posted
I have read the thread. I think my parameters more accurately describe the phenomena that are the subject of this thread.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you aware that the original poster and most of the people posting on the beginning of the thread are male? The thread isn't women griping about men.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: You changed the parameters. Under your scenario, I concur. Some people here are arguing against my scenario and parameters.
Read the thread. Though I'll admit, most of the people bagging in me haven't.
Yeah, you did. I asked a question about suicides in response to shaming over 'nice guy' behavior, and you replied crowing about any male suicide related to female-harmed reputation. The example you gave was only even tangentially related! So, yeah. Changed parameters.
As for people 'bagging' on you: you admit to trolling, to changing tactics and positions to suit your given whim, and this isn't a thread you can just flip the board over and storm out like a child. So people can see what you've said, see you talking about fat women, and bullying women, and rejecting stereotypes while sneering at feminists. They're bagging on what you say, because it's garbage. And it amped up when you started being openly hypocritical and cracking misogynistic jokes. (Just as an example, is don't see MattP getting bagged on, and he even made a direct, sternly worded challenge.)
NobleHunter-and others-have already addressed your chief objection: that this antagonism is directed at innocent guys who simply are nice and then seek romance. That's not a Nice Guy for the purposes of this discussion. You can either (finally) accept that and move on, or continue to ignore it and get 'bagged on'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Yeah, the demeaning/objectifying comments really aren't helping you any, Aros.
"If women retaliate based on a false pretense, it can be harmful to the guy."
What retaliation? No one is suggesting that she kick the guy in the face. The whole "meme" is about showing guys some specific ways NOT to act, it's not about how to treat the guys.
Seriously what are you so worried about? What's going to happen to these poor guys?
Oh okay. Show me when posters here -- men and women -- get indignant about telling women "how not ot act." Show me when they use memes to mock any subset of women. The sight of white knights tripping over themselves white-knighting is getting pretty hilarious here.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: Aros, three out of four of your propositions are erroneous:
It's not just a guy trying to ask you out; it's a guy feeling entitled to sex because he's nice.
Not just to sex, but compansionship, love, togerthness of spirit and body, etc. It's so telling you dudes reduce the longing of the "nice guys" just to "sex" as to all the more justify your white-knight preening.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Are you aware that the original poster and most of the people posting on the beginning of the thread are male? The thread isn't women griping about men.
You know, my interest in this topic (and, probably, the reason why most men posting here are interested) is unrelated to feminism. Not that I don't support equality between the sexes, mind you.
It more has to do with analyzing and discussing a behavior I see in some male friends, as well as my own behavior. My own understanding of relationships and romance and interaction between men and women has changed and deepened over the past few years, and now that I am as of late married, I feel like I've only really seen the tip of the iceberg.
I feel like these sorts of discussions (both online, and IRL) are really useful for helping one analyze his own relationships and assumptions and see if they really line up with what he believes. I know I often subconciously do things in a set pattern until a discussion like this makes me think "wait, why am I acting this way/treating this person this way? This makes no sense" and then change my behavior.
That being said, I do appreciate the irony of a man complaining of feminism and sexism in a thread that is mostly men discussing a predominantly male behavior/culture with other men. The butthurt is strong with this one.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: That being said, I do appreciate the irony of a man complaining of feminism and sexism in a thread that is mostly men discussing a predominantly male behavior/culture with other men. It's pretty surreal.
It's not so surreal when you realize that the men in question are all (mostly) operating out of a gynocentric mindset they've been reared in and breathe everyday.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:...don't see MattP getting bagged on, and he even made a direct, sternly worded challenge.
Wait, what? In this thread?
I was referring to your criticism (I mean the in the constructive way) of some of the positions expressed here, particularly Dogbreath. I thought there was a good case expressed there, and it went against the broad current of the thread, but I don't recall your being bagged on.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Aren't you banned? Or did BlackBlade allow you to come back with a different alt?
I would be surprised. No, this is likely just another in the long, stories and sleazy tradition of names such as Clive Candy, Sa'eed, and something something Jewish sounding name, among others. So far it's pretty true to form.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, maybe if Matt was more to you than just a nice butt and a pair of knockers you'd at least remember his name, you pig!
