Filed under Feminism, Sexuality
Sluttiness implies consent; or, how feminists encourage violence against women
NOTE: I drafted this post three weeks ago but decided to shelve it in favor of more pressing topics. Because I’m on a pseudo-vacation and the draft was mostly done, I decided to yank this one out of the lockbox and finish it for you. Enjoy.
Via the eXiled, I came across a manifesto entitled “Sluts Against Rape” posted at a blog entitled Bitch Brat. Opposing rape is such a brave and daring position to take – right up there with supporting world peace and opposing punting puppies into lakes – especially coming from a class of women whose weekends usually involve taking multiple foreign objects in multiple orifices. I’m in a REALLY good mood, so I’m going to rip this essay apart and impart a valuable lesson in the process.
The post is prefaced with this note:
This piece from the Women’s Direct Action Collective reflects my belief that a woman should be able to dress, act and live her life exactly as she wants and not be persecuted or prosecuted for it.
What utter narcissism. No one on earth, man or woman, can “live [their] life exactly as [they] want” – if everyone did that, organized society would crumble as the force of six billion atomized entities following their whims collided like particles in a nuclear reactor. Civilization is a compromise between individuals, and its a compromise I’ve been all too happy to make.
Also note – why is it that feminists demand total autonomy for women, something men have NEVER had throughout the history of the civilized world?
Of course that would be the ideal world, but then no one ever listens to me cos I’m apparently a whore. Ha ha…
I remember listening to the Tom Leykis show years ago when a female caller came on the air accusing him of saying something that he hadn’t. To his credit, he refrained from insulting her off the bat, simply telling her that she was wrong. She then declared that he was “picking a fight with [her] because [she was] a woman,” to which Leykis replied, “No, I’m picking a fight with you ’cause you’re STUPID!” Anonymous whore blogger, nobody listens to you for the same reason.
The manifesto begins proper:
We are feminists. We call ourselves “Sluts Against Rape” because we believe that a woman should have the right to be sexual in any way she chooses and that she is never at fault for rape.
Yes, a woman is “never at fault for rape,” like how a white supremacist who walks into a black neighborhood wearing white sheets and throwing burning crosses onto front lawns isn’t at fault if he gets the shit beaten out of him and possibly arrested. It’s not like he put himself in a bad situation or did something incredibly stupid!
Fact of the matter, sexual arousal in men is an involuntary reaction. Unless a man is gay, a eunuch, or medically impotent, his dick will get hard if he sees an attractive woman. There’s also a small segment of men who are deranged enough to act on their erections in a violent and unacceptable way, a segment of men who cannot be eliminated from the population. Ladies (and I use that term with the utmost sarcasm), if you put yourself in dangerous situations, such as walking alone in a crummy neighborhood in the middle of the night or getting in a car with a bunch of strangers, you are partially culpable if something bad happens to you. Ignorance of reality is not an excuse.
We choose to focus on sexual promiscuity-straight or queer-as a positive assertion of sexual identity and to focus on women as sexual agents as opposed to sexual victims. We remember that this embrace of sexuality in the public sphere has been particularly difficult for people of color, women-especially sex workers-and queer women.
“Queer women”? Yes, that epidemic of straight men raping lesbians has been all over the news lately.
Each of these group’s “supposed” inability to sexually control themselves has been used as justification for violence.
Funny, going by what the media says, it’s sheltered, middle-class, straight white chicks who are the most clueless on this issue.
At the same time, each of these groups have continued to explore and refine the place of sexuality in their lives and insist that public spaces remain open to them.
I tried feeding that line into my Bullshit-to-English translator, and now it’s throwing out sparks and smoke. Anyone care to decipher this nonsense?
Promiscuity is often used as a justification for rape and violence-it is used as a justification for rape by rapists, by the legal system, and even at times by other women who attempt to impose their own rigid morality upon others.
“Justification” does not mean “factor that increased the chances of the crime happening.” If you stop smoking, you reduce your risk of dying from lung cancer. If you stop being a slut – including stopping engaging in the activities that are usually associated with sluttiness, such as barhopping at 3am, binge drinking, and taking random cocks in the keister – you’ll reduce the chances of running into a psycho who’ll rape you. Try taking some personal fucking responsibility for your actions. And while you complain of “women who attempt to impose their own rigid morality upon others,” you chicks don’t have a problem with imposing your OWN morality on the rest of us – namely, your insane contention that the members of the less-fair sex should be allowed to do whatever they want without facing the consequences.
