initiating sex is... Accurate, really. But it will never be very effective the way feminists approach it. Prima facie, most women don't agree, or else they wouldn't continue to use nonverbal/inexplicit communication in relationships.
But more importantly, our society constantly reinforces bad ideas about the importance (or lack thereof) of consent before enacting your will on other people. It's not a principle that is taken seriously enough. So it's not terribly surprising that people have screwed up ideas about this.
Suspect I'm still not making my position actually clear. Let me know how much made sense, Rakeesh.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a lot of inertia in media, for sure. Consider that it's still somewhat socially acceptable to make jokes about taking advantage of gullible drunk young women, or even act like that sort of behavior is even remotely acceptable (a la Barney Stinson) in TV shows and movies.
That being said, there's a *huge* difference between nonverbal communication in relationships and nonverbal consent in sex. Not picking up on a cue by, say, assuming that my wife didn't want a certain gift but was too polite to say so is a far cry from just assuming it's ok to kiss/touch/have intercourse with a woman because "she was asking for it" by her "nonverbal cues." (especially when alcohol is involved) I can't think of too many women who would say they wouldn't prefer to be asked "is it all right if I kiss you/take your clothes off/touch you there." Or simply asking "is this all right?" before each progressive step and waiting for a verbal response. I mean, do you really think there are an appreciable number of women who would prefer not to be asked?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyway. Some of those are real problems (I mean some aren't, but wage inequality is a different question ) but addressing those don't address the problematic cultural memes that are giving rise to the problems feminists notice.
Without attempting to be dramatic, it's with a somewhat appalled fascination that I ask: which of even that list aren't 'real problems'? And it seems like you're defining 'real problems' in the same, grandiose, basically never used sense that you were defining 'benefits' earlier. These problematic cultural memes you speak of (whatever those are), how are those to be addressed without, say, getting women more into the public sphere as equal with men? What cultural memes, for example, are behind massive political underrepresentation of women that can be addressed by a method that doesn't include getting women into something even approaching gender parity in political offices? Or is that not one of the 'real' problems?
quote:For example: Talking about how guys should get enthusiastic consent and shouldn't rely on cues or body language before initiating sex is... Accurate, really. But it will never be very effective the way feminists approach it. Prima facie, most women don't agree, or else they wouldn't continue to use nonverbal/inexplicit communication in relationships.
In order for this statement to be true, we would need to look at the history of sexual violence in our culture, specifically what is believed about consent, and try to determine if there has been any shift and in what direction-towards or away from insisting upon explicit consent for someone to be able to fairly claim a sexual assault wasn't committed.
I think that's really a pretty darn easy question to answer with 'yes, much closer than we used to be, obviously' and then wonder who had a hand in building that shift in perception. I suppose that while feminists were out worrying about fake problems and addressing them in ineffective ways, someone else took the lead?
Your statement that 'well, most women don't actually want explicit consent to be a standard' is pretty silly. For that to be true, among a variety of things that would need to happen would be one, a widespread attitude that such a thing is acceptable and not ridiculous; and two, even having the idea that requiring explicit consent is a way things can be done. It's an idea that has only very recently started to be bandied about in public debate. How far along does a large cultural shifts need to be before we get to start saying things like 'well, most women don't want that anyway'. I would ask what sort of world requiring that sort of standard would mean if you insisted on it for, say, minorities a hundred years ago. 'Well, how can we say most of them even want equality? They don't seem to be insisting on it.'
quote:But more importantly, our society constantly reinforces bad ideas about the importance (or lack thereof) of consent before enacting your will on other people. It's not a principle that is taken seriously enough. So it's not terribly surprising that people have screwed up ideas about this.
Now I don't know what you want. One of the things feminists try to do is use debate to change the culture. But when they attempt to do just that, your response was literally in the same post 'most women don't want that anyway'. As for the rest, I'm happy to hear about what other areas our culture is bad about having a good policy of 'enforcing one's will' on a other person. In what other area of our culture is it considered acceptable not to have explicit consent before doing someone to someone else's body?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyway. Some of those are real problems (I mean some aren't, but wage inequality is a different question ) but addressing those don't address the problematic cultural memes that are giving rise to the problems feminists notice.
Without attempting to be dramatic, it's with a somewhat appalled fascination that I ask: which of even that list aren't 'real problems'? And it seems like you're defining 'real problems' in the same, grandiose, basically never used sense that you were defining 'benefits' earlier.
Income inequality was an example of something I disagree is a problem. Also, I don't mean anything grandiose by it. Abusers live sad, pathetic lives. They'd be happier if they could figure out how to resolve the problems and dissonance in their minds and stop abusing people. I'm not speaking in vague abstracts. I mean it quite literally.
But I'm going to try to keep this at least tangentially related to feminism and Nice Guys because I think that's what Destineer was interested in discussing, and I like Destineer. I want him to get what he wants.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: These problematic cultural memes you speak of (whatever those are), how are those to be addressed without, say, getting women more into the public sphere as equal with men? What cultural memes, for example, are behind massive political underrepresentation of women that can be addressed by a method that doesn't include getting women into something even approaching gender parity in political offices? Or is that not one of the 'real' problems?
Yeah, this is a fabulous example of what I meant by not a real problem. That's not to say there is no problem present here, but rather the problem is being misidentified. What you're describing is a result of a problem. You could analogously call it a symptom of an actual problem. If it was a critically bad result (e.g. People were dying because of it or something) it might be worth it to directly mitigate it before actually addressing the underlying issue. But I'm thinking in this example it's not.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:For example: Talking about how guys should get enthusiastic consent and shouldn't rely on cues or body language before initiating sex is... Accurate, really. But it will never be very effective the way feminists approach it. Prima facie, most women don't agree, or else they wouldn't continue to use nonverbal/inexplicit communication in relationships.
