posted
I'm afraid we have a perfect storm leading up to more of this kind of crap.
For the last few decades, women have struggled their way out of all-but-property into near-human status. Men who never learned how to deal with women as actual human people with feelings have been increasingly frustrated by this.
The sexual revolution did in fact make huge changes, good and bad, but the real change was what helped kick it off: reliable birth control that was totally under the control of the woman involved. Women could finally make decisions about their bodies and their roles in society.
People are drifting away from organized religions, most of which push the "Men are in charge" dogma pretty hard. Women are thinking out loud. Gay marriage is sweeping the nation. Believers are getting frantic.
It's been quite a while now since the husband could be the sole breadwinner for a family, and since the economy tanked many men have been completely unable to fulfill what they see is their role.
Thanks to the Internet, women can now speak out against how they are treated every day, and they can organize. Rape cases can no longer be swept away as easily. Casual sexism is getting called out, made public and more difficult to deny or say it's a he-said/she-said thing. Treating women like second-class citizens, sexual prizes or servants is, little by little, no longer the expected norm. Still happening, obviously, but s-l-o-w-l-y peer pressure, if nothing else, may finally start moving that mountain.
The Internet also has given a voice to the extreme sexists, the commenters, the trolls. Their violent, utterly inappropriate, very public responses to women online may do more to help turn reasonable men towards seeing women as people than anything else.
And the media, which has been reliably whipping viewers of movies, TV shows, talk shows and more into believing that EVERYONE deserves sex and that EVERYONE is having more sex than you and that women will eventually fall for the lovable persistent guy, has become more and more polarizing in the last 10 years until the only opinions allowed are the fringe ones because they get the most ratings.
PUA books and organizations are capitalizing on frustrated guys by telling them yes, women are machines that can be acquired by following the right instructions in the right order, and that men can be divided into alphas, betas and whatever other buzzwords they have this week.
And the NRA flatly refuses to allow any research into mental illness in connection with gun ownership, any hint of anything that might prevent someone with known problems from buying all the weapons he or she might want, while movie after movie and video game after video game assures us that shooting stuff solves all our problems.
NOTE: I am not advocating knee-jerk gun control, or blaming movies and video games. I'm not even blaming the PUAs. People are responsible for their own actions.
BUT, we currently live in a society full of frightened, weak men who have been told all their lives from every direction that men must be strong and guns make you powerful.
The answer, the only answer, is to change that society.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was well written Chris. I was nodding along with a lot of it.
I some different perspectives on how our society has gotten to where it has, but I'm not sure Rodgers and his involvement in the PUA movement is really a good example of much anything. According to Rodger's own writings, he had been planning this infamy since he was 17?
I agree our society should be judged by the sorts of men and women it produces on the average. And that your points all warrant discussion. But I think Rodgers is an abnormally ill specimen, and so also think using him as a specimen of what is wrong with many American males is an exercise in futility.
edit: TL;DR I think we're going to get folks like Rodgers no matter how we as a society score on our report card.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't. I think that Rodgers was on the extreme end of a spectrum of entitled misogyny but that society allows that kind of thinking. Heck, we've got one (probably only the one) guy who promotes those ideas here. Not the shooting, but the entitlement. If society as a whole moved further away from those ideas, the crazy seeds wouldn't have such fertile ground. And if we give up our delusional gun fetish, those outliers won't have the power to kill as many as they do.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a hard task to change our society because people seem to find community on the Internet even when their identifying features are pathological. It's harder to shame and pressure people out of their mistaken beliefs when they have a supportive community that validates and reinforces those beliefs.
Still, we have to try. I'm glad that objectification of women, misogyny, and sexual entitlement are getting some scrutiny and criticism, and I think it's extremely timely and helpful - because there's a lot of harm that can be avoided. I'm just pessimistic that this conversation is going to reach and affect the people who are the worst offenders - since they seem to prefer an insular worldview and way of discussing these topics.