Discourse on male violence tends to centralize male sexuality and demand women’s safety in relationship to it. In this context, our own sexualities become peripheral, almost non-existent.
Uh yeah, because men are both physically stronger then women and a greater percentage of them are inclined to use that strength to sick ends. Christ, it’s like I said – sluts are as clueless about men as guy virgins are clueless about women. It’s like there’s a chemical in semen that kills girls’ brain cells if they imbibe too many different varieties. Too much dick makes Jane a dumb girl, too much dick makes Jane a dumb girl…
When female sexuality does become visible-when we put on a sexy dress and say naughty things-we are seen as colluding in our own oppression (read: we invite rape).
“When alcoholism does become visible – when we uncork a bottle of vodka and start doing shots – we are seen as colluding in our own oppression (read: we invite cirrhosis).”
When women’s innocence is invoked as a reason to curb male sexual violence, the usual assumption is that this innocence is only something white, middle class, heterosexual women can have, all women of color are presumed to be already sexually available. Thus, we argue, innocence has never protected any of us and we need to recognize the racist and classist assumptions behind any embrace of innocence.
This is a typical leftist debate tactic in regards to race – throwing out “naked assertions with no proof.” Press them for facts and they fold like a two-dollar bill. What evidence is there that only “white, middle class, heterosexual women” can have “innocence”?
We participate in this year’s “Take Back the Night March” to protest rape and to protest the lack of safety in public spheres shared by all women, all people of color and all sexual minorities. But we will not erase our own sexual adventures, our own sexual displays to occupy this public space.
A TBTN rally is one of the most unintentionally funny events you can witness. There’s just something hilarious about watching “liberated”, “empowered”, “independent” women who think that hammy speeches and candlelight vigils will stop a deranged madman from forcing his crotch rocket into their baby pockets. The ones that allow men are the funniest of all, because you get to see the sorts of empty-sacked, limp-wristed, easily-cuckolded eunuchs who consider themselves feminists. Seriously, drop in to one if you can.
We support the rights of prostitutes to be prostitutes, the rights of strippers to be strippers.
Hooking and stripping aren’t “rights,” they’re choices…and choices have consequences.
We support the rights of porn stars, transgendered people, transsexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, gay men, all self-defined sluts (and there is no hegemony of style here), and all sexual minorities made invisible by the institution of compulsory heterosexuality.
“Compulsory heterosexuality”? The really sad part is that these jokers believe their own bullshit. Hint: minorities are minorities because they constitute a small fraction of a given population. And none of these so-called minorities are “invisible” – in fact, at no point in history have homosexuals and bisexuals had as much freedom to live their lives as they wish as they do now.
Though we are often victimized, we will not be passive victims. We are active sexual agents strutting our stuff in the face of rape.
All the “strutting” won’t save you when a sicko overpowers you in a dark alley.
I’ve written before that feminists encourage women to do stupid things that get them hurt or killed. This sort of thing is a prime example. Feminists kvetch on about how women should be able to do what they like and not get raped or murdered, but it is precisely the mentality that women should be able to do what they like, including doing monumentally moronic things, that leads to them getting raped or murdered. That’s right, you go girl! Go ahead, pound Jägerbombs until four in the morning, then walk home alone! Anything the boys can do, you can do better! And when the girls who do those things end up violated or on a mortuary slab, the very same people who encouraged them to engage in the behavior that lead to them being raped and/or killed turn around and tell the rest of us that we’re not allowed to criticize them for engaging in that behavior by bleating, “Don’t blame the victim!” Can anyone else see just how fucked up this is?
Well, I’ve had enough. Every time a woman does something dumb that leads to them getting hurt, we shouldn’t be afraid to call her out on it. Roosh wrote recently on the case of a dumb bitch who poured her drink on Joe Francis’ shoulder and got her ass kicked as a result. He concludes:
Do think Jayde would have attacked a man like that in a Middle Eastern country? Hell no because she knows she’d be murdered. I’m definitely not saying that’s what we need, but our culture has taught women that they can disrespect men without repercussion, and has taught men to accept that disrespect like little punks. Well there are men who haven’t bought that view and are making the world a better place by teaching women like Jayde that you can’t go around attacking men. I guarantee you she will never pour a shot on a man again in her life.
Am I saying we should go around excusing rape or violence against women? No. I oppose those things, as does anybody else with a semi-functioning moral compass, and anyone who commits those crimes should be punished. But allowing the feminists to browbeat society with their “don’t blame the victim” chanting has done nothing but harm the lives of women. The next time something bad happens to a girl who helped bring it upon herself, we should scream this fact from the rooftops. And it may be time to bring back that dreaded four-word sentence, that phrase that instills fear in the hearts of knowing fools. That most hated line is:
“I told you so.”