In order for this statement to be true, we would need to look at the history of sexual violence in our culture, specifically what is believed about consent, and try to determine if there has been any shift and in what direction-towards or away from insisting upon explicit consent for someone to be able to fairly claim a sexual assault wasn't committed.
I think that's really a pretty darn easy question to answer with 'yes, much closer than we used to be, obviously' and then wonder who had a hand in building that shift in perception. I suppose that while feminists were out worrying about fake problems and addressing them in ineffective ways, someone else took the lead?
I'm confused. Yeah, feminists have something approximating the right idea about getting consent. I think I said that earlier didn't I? But their approach is flawed because they don't really understand the problem very well, so they've had limited success in actually changing most people's minds.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Your statement that 'well, most women don't actually want explicit consent to be a standard' is pretty silly. For that to be true, among a variety of things that would need to happen would be one, a widespread attitude that such a thing is acceptable and not ridiculous;
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. What is "such a thing" referring to exactly?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: and two, even having the idea that requiring explicit consent is a way things can be done. It's an idea that has only very recently started to be bandied about in public debate. How far along does a large cultural shifts need to be before we get to start saying things like 'well, most women don't want that anyway'. I would ask what sort of world requiring that sort of standard would mean if you insisted on it for, say, minorities a hundred years ago. 'Well, how can we say most of them even want equality? They don't seem to be insisting on it.'
Not really. You're comparing an institution of imposed oppression to a bad culture that people perpetuate on themselves. Wherever there is oppression imposed on women (e.g. Saudi Arabia) I agree that we should tear down those institutions.
But that's not what's going on here.
Maybe if you really want to make it about race a better analogy would be: the attempts by some groups to improve academic performance among black students, when a significant subculture among urban black Americans derides academic achievement. Something like that. But I don't really see the value in this analogy.
A significant majority of women reinforce the devaluation of consent regularly. Look at the popularity of books like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray among female readers. Look at romance movies or basically any romance fiction at all. Nonverbal communication, sudden romantic kisses, etc. all abounds.
Simply insisting that men have to get explicit, enthusiastic consent ignores the reality that many women they may want to sleep with don't want men to do that. Similarly, insisting women ought to want that isn't going to change their mind. They've adopted the romantic memes that say they should. It's not a trivial thing to change.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:But more importantly, our society constantly reinforces bad ideas about the importance (or lack thereof) of consent before enacting your will on other people. It's not a principle that is taken seriously enough. So it's not terribly surprising that people have screwed up ideas about this.
Now I don't know what you want. One of the things feminists try to do is use debate to change the culture. But when they attempt to do just that, your response was literally in the same post 'most women don't want that anyway'. As for the rest, I'm happy to hear about what other areas our culture is bad about having a good policy of 'enforcing one's will' on a other person. In what other area of our culture is it considered acceptable not to have explicit consent before doing someone to someone else's body?
Some straightforward answers are "parent/child relationships" and "government/citizen relationships."
I think the first one is the huge factor in the current discussion, though.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it was a critically bad result (e.g. People were dying because of it or something) it might be worth it to directly mitigate it before actually addressing the underlying issue.
You don't think women's health issues -- i.e. matters of actual life and death -- might be better represented in politics if women were better represented in politics? How would you mitigate that lack of representation before addressing the underlying cause?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it was a critically bad result (e.g. People were dying because of it or something) it might be worth it to directly mitigate it before actually addressing the underlying issue.
You don't think women's health issues -- i.e. matters of actual life and death -- might be better represented in politics if women were better represented in politics? How would you mitigate that lack of representation before addressing the underlying cause?
What women's health issues did you have in mind, that are matters of life and death and that you think would be better represented if we had more women in politics? Would this increase in representation solve those issues? How? What is stopping that from happening now?
As to your last question, I don't know of a good way. I am critical of the ways I've seen people try to accomplish that, but I'm sure I haven't seen them all. If you have a preference feel free to share; perhaps I won't have any criticisms of it.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it was a critically bad result (e.g. People were dying because of it or something) it might be worth it to directly mitigate it before actually addressing the underlying issue.
You don't think women's health issues -- i.e. matters of actual life and death -- might be better represented in politics if women were better represented in politics? How would you mitigate that lack of representation before addressing the underlying cause?
What women's health issues did you have in mind, that are matters of life and death and that you think would be better represented if we had more women in politics? Would this increase in representation solve those issues? How? What is stopping that from happening now?
As to your last question, I don't know of a good way. I am critical of the ways I've seen people try to accomplish that, but I'm sure I haven't seen them all. If you have a preference feel free to share; perhaps I won't have any criticisms of it.
Are you seriously asking that?
Two words: Sandra Fluke. Not the Rush Limbaugh version of the story.
We're going to play a little game called someone else makes my point because I don't want it ignored. Please answer the following questions:
1. Sandra Fluke was supposed to testify before a House Committee, but was not allowed to. What was the panel about, and what was problematic about the panel?
2. One of the key things she wanted to talk about was a story about a friend who had some trouble with birth control. Why could this friend not afford birth control?
3. What, if any, were the long term consequences to this?
Yes, games that yield uncomfortable answers to important questions can be unpleasant.
---------
Dan,
quote:Income inequality was an example of something I disagree is a problem. Also, I don't mean anything grandiose by it. Abusers live sad, pathetic lives. They'd be happier if they could figure out how to resolve the problems and dissonance in their minds and stop abusing people. I'm not speaking in vague abstracts. I mean it quite literally.