It's made worse that there's a profit motive in exploiting the frustration and anger that exists in these communities. Validation is a powerful thing.
One just hopes that the REST of society can demonstrate that misogyny, pickup "game", and other objectifying ideas are bankrupt.
It's a hard road. MOST of our entertainment sells this stuff, in varying degrees. LOTS of celebrities display an image that validates these wrong ideas. I think many of us who recognize these problems still find glamorized versions of them attractive - at least enough to spend our time and money enough to keep the cycle going.
How do we demonstrate the bankruptcy of ideas that are endemic in the entertainment that much of society is immersed in?
I'm going to give an example. The Game of Thrones TV series constantly displays women as commodities. It also criticizes this practice, but only intermittently. There are many, many scenes where men are being fawned over enthusiastically by prostitutes. These have a pornographic appeal - no matter how ugly or unpleasant a man is, he can (according to the show) have pretty young women eager to please him. The women don't seem desperate or even businesslike. Nobody's worried about disease. These scenes are numerous. They are only partly counterbalanced by actual characterization of a couple of prostitutes, and by other settings where the women are treated with extreme cruelty. In fact, it's possible to say that the net message is that as long as you don't behave the way Craster or Joffrey does, it's fine to treat women like property and they will mostly be pretty happy with it.
(Note: I'm not against prostitution. I'm against pretending that prostitution is glamorous and risk-free and that if someone is getting paid that means they have no feelings or preferences.*)
My point is that this show - which is notable for how much MORE it treats (some) women like real people than many others - still indulges in and celebrates the objectification of women. It still sells harmful messages. And it's a good show, that I'm really reluctant not to watch.
I'm not sure how we can eradicate harmful ideas while we continue to celebrate them. And at the moment, I do not believe that removing the harmful messages that I'm talking about would help a show like Game of Thrones be more successful. I think the opposite would be true.
---
*I actually think this glamorized image of prostitution might be part of why legal prostitution might seem like a solution to sexual frustration for some people. As long as it's illegal, they can pretend that anything unpleasant about it is a consequence of that. The prostitutes you can afford aren't attractive, or are clearly desperate? Disease transmission is a serious concern? You won't be fooled into thinking that OMG she really wants me? Your social limitations make even that interaction really difficult? Maybe all that would be different, and it would be like those amazing brothels full of crazy hot women who are having a fantastic time, if only it was legal...
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't. I think that Rodgers was on the extreme end of a spectrum of entitled misogyny but that society allows that kind of thinking. Heck, we've got one (probably only the one) guy who promotes those ideas here. Not the shooting, but the entitlement. If society as a whole moved further away from those ideas, the crazy seeds wouldn't have such fertile ground. And if we give up our delusional gun fetish, those outliers won't have the power to kill as many as they do.
I think a simple find & replace would work reasonably well.
quote:CONGRESS DISGRACED itself by refusing to toughen Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle laws after the slaughter of children a year ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. , yawning in the face of a national tragedy. Meanwhile, the battle for reform in state capitals continued and intensified.
Some states that already had lax Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle laws, mainly in the South and Midwest, moved to relax them further, in the apparent belief that a Wild West approach would promote a safer citizenry. Montana enacted a measure barring health-care providers from asking patients whether they own Knives, Guns, and Violent Vehicles; Tennessee cut the waiting period for people who want a handKnife, handGun, or handViolent Vehicle permit after they leave a drug or alcohol treatment program; and Alaska and Kansas nullified some federal Knives, Guns, and Violent Vehicles laws so that they will no longer apply in those states.
According to an analysis by the New York Times of state legislation enacted since the Newtown massacre, about two-thirds of the 109 new Knives, Guns, and Violent Vehicles laws around the country loosen restrictions — for instance, by easing the rules governing concealed-carry-or-drive permits or allowing Knives, Guns, and Violent Vehicles to be brought into places of worship or schools. The irony and tragedy of such efforts is that many states with the most anemic Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle laws already have the highest rates of Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle deaths, according to a new report from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle Violence. By further relaxing restrictions on weapons and assault vehicles, those states may invite even more Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle violence.