I’ll bet the women who write this crap are the same ones who think America is evil for imprisoning 1% of its population and would let a flood of criminals go free, and would let in unlimited numbers of immigrants from groups that are more likely to commit rape.
Women like this are the ones who jump into big cat exhibits at zoos to take close up shots and then act incredulous that the big cat mauls them. They are so addled by the poison of tabula rasa that it never occurs to them that things operate according to their nature, and that predators, by nature harm that which they perceive as weaker and a target ripe for predation. It is in the nature of a lion to hunt and kill, even humans; it is in the nature of a rapist to rape women.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with some white, middle class undergrads about 9/11 while I was in college. They said we need to “educate people like the 9/11 hijackers.” I looked at them and said, “you damn fools, these people have advanced degrees from some of the most elite universities in the world, whereas we are getting undergrad degrees from an above-average state university… what do you think you could say to them that would ‘educate them?’”
It shut them up and made them very uncomfortable. It was like the sub plot in From Hell when the upper class couldn’t believe that Jack the Ripper was a gentile, educated man… that education had absolutely not a single impact on his nature or character.
LOL, I was just having this convo the other day w/some friends, Women among them, who tried to run the very same crap mentioned above in the socalled “manifesto”.
Way back in the 90s, I ran a social experiment. I went out dressed as the prototypical thug-oversized jeans sagging, Timberland boots, hat to the back, you name it. I took the bus, train, and went to the Gallery mall in Philly, going to the more upscale stores just to see what would happen. As predicted, I was treated like, well, a Nigga. Old ladies were scared of me. When I stepped in the aforementioned stores, I waited for interminable periods of time to be waited on. No one wanted to sit next to me on the train or subway, and when the police rolled by, I got doubletake looks. I felt like I was gonna be grabbed up any minute.
The very next day, I did the exact same thing-only this time, I was clean shaven, fresh cut, and had on a dark conservative suit w/a nice tie and white shirt. To top it off, I carried a satchel. As soon as I got to the bus stop, a White guy driving a dump truck-old enough to be my DAD-asked me for directions. By first addressing me “SIR”. That’s right. SIR.
When I got on the bus, the reaction was completely different. Old ladies couldn’t wait 2 sitdown next to me, along w/females accross the board. Even “hard” Brothas kind of deferred to me.
I went back to the Gallery, to the exact same stores. One of them was a well known upscale shoe store. About after I stepped in the place, the salesman, who was already tending to a customer, dropped what he was doing to attend to me! I was shocked.
When I got back home, I was mad as hell. I didn’t like what I had seen, w/my own eyes, over the past 48 hours-but I couldn’t deny the truth. The harsh reality of this world is that people can and will make value judgments about you based on how you look, in this case, how you present yourself to the world. No, it’s not fair, but any mature adult understands that a great deal of life isn’t. And there isn’t much in tilting at windmills here-no one ever won anything on moral victories alone. You either play the game to win, or you actually are planning to lose.
A few years later, I sat all thre of my younger sisters down and told them straightup: look, I’m your brother, I love you all and would do anything for you. So I’m gonna run it down for you like this, so you can never say that you didn’t hear it from me:
1. If you don’t wanna be treated like a Ho, don’t do what Ho’s do. Don’t go to bars or clubs unless its a private party with people you actually know. Don’t wear clothing associated with Hoochie Mamas. Don’t be that chick who has a new boyfriend every other week, or even give out the impression of same. Don’t hang w/such Women either-Women are judged and judge each other, much more harshly along these lines, than do Men. Don’t go out at all times of the night. In other words, use your head-is this something my brother would sign off on? Mom? Dad? If you even have to ask the question, you have your answer right there.
And if you decide not to heed any of what I’m telling you, and you get caught up, DON’T CALL ME, because I’m not doing shit. I told you so.
Today, all three of my sisters are doing well, two are married with children of many years and quite happily, the other is a dedicated career Woman. That’s nothing to sneeze at, given what we know about Black America. They are the pride and joy of my life.
I urge all those who have younger sisters like me, who care about these things, to do what I did, sit em down and run it all down for em, and if they get hardheaded, step back and say, I told you so.