I respect you so I don't think you're just screwing with me. But if it were someone I didn't know, I would be inclined to think they were, because in my experience nearly no one ever speaks about who benefits from things in this sort of way. Not when discussing policy. So in that sense, it is grandiose and quite abstract.
quote:Yeah, this is a fabulous example of what I meant by not a real problem. That's not to say there is no problem present here, but rather the problem is being misidentified. What you're describing is a result of a problem. You could analogously call it a symptom of an actual problem. If it was a critically bad result (e.g. People were dying because of it or something) it might be worth it to directly mitigate it before actually addressing the underlying issue. But I'm thinking in this example it's not.
OK, so I would love to hear your ideas about addressing the 'real' problems that don't involve directly addressing that very real symptom! Again, respect, so I don't think you're just screwing with me. But geeze. If you were a doctor, you would scoff at the idea of giving aspirin for a headache and insist on a dang brain scan!
quote:I'm confused. Yeah, feminists have something approximating the right idea about getting consent. I think I said that earlier didn't I? But their approach is flawed because they don't really understand the problem very well, so they've had limited success in actually changing most people's minds.
First, while it's hardly impossible for men to lecture women in general and feminists in particular on what the 'real' problem of consent is when discussing sexual violence, it's usually pretty darn silly. As it is here.
Limited success in changing most people's minds? What were the ideas on consent for sex three generations ago? Two? One? If there was any change, in what direction did it move? Further, if there was any change who had a hand in it, or did it just happen by cultural inertia or something?
quote:I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. What is "such a thing" referring to exactly?
Presently-though less than ten years ago and quite a bit less than fifty-the idea of people requesting or giving explicit consent* is often something that is either simply never considered as an authentic option, or scoffed at as, among other things, feminist nonsense. Before it can fairly be said that 'women don't actually want explicit consent to be the standard', it has to be a choice that at least a simple majority of women both know is on the table and don't view as an invitation to ridicule.
quote:Not really. You're comparing an institution of imposed oppression to a bad culture that people perpetuate on themselves. Wherever there is oppression imposed on women (e.g. Saudi Arabia) I agree that we should tear down those institutions.
But that's not what's going on here.
No, it's not. But doesn't it say something that the exact same charges you're leveling here can apply just as well to these other, more bluntly oppressive systems? And, you know, are used to justify such systems and were in the past?
quote:A significant majority of women reinforce the devaluation of consent regularly. Look at the popularity of books like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray among female readers. Look at romance movies or basically any romance fiction at all. Nonverbal communication, sudden romantic kisses, etc. all abounds.
Simply insisting that men have to get explicit, enthusiastic consent ignores the reality that many women they may want to sleep with don't want men to do that. Similarly, insisting women ought to want that isn't going to change their mind. They've adopted the romantic memes that say they should. It's not a trivial thing to change.
This is the fairest point by a wide margin I think you've raised. I'll address it down below since I already threw an asterisk about it above.
quote:Some straightforward answers are "parent/child relationships" and "government/citizen relationships."
I think the first one is the huge factor in the current discussion, though.
So one of the ways to address these problems isn't by narrowing the range of people for whom consent isn't always required? This is a strange way of addressing problems you have, Dan: directing efforts towards serious subsets of the problem is, apparently a waste of time.
*Here's the thing about nonverbal communication and implicit consent. Men-and women, for that matter-whether they're sleeping with the other gender, the same gender, or distinctions other than those two, may very well want and not insist upon partners who don't expect to give or be given explicit consent. That's quite alright. Private choices and all that.
But when they're wrong about that, if it should turn out that they didn't actually have the consent they thought they did, it seems we should just say...what, exactly? "Sorry, sir or madam, but he really did think you gave implicit consent, and she didn't imagine you were too intoxicated or too frightened or something, so there's just nothing to be done."
For that matter, isn't attempting to build a culture that strives for explicit consent also a help to those who are falsely accused of sexual assault
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: A significant majority of women reinforce the devaluation of consent regularly. Look at the popularity of books like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray among female readers. Look at romance movies or basically any romance fiction at all. Nonverbal communication, sudden romantic kisses, etc. all abounds.
Simply insisting that men have to get explicit, enthusiastic consent ignores the reality that many women they may want to sleep with don't want men to do that. Similarly, insisting women ought to want that isn't going to change their mind. They've adopted the romantic memes that say they should. It's not a trivial thing to change.
I'd appreciate some clarification about this. Should fantasy be limited in respect to how unhealthy it would be in reality? Uh... I'm struggling to word this effectively. Maybe if I switch the gender here...
A significant majority of men reinforce the glorification of violence regularly. Look at the popularity of video games like Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty among male gamers. Look at violent movies or basically any violent fiction at all. Gratuitous gore, vigilantism, etc. all abounds.
So, if heroic violent figures in popular media are attractive to men, should we encourage such behavior in reality? I would think not, because it's harmful. The same applies to women, doesn't it? If sudden romantic kisses of questionable consent in popular media are attractive to women, should we encourage such behavior in reality? I would think not, because it's potentially harmful.
That being said, I've never encountered a woman who thought of Twilight or Fifty Shades of Gray as healthy romance. I read all of Twilight to have an informed opinion and found it to be a display of textbook abusive relationships, though I don't recall any of the romantic stuff being non-consensual. A train-wreck can make for compelling entertainment when it's fantasy (not that I was entertained by Twilight). And when it comes to romantic movies... aren't they often written by men? I genuinely don't know the proportions there, so I could be wrong in assuming most movies are being made by men.
Lastly, there is a minority of women (and men) who have a fetish for non-consensual stuff (rape-play, BDSM, etc.), but these fantasies are played out in reality with full consent/safety precautions from all parties involved beforehand. Fifty Shades of Gray was massively criticized for dangerously misrepresenting that lifestyle.
I guess my main question is whether you think fantasy and reality are so inextricably linked that fantasy must be censored to limit any potential harm it inspires in reality?
Posts: 14 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're comparing an institution of imposed oppression to a bad culture that people perpetuate on themselves. Wherever there is oppression imposed on women (e.g. Saudi Arabia) I agree that we should tear down those institutions.