Other states, mainly those with legislatures controlled by Democrats, responded to the Newtown shootings and violent drivings by toughening measures that regulate the sale and use of Knives, Guns, and Violent Vehicles.
Among them was Maryland, which enacted an ambitious law. The state’s Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle laws are now ranked as fourth toughest in the nation, trailing those of California, Connecticut and New Jersey. While Maryland is not among the 10 states with the lowest rates of Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle death, seven of 10 states with the toughest Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle restrictions are. And while a survey by the Brady Campaign said that more research is needed, its authors noted that the data they collected suggest an inverse correlation between the muscularity of state Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle laws and the rate of Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle deaths.
Eight states have enacted major reforms to curb Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle violence in the year since Sandy Hook, the Brady Campaign’s report shows, and a dozen others enacted at least some laws to address the problem. Five states adopted background checks or toughened rules for issuing licenses. Four enacted laws requiring that Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle owners report lost or stolen Knives, Guns or Violent Vehicles to the police; four beefed up restrictions on the sale of military-style assault Knives, Guns or Violent Vehicles; and five moved to limit the use of large-capacity ammunition clips and key rings.
The survey dents the image of invincibility enjoyed by the National Rifle and Assault Vehicle Association and its brethren in the Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle lobby. In fact, America’s Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle laws are an evolving patchwork. That offers some hope for further reform, but it also undercuts the effectiveness of restrictions that are in place. Criminals stymied by one state’s restrictions can cross a border to procure what they need in a neighboring state.
Yeah...there you go
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: It's a hard task to change our society because people seem to find community on the Internet even when their identifying features are pathological. It's harder to shame and pressure people out of their mistaken beliefs when they have a supportive community that validates and reinforces those beliefs.
But you shouldn't have to rely on mere shame and pressure to persuade people -- you should actually talk and debate them. Time and time again I see cogent and intelligent posts like this (and especially comment #6) with no meaningful counter-point from those who believe that such anayslis is misogynistic. NPR's "On Point" invited three feminist dunces to bash men and not even someone like this blogger to give a different view. Those communities exist in part because the mainstream discourse is so biased and controlled.
posted
It is cogent but it is hardly intelligent to suggest, as that post does, that human history is a story of women wielding true power, and that this can be seen particularly in cases when r appears they are being victimized, but this is in fact only in service to the female puppeteers.
Not that you have any to spare, but you lose credibility and the appearance of honesty when you complaining of shaming and insults and label your opponents dunces, while insist I f ghat the other side is the one not actually responding to arguments.
(I can actually understand BlackBlade's policy here. In terms of fairness, it is the best one-Sinclair might *not* be Clive back again. But I suspect he is, and just the slightest coaxing will bring that trash back up to the surface, and he can be put down again.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Women innately view sex as transactional." (Specifically for money, attention, and affection, I'm actually not making that order up.)
Remember, 'Sinclair', when you make a habit of agreeing enthusiastically with the notion that women are innately whores, that this has nothing to do with your failures in romance. Instead it is a worldwide gender conspiracy against which you are powerless, in spite of an overwhelming majority of politicians and wealthiest people now and in history have been men.
Rember: they're all innately whores, and all you're insisting on is that they simply admit it, and things will be better for everyone. If only people woul understand!!!v
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe NPR didn't want their listeners to have to shower with bleach after the broadcast? Eeeauuuch.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comment #6 pretty blatantly condones rape. Whoever wrote that pities the poor boy who didn't care that she was drunk and put up some last minute resistance, he should be allowed to use the "slut" defense, dammit.