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you'd seen his butt and knockers you wouldn't judge!
As for Raymond, if he weren't such a fat chick I wouldn't rate him like furniture. And hey! Before any of you whining, hormonal feminists start bi*%#ing, I don't mean anything bad by that, so don't go criticizing me! I'm not a meme! God, can't have a simple conversation with you feminists!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: Aros, three out of four of your propositions are erroneous:
It's not just a guy trying to ask you out; it's a guy feeling entitled to sex because he's nice.
Not just to sex, but compansionship, love, togerthness of spirit and body, etc. It's so telling you dudes reduce the longing of the "nice guys" just to "sex" as to all the more justify your white-knight preening.
Yep. Surprise. He's not entitled to any of that either.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciate that so many people are passionate about the subject. If you'll note, I've been the brunt of attacks but I haven't delivered any personally. Nor have I been offended or upset myself. Sure, I've employed multiple techniques, including some humor that might have been mildly off color, but it's been on topic.
There are obviously some people who have a problem with either my debate tactics or my platform. My guess is both. I apologize if you have concerns, and I think rational debate is over, so I'll kindly excuse myself from this thread. Hopefully, if there's anything worthwhile left to discuss, you can get back on track.
posted
Passive aggressive is still aggressive. Sarcasm and dismissiveness is rude. You can't scrub it out on your way out the door with a "I always took the high road and when I didn't that was humor."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
the chivalry thread is worth remembering because it was where Aros revealed a major amount of sexism underpinning his lines of thought regarding gender relations, then he baleeted it all when people were calling him on it so
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Among the many funny things in that palpably insincere apology was that, in this thread, he openly stated 'this is an in your face to people who said things in ways I didn't like, which makes it fair!' I suppose he might have deleted those, too.
But yeah, I remember that thread. There were someunpleant things under that particular rock. But anyway, sincere or not, if he's not gonna continue, I'll stop bagging on him for it. Well.,.now;)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If you'd seen his butt and knockers you wouldn't judge!
As for Raymond, if he weren't such a fat chick I wouldn't rate him like furniture. And hey! Before any of you whining, hormonal feminists start bi*%#ing, I don't mean anything bad by that, so don't go criticizing me! I'm not a meme! God, can't have a simple conversation with you feminists!
Speaking of memes and feminists, this seems appropriate especially in the light of how some in this thread, particularly Clive-Whosit, want to characterize feminists.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
I actually liked that cartoon -- it made me laugh out loud the first time I read it. I grudgingly acknowledge it's hilarity though I disagree with its point.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you're not totally dead to humor and irony. It's never a good sign when someone can't laugh at their own sacred cows and taboos.
As for its point, though, something to think about: the ideas expressed by those snakes lady straw-feminists aren't very far at all from some of the positions you impute to them on a regular basis. The absurd, over-the-top ridiculous hyperbole they hiss at children is not much further than kissing-cousins close to what you think they think.
ETA: Obviously, that was directed at BB.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for its point, though, something to think about: the ideas expressed by those snakes lady straw-feminists aren't very far at all from some of the positions you impute to them on a regular basis.
posted
That would make sense. I honestly thought, "Have I lost my grasp of things I've thought in the past?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't think he criticized any of the opinions here...
Are you thinking of Raymond Arnold?
Wow, I sure am. Sorry Matt!
Heh.
For the record, I was about to get really annoyed at a different comment (the one about "if they didn't want sex they'd be okay with friendship") but then the thread became really ridiculous before I had a chance to reply and I lost interest.
I think Aros has been pretty rude and easy to dismiss for personal reasons, but I think they had made a lot of good points that people were just ignoring or talking past.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What points? There were some things Aros said that weren't directed at anything anyone here actually said, so I can see why you would agree with some of those. Anyway, he's gone now, and I'm interested in what you have to add.