"a bad culture that people perpetuate on themselves" is a very clear way to miss how the 'people' in this equation are not an equal mass perpetuating equally amongst themselves. Just like with racism, it's not "people perpetuating on themselves," its empowered groups perpetuating a power imbalance against marginalized groups.
The distinction is also completely meaningless. You admit that where "there is oppression imposed on women" requires a tearing down of those institutions, so, what's the former category? non-imposed oppression? What even would that be?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While otherwise I don't agree with Dan's overall points, I do agree that obviously women don't want men to ask whether she will give consent or not, when it comes to kissing, hugging, sex, etc.
When two adults with normal intelligence and normal level of confidence are interested sexually in each other, the consent is obvious. Neither side is in any doubt.
In a normal, romantically and erotically charged situation questions like "can i kiss you", "can I take off your bra", "can I have sex with you", etc, are buzz-kills. Neither the man or the woman wants to start asking those questions, because frankly, asking those questions means you're totally disconnected from the woman and her desires. You're completely clueless about how humans, or women, behave. You're not even completely seeing her as human person. Women typically will be weirded out by this kind of behavior.
If you tend to end up in situations where you're inclined to kiss a woman, or take off her clothes, or have sex with her, and you're not sure if she's giving consent... Then there is something wrong with you. Sorry for saying it aloud. But there is something deeply wrong with you.
If a woman is not giving consent, you can see it in a million different ways. She's uncomfortable. She's not kissing back. She's not wanting to touch you. She's not taking off her own clothes, or your clothes. She's not smiling, she's not showing arousal or passion. She's not positively excited. Her face isn't showing any warmth. She's closed down, frozen, afraid, or even fighting back.
If you're not able to see those things, and you have to ask aloud whether she's giving consent, then WTF. If I were a woman, I wouldn't want be alone in the same room with you.
If you're seeing any of those negative signs, THAT'S when you should ask whether she's giving consent. Because she's not giving it, and it's obvious even without asking.
"You should ask for consent" is important only in in scenarios where man has sex with a scared/intoxicated woman who is *not fighting back*, and then the man can later say, that well, maybe she did want to have sex. She didn't say "no". Because she was so intoxicated, or so afraid. The fear might come out of the man being physically intimidating, like straight up grabbing a woman and immediately having intercourse with her with all the foreplay removed (A typical date-rape scenario), or with him being in position where he has other kind of power over the woman (Like being her boss).
Some men like to degrade women, and treat them like objects, instead of humans. So they intentionally use the approach of "Oh, she doesn't enjoy kissing me. Well, I'll just have sex with her right away". When she doesn't say "no" and doesn't fight back (Because she's afraid), the man can claim that it wasn't rape (Which it was).
But it's an intentional choice. There isn't any confusion whether she wanted to have sex or not. The man knew she didn't want it, she wasn't enjoying it (Which is the purpose of sex). He just didn't care. Because he didn't like to consider her as an equal human being. Some people say that this is not rape, it happens on a "grey area". But there isn't any real grey area, the grey area exists only because some people want it to exist, because they want to degrade others. It's a "get out of prison" card that rapists use.
However, this has *nothing* to do with normal sexuality between adults. It's the complete opposite of what happens between most men and women. And I'm not going to start acting like someone who is not capable of seeing and understanding basic female sexuality. Women feel safe with me. They would feel less safe, if I would start asking inappropriate questions, at the most inappropriate moments. Because those questions would reveal that I'm completely disconnected from their sexuality, and their desires. And that would be troubling, and even scary.
Yes, you could come up with some scenarios where it's appropriate to ask those questions out of politeness, but with 7 billion people in this world and hundreds of millions of sexual encounters every day, you are bound to find exceptions to every rule. One example would be if I were to have a sex with a really shy and insecure woman with little sexual experience. She might be showing some odd signs of fear, and being uncomfortable, even if she were absolutely wanting the experience. Actually asking the questions, every step on the way, could make both her and me more comfortable. (It would probably help me more more than her).
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a normal, romantically and erotically charged situation questions like "can i kiss you", "can I take off your bra", "can I have sex with you", etc, are buzz-kills. Neither the man or the woman wants to start asking those questions, because frankly, asking those questions means you're totally disconnected from the woman and her desires. You're completely clueless about how humans, or women, behave. You're not even completely seeing her as human person. Women typically will be weirded out by this kind of behavior.
This is like literally, completely opposite of everything I have ever found to be true of women, or sexuality in general. If you know the woman well and this isn't your first time kissing her or whatever? Yes, of course you're not going to be asking every time. But just because you *think* you're connected with a woman and her desires doesn't mean that is actually the case, which is why it's both respectful and, you know, just a basically decent thing to *ask*! Seriously.
FWIW, I've had multiple occasions where, after the fact I've had women tell me "I really appreciate that you asked before you did x or y. (including my wife, incidentally) A lot of women have had bad experiences with overly intense and forceful men, asking permission (even when the answer seems pretty obvious) lets them know that you're paying attention to their desires and are willing to respect them and their boundaries. That is *incredibly* important.
Women will be weirded out by men asking permission? Seriously? Have you ever actually heard a woman say that? On what basis are you saying any of this? Have you actually talked to a woman about this?