Sinclair, people aren't afraid to debate these ideas on the merits. It's that pretending they have enough merit to be worth debating makes everyone who does so stupider.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I was going to ignore certain posts with the understanding that any links in them would almost certainly either make me angry or giggle unhelpfully, and yet I clicked on the one above to read comment #6, which ends with this plaintive plea from an imaginary doofus who is "ignorant about the new totalitarianism that surrounds" him. Italics are mine.
quote:But…huh? The cops came for me because she accused me of rape. What the hell? It wasn’t rape. Well, she was technically drunk and she put up some last-minute resistance, but there was no violence at all…what, that counts as rape anyway? What the f—is going on? And her name is withheld by the authorities due to some rape shield law? What the f— is a rape shield law anyway? At least I should be able to prove she’s just a bar slut who has casual sex like this all the time! This sucks, man!
Let's look at the two big problems here in this "cogent and intelligent" comment. I'm skipping the "technically drunk" part for the moment and will even give him the benefit of the doubt that she was not incapacitated.
1) If she puts up resistance and you continue, yes, it's rape, whether there was violence or not.
2) It doesn't matter whether she has had sex with every other person in the bar, consecutively or all together. You are never entitled to sex with someone. Doesn't matter if she previously wanted to have sex with you before she changed her mind, doesn't matter if you've previously had consensual, mutually joyous sex before, doesn't matter if you're married to her, doesn't matter if she's a sex worker, doesn't matter if she's working her way through her Facebook friends list. Doesn't matter if you really really love her and she'll see that if you just make her see it. If someone does not wish to have sex with you and you force them to, that is rape. It's kind of the definition, you see.
Big words do not a cogent and intelligent post make.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha, I didn't even read the entire thing-just long enough to find some obvious misogyny and insult guised as 'intelligent debate'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: 1) If she puts up resistance and you continue, yes, it's rape, whether there was violence or not.
2) It doesn't matter whether she has had sex with every other person in the bar, consecutively or all together. You are never entitled to sex with someone. Doesn't matter if she previously wanted to have sex with you before she changed her mind, doesn't matter if you've previously had consensual, mutually joyous sex before, doesn't matter if you're married to her, doesn't matter if she's a sex worker, doesn't matter if she's working her way through her Facebook friends list. Doesn't matter if you really really love her and she'll see that if you just make her see it. If someone does not wish to have sex with you and you force them to, that is rape. It's kind of the definition, you see.
Big words do not a cogent and intelligent post make.
Also, if she (or he) is drunk, drugged or otherwise impaired, she (or he) is incapable of giving consent. Sex without consent is rape. Period.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It is cogent but it is hardly intelligent to suggest, as that post does, that human history is a story of women wielding true power, and that this can be seen particularly in cases when r appears they are being victimized, but this is in fact only in service to the female puppeteers.
Quote relevant portion pls eitherwise this is another case of strawmanning by mis-paraphrasing.
quote:Not that you have any to spare, but you lose credibility and the appearance of honesty when you complaining of shaming and insults and label your opponents dunces, while insist I f ghat the other side is the one not actually responding to arguments.
They may otherwise be intelligent human beings but they all sound dumb on that show, especially David Futrelle who stammers endlessly and the first guest who doesn't really say anything deeper than the typical #yesallwomen tweet.
quote:
- posted May 30, 2014 09:33 PM Profile for Rakeesh Email Rakeesh Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote "Women innately view sex as transactional." (Specifically for money, attention, and affection, I'm actually not making that order up.)
Remember, 'Sinclair', when you make a habit of agreeing enthusiastically with the notion that women are innately whores, that this has nothing to do with your failures in romance. Instead it is a worldwide gender conspiracy against which you are powerless, in spite of an overwhelming majority of politicians and wealthiest people now and in history have been men.