I'm interested in what you have to say, and I'm not sure why you felt the need to stop discussing this earlier. Nobody was being rude or disrespectful to you, or "ridiculous." At least, I don't think any of my responses to you were ridiculous.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Might I suggest we not all be too hard on Aros? Usually when somebody is angry at women they need a combination of "stop hating on women" and "you can let go of your frustrations with women, they aren't serving you or anybody else."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was not that anyone was disrespectful to me or anything, it was just I've been trying not to get into internet arguments in the first place these days unless there's a good reason to, and I felt like the timber of the conversation got overall pretty silly.
The parts that were continuing to frustrate me were some number of people continuing to use "Nice Guys just want women's bodies" as their main talking point.
People can be acting entitled, but still genuinely want long term commitment/companionship/non-sexual-touch/love and all the other subtle things that make a relationship. Relationships are not just friendships + sex. (I don't think you were the one claiming this, someone said it explicitly and others implied it)
I can't remember who said what at this point and don't care that much.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was one person who said it, actually. And in a somewhat sarcastic manner. In one post. Not "a number of people." It certainly was the argument of Aros's strawman, though.
I guess the point everyone was trying to make (including Emreecheek, btw) is that it doesn't matter if they explicitly feel entitled to sex, or commitment/companionship/non-sexual-touch/love/free nachos or whatever. The point is that they feel showing basic human decency entitles them to something from a woman, and if she doesn't give it to them, then they act as if they've been cheated. The feeling of ownership and treating love as a transactional affair is the issue, not the specifics of if it's sex or cuddling or whatever.
That being said, all the things you describe fall under "intimacy", which is perhaps a better description of what we're talking about than "sex." The defining quality of a relationship *is* intimacy.
For example, everyone makes jokes about me and my "deployment wife." My buddy Sam and I, when we were deployed, did everything together. We slept in the same room (or racks next to eachother, while on ship), went out together on port calls, shared the same tent, talked to the same girls, pretty much shared life together. I love him like a brother and we certainly shared a lot, but nobody (expect jokingly) would say we were "in a relationship". Or dating.
Human sexuality, or intimacy if you will, includes the actual act of sex, or lying next to eachother and holding one another, being completely vulnerable with eachother, living together, trusting each other, kissing, hugging, cuddling, commitment, and companionship. They're all intimately tied together and complement and reinforce each other.
It seems very strange and unlikely to me that you could have or want a "relationship" with a woman that is more than a friendship, contains all those other things, and yet is devoid of sexuality. And by that I mean, either actually having sex, or the eventual promise of sex (at a later time or after marriage) reinforced by sexual acts. (like holding hands, hugging, kissing, cuddling) I can't honestly say I've ever heard of that happening (outside of strange, bizarre "Children of the Mind"-esque cults), and I wonder why it keeps getting brought up. Obviously there's more to a relationship than just intimacy, but that is the defining aspect of a relationship, is it not? Can you explain why you disagree?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think some conversation on this subject uses "sex" and "friendship" as shorthand for "romantic relationship" and "platonic relationship," which is probably confusing the issue. Especially since not being "just after sex" can be one of the things that self-proclaimed nice guys count as a factor in their niceness.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, the thing with nice guys and sex is that their narratives often suggest they're acting like boyfriends in everyway but sexually. A common complaint is they're doing all the "work" of a boyfriend without the reward.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if some "nice guys" actually did focus on the relationship they feel entitled to, rather than sex. The performative nature of the meme does allow for individual variations.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't the reward of being a good friend having a good friend? Why should a woman feel obligated to have sex in return for friendship, instead of, you know, being friendly?
That being said there's a bigger problem here, actually the one *big* problem. They feel if they do enough "work" (by being a psuedo boyfriend or whatever) then a woman is obligated to "reward" them with sex. It makes love a transactional affair, and dehumanizes one or both parties. Presumably, you're trying to date someone, not buy a hooker.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
hilary hahn fan is as obviously clive as was yehudi ben israel before it. i really hope that this was recognized immediately.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Sam's comment made me think he already had whistled his posts and I thought to myself: "Self, BlackBlade probably doesn't appreciate having 18 people whistle the same post." so I let it be.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