Obviously there are a lot of physical indications as well, and you should definitely pay attention to them and follow them. I'm not talking about a man standing there awkwardly asking these questions to a woman, I'm talking about, while in the middle of making out, you start running your hand up her shirt and pause for a second and ask "is this ok?" before continuing, etc. Obviously, if it stops being ok she's going to freeze up, stop kissing you back, etc. But IMO it's far better to ask *before* that point, because A) it shows you respect her and are willing to listen to her before making your move and B) it gives her a chance to think about it and decide whether or not it's what she wants before it happens. (which lowers the chance of her being surprised/scared)
Honestly, I've come to find quite a bit of love making takes place in these conversations. "Is it ok if I do this?" "How does this feel?" "Would you prefer this? "I would like it if you did this." Again, I have literally never had a negative reaction from asking permission, and have had several women thank me saying they really appreciated that I did. I'm really curious as to why you think of it as such a negative thing? Has a woman ever told you she thinks of it negatively?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a normal, romantically and erotically charged situation questions like "can i kiss you", "can I take off your bra", "can I have sex with you", etc, are buzz-kills. Neither the man or the woman wants to start asking those questions, because frankly, asking those questions means you're totally disconnected from the woman and her desires. You're completely clueless about how humans, or women, behave. You're not even completely seeing her as human person. Women typically will be weirded out by this kind of behavior.
This is like literally, completely opposite of everything I have ever found to be true of women, or sexuality in general. If you know the woman well and this isn't your first time kissing her or whatever? Yes, of course you're not going to be asking every time. But just because you *think* you're connected with a woman and her desires doesn't mean that is actually the case, which is why it's both respectful and, you know, just a basically decent thing to *ask*! Seriously.
FWIW, I've had multiple occasions where, after the fact I've had women tell me "I really appreciate that you asked before you did x or y. (including my wife, incidentally) A lot of women have had bad experiences with overly intense and forceful men, asking permission (even when the answer seems pretty obvious) lets them know that you're paying attention to their desires and are willing to respect them and their boundaries. That is *incredibly* important.
Women will be weirded out by men asking permission? Seriously? Have you ever actually heard a woman say that? On what basis are you saying any of this? Have you actually talked to a woman about this?
Obviously there are a lot of physical indications as well, and you should definitely pay attention to them and follow them. I'm not talking about a man standing there awkwardly asking these questions to a woman, I'm talking about, while in the middle of making out, you start running your hand up her shirt and pause for a second and ask "is this ok?" before continuing, etc. Obviously, if it stops being ok she's going to freeze up, stop kissing you back, etc. But IMO it's far better to ask *before* that point, because A) it shows you respect her and are willing to listen to her before making your move and B) it gives her a chance to think about it and decide whether or not it's what she wants before it happens. (which lowers the chance of her being surprised/scared)
Honestly, I've come to find quite a bit of love making takes place in these conversations. "Is it ok if I do this?" "How does this feel?" "Would you prefer this? "I would like it if you did this." Again, I have literally never had a negative reaction from asking permission, and have had several women thank me saying they really appreciated that I did. I'm really curious as to why you think of it as such a negative thing? Has a woman ever told you she thinks of it negatively?
Sorry if my post came off as confusing. But I'm not talking about whatever usual chat that casually comes up during foreplay and lovemaking. Yes, chit-chat and asking how the other is feeling is part of everything.
The context of the discussion was supposed to be about men being *obliged* to *officially* ask for the woman's consent, always. So what the man is saying is not the natural thing that comes out of normal, casual discussion during sex. Instead you are saying things, because you are required to.
So when a woman hugs me in a sexual manner, her face is one inch from my face, and she's all smiles, I have to ask for her consent to kiss her. Then I have to ask for her consent whether I can touch her body.
When she's taking my clothes off, kissing me all around, and grabbing my penis, I have to stop and ask her whether she will give me consent to start taking off her clothes.
When we're both naked, I've just done oral sex on her, and she's at the top of her heat, I have to stop and ask for her consent to have intercourse - When she quite clearly desperately wants it.
And this is all duty. Because you *must* ask for consent. And it's really strange to be asking all those things, when the situation itself is completely counter-intuitive to the question.
Physically, I'm a pretty intimidating guy. But in bed, women are not intimidated by me. If someone were nervous, I would of course open it up in discussion (Like I referred in the last paragraph of my previous post). But in the far, far majority of cases, the women are not the slightest bit nervous.
My first-times with women have typically been very relaxed, humorous, fun moments. And my personal preferences are sexually active, open-minded women with a strong sense of humor.
I don't think women are hard to read, sexually. And so far, the only real negative feedback I've ever received has been from times when I had trouble getting erection due to too much intoxication, or nervousness when I was younger.
I've had a woman mildly froze up on me only a few times, ever. I've always noticed the froziness immediately.
And every time, it happened was due to my inexperience - I wasn't sure how much I could push ahead, before I get the positive signals from the woman. I fixed the situation by immediately apologizing, and taking it much easier from then on. And I learnt my lesson, now I always wait for the physical signals to come, before I proceed. Women excel at sending physical signals, and I find them remarkably easy to read.
Maybe some men don't find them easy to read, but I can only speak for myself.
In my experience, asking for consent becomes important when you're doing something, well, kinky. Like showing play-aggression or dominance. That stuff needs very concrete rules, and absolute, undeniable consent.
Someone else might have different experiences on how easy it is to read a woman during sex. And I have no doubt that cultural background means a lot. Many people on this forum live in mormon communities, and I can only imagine how different their perspective might be from a very sexually liberal and free-spirited Finnish perspective. And personal preferences towards women, and sex, probably mean a lot here. And of course people also have varying ability to read each others physical language. When in doubt, ask.
But regardless, I'm not intending to change my ways with women. They have said - both with verbal and physical communication - that they like what I'm doing.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, as a woman, I find consent incredibly sexy.
I would like to think that most men can read signals, but then I go to bars and watch men pursue women who are doing everything to send the "leave me alone" signals, so my faith in the "I can tell" argument fails.
The modern consent movement is really about communication. The old "no means no" talking point works only to an extent and has led to a generation that thinks that silence is an agreement to go ahead.
When I'm talking about consent, I'm not insisting that the guy (or woman, it goes both ways) needs to be nervously asking "is this okay?" every time they move their hand. I'm talking about active communication of wants and desires so that both participants have a chance to draw boundaries.