My failures in romance? I'm glad you could glean that from my twenty or so posts, while throwing in a bit of the apex fallacy in there.
quote: Excellent post, Ciaran. It would make sense that more “female” tactics are used as the means to control society as the female herd has ascended in status, only second in power to the apex males to whom the herd is largely a tool and a puppet to further their ends. The apex males can get the female herd to do much of its work for them, which consists of pressuring females to act in the politically-correct way and to act as a regulator of pussy-begging non-apex males (via denying or granting pussy access and general ostracization or acceptance).
quote:1) If she puts up resistance and you continue, yes, it's rape, whether there was violence or not.
I know you know this, but for the peanut gallery: If she puts up resistance and you continue it *is* violence.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Comment #6 pretty blatantly condones rape. Whoever wrote that pities the poor boy who didn't care that she was drunk and put up some last minute resistance, he should be allowed to use the "slut" defense, dammit.
I'm afraid "Last Minute Resistance" is a PUA concept, but I'm pretty certain the idea isn't used to condone rape but is instead used in contexts where advice is being given as to how to get a woman to overcome her ingrained thought of being thought of as a "slut." I don't traffic in PUA stuff but the manosphere owes its existence in part to the rise of the PUA online scene around 2005 so there is some terminology everyone is familiar with but which might strike outsider as strange.
Posts: 39 | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I don't actually care what buzzwords or terminology the manosphere uses to justify forcing a woman into sex in any context, thanks.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is another clue. Manipulating a woman to "overcome her ingrained thoughts" is still pretty offensive.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Curious how the only responses to post#6 just go to reinforce the dude's point that society now takes extra-care to protect women from the consequences of sexual freedom rather than asking women not to put themselves in positions where they can be taken advantage off (something which would go against their sexual freedom.)
Posts: 39 | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Also, "manosphere"?
Yes, it's the loose association of blogs (PUA, divorce & child-custody reformers, Men's Rights, Red pillers, incels, etc) that deal with masculine issues from an anti-feminist perspective. Some of those groups are hostile to each other (PUAs disparage MRAs, incels disparage PUAs and so on) but in general they believe that society advantages women over men in key ways.
The intellectual godfather of the Men's Rights wing of the manosphere is Warren Farrel, who wrote this book:
quote:1) If she puts up resistance and you continue, yes, it's rape, whether there was violence or not.
I know you know this, but for the peanut gallery: If she puts up resistance and you continue it *is* violence.
If you are hesistant but the salesman keeps trying to persuade you (and then wins you over) has he committed violence against you?
Posts: 39 | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny you would make such an analogy. Many contracts aren't binding if one party is intoxicated. And I think (but this is hazy) that attempting to sell someone certain things knowing they are intoxicated-still less providing the substance-is problematic as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's funny you would make such an analogy. Many contracts aren't binding if one party is intoxicated. And I think (but this is hazy) that attempting to sell someone certain things knowing they are intoxicated-still less providing the substance-is problematic as well.
What if both parties are intoxicated? Is it okay for a drunk guy to sleep with a drunk girl? Why does the law still punish the guy in this case if she were to complain?
Posts: 39 | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Got it. Post#6 is entirely wrong because you guys agree that he endorsed rape in his last paragraph, therefore nothing else he said needs to be considered because rape.
Posts: 39 | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
If your "seduction" results in "last minute resistance" your seduction has failed. And if you encounter "last minute resistance" and proceed to have sex, you are a rapist.
An article that might be interesting to those who aren't trolls/MRA activists is Arthur Chu's take on Nerd culture, entitlement and misogyny. The only disagreement I have with him is that it's not just nerd culture. This kind of entitlement and misogyny exists in many places - a friend of mine and I were talking last night and it came out that between the two of us and 30 years of work experience, we had been sexually harassed or a witness to sexual harassment at every one of our jobs. That's unacceptable.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sinclair: Got it. Post#6 is entirely wrong because you guys agree that he endorsed rape in his last paragraph, therefore nothing else he said needs to be considered because rape.