If I'm flirting with a guy and he leans over, looks me in the eye and says, "I think you're incredible and I want to kiss you," then that guy is probably getting a kiss and then some.
If I'm in bed with a guy and he's telling me all the things he wants to do with me, then I'm only more encouraged to say YES. If a guy asks me to tell him what I want, then that's just another awesome way to give consent and set boundaries. I could probably describe a million ways in which "Can I?" becomes the sexiest thing I've heard/seen but this is a family message board so I won't.
There are ways to utilize consent in a way that is confident, sexy, and enjoyable.
Now I'm not denying that there are ways in which to give "enthusiastic consent" without speaking, but like I said above, in a culture in which "no means no and silence means yes," this is about covering bases and educating people who may be pursuing romantic and sexual relationships with former rape/abuse victims. And a partner, male or female, may not always have that intimate information relayed to them at the very beginning of their friendship. Basically, better safe than sorry.
And because consent means communication, as much as its important to teach men and women to ask, its just as important to teach young men and young women that its okay to ASK for what they want. That its okay to say, "I only want to do..." Its why the consent conversation and sex positivity are both so desperately needed in sex ed programs.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The simple inequality that exists is that your average woman, in her child bearing years, has far more "sexual value" than your average man. In today's culture, young women are being competed for not just by their peers, but my older men as well. Romantic relationships are pretty zero sum. For, consider the man who is in a relationship with a woman from the 11th grade until a few years after they both complete university, at which point the man soon after forms a relationship with a 20 year old woman. This man is consuming more than his fair share of what a poster named Sa'eed used to refer to as "Female Erotic Capital."
This sort of thing happens all the time. Men who remarry after a divorce marry women younger than their previous wives. Top men are allowed to engage in soft polyamory.
So called "nice guys" have always existed in America. They were just saved by the fact that women were forced to settle in their early 20s. The Sexual Revolution however has taken America in a more Darwinian direction. Female sexual agency has been given primacy, and it turns out that, without the constraints of merciless shaming and religion, a great deal of young women who don't feel a financial necessity to settle down end up squandering their teens and 20s sleeping around with men who only care to use them for release. This naturally leaves out a lot of young men out in the cold.
Groups like the Mormons practice "sexual socialism" by encouraging their women to marry young, which naturally benefits the "nice guys" of that group. However, most Americans are not attached to a religious sub-group that as strongly stresses family creation.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: Most men who are girl magnets, are also really nice people. The assholes who are girl magnets, are a minority.
I believe this.
The problem is that attractive men are not just contenting themselves with dating attractive women and only "winning" in that way. No, they must win the numbers game as well by dipping down and using their status to "date" (cough) girls a point or two below them on the hotness scale, girls who consider themselves "single" but who are still receiving the validation of sexual attention/action from so called "alpha" males. As long as the attention from the "alpha" males continue, entreaties from non-alphas will repel her. In today's America, it is only when the alpha males no longer give her as much sexual attention or are more insulting and plain about their intentions to user her that she suddenly finds herself becoming more marriage minded -- perhaps in her late 20s or early 30s. She will make sure to spend as little "female erotic capital" on the non-alpha she must settle for if she wants a family. A truly wicked state of affairs indeed!
Posts: 26 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Therefore, the situations I've painted in the previous two posts lead to there being a great deal of more desperate young men, so called "nice guys." When you understand this you see why the "Nice Guys of OK Cupid" tumblr was so cruel. Ostensibly the joke was these guys were sexist/jerks, but the real joke was that they were male sexual losers who were complaining.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with the number of men in this thread making blanket statements about what women think or do?
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
ETA - Shanna, yep, it is a bit weird. I think there are just a lot more guys here, and they kind of don't see how odd it can be. Not that women don't similarly generalise about men. But yes. We probably need more female perspective on this.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: My advice to nice guys who aren't having luck with woman: - Don't focus or obsess on a single woman. Be a good friend, but never be pushy. She'll signal if / when she's ready. - Make sure you're educated. - Make sure you read reguarly. Stay current with book trends. - Read Esquire. Follow the style and grooming advice. - DON'T EVER BE SELF-CONSCIOUS. - Be self-deprecating. Learn to take a joke, and make fun of your faults. Then correct them. - Don't ever be scared to talk to anyone. - Again, focus on your grooming. - Start lifting weights and watch what you eat religiously. - Don't smoke. Don't drink too much. - Learn a lot of little things. - Be interesting. Travel. Get a hobby. - Be social. - Learn to cook well. Even if it's only a few dishes. - Try wetshaving. You know, with an old fashioned razor and brush. There are a lot of little manly details that women find attractive. - Have a dream. Make a plan toward pursuing it. - Did we talk about grooming?
Ah yes, men must somehow standout and perform to be worthy of love. A woman just has to be a woman.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would be concerned that there might be some selection effects entering in here. For example, maybe women in their thirties are more inclined to seek out kind partners than younger women.
I don't know how old women he dated, but men in their mid 30's don't have any problem dating women 10 years younger. I'm in my late 30's and I get women 10-15 years younger giving me the looks, a lot. Getting a date, or a relationship, with a much younger woman is easy. [/QB]
Yes, of course. And those men would have already had relationships in their younger days but in their 30s and 40s will then continue to form relationships with younger women. There simply aren't enough younger women to go around for the number of men willing to date them, which NATURALLY creates more male sexual losers.
This is why prostitution should be legalized.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't this just another alt for Clive or Sa'eed or whoever that guy is? It's all the same old stuff. We've been over this.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,” he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.
The tradition of monogamy was a compromise between men to share the "good" of female sexuality. The West thew that compromise out of the window in the 60s. We have moved back to a state closer to that of nature. Women have been liberated. Now it's time to liberate those "Nice Guys of Ok Cupid" to simply buy the physical relationships they can't otherwise get.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yikes. I've got my suspicions and I've barely ever been more than a lurker.
The thing about that list--It's entirely about the basics. Health. Hygiene/grooming. Hobbies.
I can't fathom the shallow thinking required to see those things as 'only for men'. The average PERSON does those things by default. Aros's advice was aimed at men who are struggling with their priorities when it comes to women.
Simplified... try to be a healthy/fulfilled person. Nothing gendered about that.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Betwixt: Yikes. I've got my suspicions and I've barely ever been more than a lurker.
The thing about that list--It's entirely about the basics. Health. Hygiene/grooming. Hobbies.
I can't fathom the shallow thinking required to see those things as 'only for men'. The average PERSON does those things by default. Aros's advice was aimed at men who are struggling with their priorities when it comes to women.
Simplified... try to be a healthy/fulfilled person. Nothing gendered about that.
Some of the things on the list are sensible...others are not demanded from women:
quote:Make sure you're educated. - Make sure you read reguarly. Stay current with book trends. - Read Esquire. Follow the style and grooming advice. - Learn a lot of little things. - Be interesting. Travel. Get a hobby. - Have a dream. Make a plan toward pursuing it.
Are the women who fail at these things as unlucky at love as the "nice guys of ok cupid?" I doubt it. The female equivalents of those guys are having babies because other men settle for them due to the shortage created by alpha males hoarding female erotic capital.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Husbands must bond with their wives when their wives are young women. That way, the husband develops "wife goggles" as he has burned into his mind his wife at her physical best, which allows him to better accept his wife's aging as he at least can always recall in his mind when she was at her best. This is why I stress women's age.
All the alpha males cannot marry all the women, so the tragedy of the current marriage/sexual system is the men who marry the women the alphas get tired off end up missing their wives "peak" and probably have a harder time accepting their wives' aging. And as mentioned earlier, such men are spoiled to the wives because of the memories the wives have of relations with alphas.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yehudi Ben Israel: Are the women who fail at these things as unlucky at love as the "nice guys of ok cupid?" I doubt it. The female equivalents of those guys are having babies because other men settle for them due to the shortage created by alpha males hoarding female erotic capital.
How are the "nice guys of ok cupid" relevant?
This makes zero sense to me. I can't figure out these delineated gendered groups you're talking about.
Edit: Specifically, who are these alpha males? What are they? What do they look like? Are there alpha females?
Posts: 14 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yehudi Ben Israel: Are the women who fail at these things as unlucky at love as the "nice guys of ok cupid?" I doubt it. The female equivalents of those guys are having babies because other men settle for them due to the shortage created by alpha males hoarding female erotic capital.
How are the "nice guys of ok cupid" relevant?
This makes zero sense to me. I can't figure out these delineated gendered groups your talking about.
"Nice guys of Ok Cupid" are young men pining publicly that they can't find love. Are there young women doing the same thing? This is a pretty gendered problem that stems not from sexist entitlement but simply due to the shortage of available young women.
quote: Specifically, who are these alpha males? What are they? What do they look like?
They are the top 20% of men in terms of looks/physique/personality/wealth etc. They often use their advantages to outshine other men and hoard female erotic capital. Before the Sexual Revolution, such men had to settle and were shamed if they used their advantages that way, much like women who slept around were also shamed. Now these men are allowed to make a killing by monopolizing multiple women's FEC.
edit: fixed a typo
Posts: 26 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the midst of the cries to young men to man up and the concern over hookup culture, it’s important to really understand what is motivating both young women and young men. When women don’t need a man as a personal provider and protector they are freed up to have casual sex, delay marriage and pursue hotter men, in hopes of catching him, or, to a lesser extent, simply enjoy the ride. Top men clean up while average and lesser men are left out in the parched desert of involuntary celibacy with only their discouraging thirst for love and sex to keep them company.
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: There's a reason they didn't name themselves "The Funny Guy" or "The Accomplished Guy" or "The Confident Guy." They AREN'T those things and THAT'S why are they aren't successful with women.
In danger of being repetitive it's also because the guys who ARE "confident/accomplished/funny" are now allowed to hoard multiple women's female erotic capital. And curious how women do not have to be funny/confident/accomplished to be worthy of love. So why not just decriminalize prostitution for these "nice guys" who are not naturally desirable to women?
Posts: 26 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a woman who dates, its my experience that confidence, humor, goals, and accomplishments play key roles in attracting desirable romantic companions regardless of the gender of either parties.
Also note that these are all traits that can be achieved through hard work and introspection. "Nice guys" are fully invited to overcome their sexist, ignorant ways and become desirable members of society.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yehudi Ben Israel: "Nice guys of Ok Cupid" are young men pining publicly that they can't find love. Are there young women doing the same thing? This is a pretty gendered problem that stems not from sexist entitlement but simply due to the shortage of available young women.
Absolutely women are doing the same thing. On the internet, sometimes, but to other women and friends, all the time. Women get harassed online. Especially on sites like OK Cupid. No reason to flock there to air relationship grievances, or lack thereof.
quote:They are the top 20% of men in terms of looks/physique/personality/wealth etc. They often use their advantages to outshine other men and hoard female erotic capital. Before the Sexual Revolution, such men had to settle and were shamed if they used their advantages that way, much like women who slept around were also shamed. Now these men are allowed to make a killing by monopolizing multiple women's FEC.
edit: fixed a typo
Top 20% of hot/successful men? Or 20% of all men? I'll assume the first, since there is nowhere near 20% of all men are hot/successful. So you're saying this tiny population of hot/successful men are having long-term sexual relationships with a massive population of diverse women. And the rest of the men are getting 'scraps'.