Nope. That was only one example of how it is wrong.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's entirely wrong because it starts from the assumptions that all women are conniving and selfish, that if patriarchal restrictions on sexuality fade then the race will die out, that all women view sex as transactional, and that the changes in women's rights have all been directly damaging to men. AND that a fictional guy who seems to be admitting to rape is whining that he's being accused of rape and this is used as an example of how far things have fallen.
I support quite a few changes in things like child support, custody and other legal and financial matters where things aren't as cut and dried as they once were now that males are not always the main earners in the family. I favor more of a case-by-case determination. But that's a small current running in a big, ugly ocean of resentment and entitlement.
PUAs do not see women as humans. They see them as goals, points, numbers to rack up. The PUA tactics are based on trickery, manipulation and hard-pressing sales techniques designed to put a woman on the defensive or wear her down, and they play to the frustration of an awful lot of insecure men.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: If your "seduction" results in "last minute resistance" your seduction has failed. And if you encounter "last minute resistance" and proceed to have sex, you are a rapist.
Really? As in belonging in jail?
Posts: 39 | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
Resistance is the opposite of consent. If there is resistance, there is not consent. Without consent, it is rape. Legal definition. And one I fully and completely agree with.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: No, it's entirely wrong because it starts from the assumptions that all women are conniving and selfish
Quote relevant portion.
quote:, that if patriarchal restrictions on sexuality fade then the race will die out
He does no such thing. This is what he says:
quote: That’s because the unspoken consensus is that society can thrive only if women are able to satisfy their own biological imperative – after all, if that’s not the case, they simply won’t bother to reproduce and we all die out.
That says nothing about patriarchial restrictions. It's as true in a feminist utopia as in a patriarchy. It's a pretty profund post.
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: An article that might be interesting to those who aren't trolls/MRA activists is Arthur Chu's take on Nerd culture, entitlement and misogyny. The only disagreement I have with him is that it's not just nerd culture. This kind of entitlement and misogyny exists in many places - a friend of mine and I were talking last night and it came out that between the two of us and 30 years of work experience, we had been sexually harassed or a witness to sexual harassment at every one of our jobs. That's unacceptable.
Shoter Arthur Chu:
Hey you male dorks who think you are human beings deserving of sex/relationships, you should kill yourselfs, because I have no solution to present to you about your plight other than for you to forget you have these issues in the first place, so yea, just kill yourselves already.
Posts: 39 | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Women innately view sex as transactional, something that entitles them to various things (money, attention, affection), not as a hedonistic act of mutual pleasure."
This is the viewpoint of a bitter, bitter man.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "Women innately view sex as transactional, something that entitles them to various things (money, attention, affection), not as a hedonistic act of mutual pleasure."
This is the viewpoint of a bitter, bitter man.
It's a claim about human nature that is either true or isn't true.
This paper makes a case for it. I suppose the writers are just bitter sexists.
No one, male or female. No one is entitled to sex. It is not a promised thing that evil women are denying you.
Every human should have the opportunity to make relationships, meet people, and possibly, hopefully have sex, but no one should ever be forced to have sex with someone they do not wish to have sex with. And if they don't want to with a specific person, it's not their fault and that person is not a victim.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sinclair, what do you suppose women do when they don't get their choice of mate? Suppose for a moment that what women get from sex is sex. Imagine if you can that sex is about two people giving to each other. If you can't imagine that, read the article I linked above.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a claim about human nature that assumes an entire gender has the exact same motivations, levels of desire and interests in procreation.
Whenever I hear any theory that starts with "all women" or, for that matter, "all men," I assume the writers are full of it. Haven't been wrong yet.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: No one deserves sex.
No one, male or female. No one is entitled to sex. It is not a promised thing that evil women are denying you.
Yes, that's the new battlecry of feminists now that frustrated blue-pill men won't go away and keep complaining online about how being a "nice guy" isn't leading them anywhere. Why won't they shut up? Why they won't they just accept being incel and go away?
Posts: 39 | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or maybe just stop whining and do something productive with their lives. Maybe stop childishly thinking only of themselves.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