This strikes me as utterly absurd. Seeing people as parts of simple math equations with absolute values. Simplifying closer to reality, there is an equivalent percentage of hot/successful men and women. They pursue each other. A large percentage of average men and women who pursue the hot/successful men and women and 'settle' with each other.
This FEC claim is set in such a distorted view of reality that I'm not touching it.
The topic has veered off of 'nice guys'. I'll refrain from posting until others have picked it up again.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with the number of men in this thread making blanket statements about what women think or do?
No. I've been uncomfortable with it since it first started.
And now YehuCli'eed has started posting his things... so I think I shall go back to lurking.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: There's a reason they didn't name themselves "The Funny Guy" or "The Accomplished Guy" or "The Confident Guy." They AREN'T those things and THAT'S why are they aren't successful with women.
In danger of being repetitive it's also because the guys who ARE "confident/accomplished/funny" are now allowed to hoard multiple women's female erotic capital. And curious how women do not have to be funny/confident/accomplished to be worthy of love. So why not just decriminalize prostitution for these "nice guys" who are not naturally desirable to women?
HOW INTERESTING GOOD SIR WE HAVE A USER ON THIS FORUM WHO CONSTANTLY TALKS ABOUT "FEMALE EROTIC CAPITAL" AND WHO CREATES NEW ACCOUNTS TO BE AN INSANE MISOGYNISTIC CREEP WHENEVER HE IS BANNED FOR BEING AN INSANE MISOGYNISTIC CREEP PERHAPS YOU HAVE MET HIM OR HIS SIX PRIOR INCARNATIONS
SINCERELY, AN ACTUALLY CONFIDENT ACCOMPLISHED AND FUNNY PERSON
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, while it's hardly impossible for men to lecture women in general and feminists in particular on what the 'real' problem of consent is when discussing sexual violence, it's usually pretty darn silly. As it is here.
I should clarify, when I said this I meant 'a man' rather than the whole gender.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: In a normal, romantically and erotically charged situation questions like "can i kiss you", "can I take off your bra", "can I have sex with you", etc, are buzz-kills. Neither the man or the woman wants to start asking those questions, because frankly, asking those questions means you're totally disconnected from the woman and her desires. You're completely clueless about how humans, or women, behave. You're not even completely seeing her as human person. Women typically will be weirded out by this kind of behavior.
What? No. No, we will not be weirded out by this behavior. This behavior is normal. It is not a buzzkill, unless you are so incredibly uncomfortable with sex that you cannot bear to talk about it--in which case you should not be having sex.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That right there. These questions aren't somehow intrinsically uncomfortable or a buzz kill (however could they be? We assign our own values to them).
And I also feel like 'explicit consent' is getting an unfair hypothetical 'this wouodnt work' evaluation. No one has said or suggested a preplanned, abrupt halt and a carefully seriously spoken question, then continuing, and then repeatin the process a few times. Dogbreath and Shanna actually gave if a fair shake in describing how it might be done. The kinds of questions they describe are likely, it seems to me, uncomfortable in proportion to how uncomfortable one or both parties are to begin with.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re consent, the man does not have to explicitly say "can I kiss u" or "can I take of your bra." He can just say something like "oh baby I want you so bad" and see how she reacts. That is much less of a buzzkill amirite.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive? Have you heard from him lately, Dog? I was thinking about him the other day, actually.
See, I was out at a restaurant picking up some take out and I saw this pretty average looking guy sitting to one end of the bar. He didn't look bad or anything, but guy had a bit of a neckbeard, coulda used some clippers. Anyway, dude was positively seething. Like, livid. My food wasn't ready yet so I watched him while I waited. My best was on some really bad service that had upset the guy. Coulda been a bad day for him anyway, and bad service set him over the edge.
But then I realized something weird. He was pissed, but it didn't appear to be at a server or a bartender! The guy was staring so hard it wasn't difficult to see what he was looking at, and at the other end of the bar I saw a couple, and I wondered what could possibly be going on. They both looked good, the dude was maybe in his 30s or 40s, and the lady a bit younger, maybe, but they were across the bar so it was pretty hard to tell. She was attractive, though, I noticed that because hey, heterosexual male here. If for nothing else than a passing mystery, I had neckbeard to thank for a visual cue, at least.
At this point I could see neckbeard was grinding his teeth. He was so upset I could almost hear his molars scrape against each other! I was torn, because on the one hand maybe a recommendation to a good dentist might be helpful, but on the other hand, serious creepy stalker vibe too, y'know?
Deciding I've got Netflix for drama, I just quietly paid for my food when it arrived. That put me a few seats from the guy, and aside from what may have been a bit of BO, I'm not sure, my sinuses were acting up, it sounded like he was muttering what really evoked ideas of a manifesto of some sort. I'm not too sure, and I wasn't inclined to find out because hey, crazy! Plus the food and all. But it sounded like he was worried about a conspiracy of sexy female capitalists or something who were appearing on one of those Hoarders shows. Considering my initial wariness thoroughly validated, I beat a hasty, no-eye-contact retreat. Food was nice!
Anyway, so you were mentioning Clive? Have you heard from him?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive is not allowed to post here. But I felt it necessary to conclude my investigations before just assuming Yehudi is him.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Munroe has done several comics about OSC books (including a rather brilliant one about Lost Boys), so it's entirely possible that he lurks here.
Also, BlackBlade: it took him all of 4 posts to get back into Female Erotic Capital. I know it's not solid proof, but it's pretty obviously him.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
I thought the same thing when I read that this morning. The alt text really makes it.
*
I'll say this: the rabbit hole YBI has gone down is very, very deep. I did some research into it once and found some places on the internet that I never want to see again. There's an entire ethos built up around it, and it even has a name. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) but addressing those don't address the problematic cultural memes that are giving rise to the problems feminists notice. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