Also: fellas, this is a tempest in a teapot issue, you know why? Because you don’t have to deal with such Women, if you don’t want to. That’s Game is all about-giving you, as a Man, options. For me, I have the option not to get involved with Ho’s. They add no value to my life, in fact, and studies have shown this, they actually pull the quality of a Man’s life down, including taking years off his life. Simply put, I’ve found that if I can’t see a Woman being the mother of my child nor can I bring her back home to meet my family, I don’t need to be doing with that Woman. Move. On.
In the meantime, I feel very sorry for the Women who go in for this stuff, because they’re setting themselves up to be used, abused or worse, killed. As I’ve always said, and I maintain:
In the New Grrl Order, the biggest losers will NOT be Men-
They will be Women.
You heard it here. SMH
The Obsidian
fbardamu,
You don’t have to be a White Supremacist in a black neighborhood to get the shit beaten out of you by blacks. It happens routinely to ordinary whites. Baltimore, MD is a focal point for this. Google this
to see a typical attack:
“Sarah Kreager” bus attack
fbardamu, I like your blog but you have a liberal blind spot on the issue of black on white violence.
Oh boy, here we go *again*.
Beta guy, chillax. Yea yea, we all hear about the relatively few cases where somebody White catches a beatdown in the hood. I don’t condone or endorse that (unless they’re of the KKK variety), and guess what, neither do the vast majority of Black folks. These are isolated incidents, and should be seen as such, not as some overarching plan by Darkies to get back at The Man.
Living like that has a great deal to do with why you’re a Beta instead of an Alpha. Focus on areas of your life that you can change for the better, instead of seeing conspiracies under every rock.
The Obsidian
Hey, Ferdinand, check this out!
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=dunne+HPV&searchid=1&FIRSTINDE
44,8% of American women aged 20-24 years have HPV.
I´m all for learning game and seduction, but this fact alone brings a whole new set of problems to men/women relationships, don´t you think?
80% of people will have some variety of HPV in their lifetime. It’s really easy to catch and condoms are only somewhat effective at preventing transmission. Most varieties are harmless and the infection clears in 1-2 years, but some varieties cause warts and others cause cancer.
There is now a very effective vaccine against the cancer causing and wart causing varieties, but only for women and only for those under 25.
Her rambling was pretty hard to decipher, and I consider myself a feminist.
She kept using the terms “public sphere” and “public spaces” in conjunction with sex and sexuality. Is she suggesting we all start having sex in public? How is that in anyway empowering?
Anyway, a person’s sex life is their own personal business. I don’t care how many partners someone has, male or female, but I don’t neccessarily want to see them going at it in public.
If her point is that a woman should be safe enough to engage in sex with whomever she wants (as long as they want her too) in the privacy of their own space, and not be deemed someone who “deserves” rape just because she has a healthy libido, then I agree with that.
To disagree would be saying that men who like to be anally stimulated by their female partner (and many men like that these days), deserve to be raped by homosexual men.
But all the other stuff about expressing sexuality in the public sphere? What’s that about?
In this culture we have sex coming at us 24/7 via the media, just by checking your email you get bombarded by ads for “dating sites”…. I mean, let’s face it, we Americans could use a breather from all of that!
From what I’m observing, the youth of this country – the young kids who are now not even teens yet, are heading in the direction of the woman who wrote that b.s. And it’s because they are being raised by single parents who too busy dating or online looking to date than they are instilling proper values in their kids.
Single parent dating should be made illegal. It’s just another form of child abuse.
Not the last I checked. The main problem with HPV is that several strains cause cancer, and aren’t that uncommon anymore. Of those, only 1 or 2 shows up as warts. No strain of HPV can be tested for in men
A triumph of Feminism: It allowed a slut like this one do a parade of her ignorance instead of hiding in a dark alley like the disease carrier that she is.
Thanks a lot, bitches.
Beta guy, whether or not your facts are correct, you’re pretty much missing the point of the example – by a mile.
This is way OT, but you know I object to this analogy even though I agree that sluts are clueless about men. Even when my experiment produces sufficient results, I don’t expect to gain a boatload of (or any) mystical knowledge about women.
I think they’re saying something about how women and “sexual minorities” should be allowed to have sex in public (but not men).
Women have certainly proven that they can be better at stupidity than men.
There’s no way I could be better at being a moron than these women. They have got me beat in this area.
Wouldn’t you rather have the stupid sluts (I know that’s redundant) out in the open so you can avoid them?
What do you guys think of lipstick feminism, anyway? What do you make of their claims that being porn queens = empowerment? Personally, I think it is a joke.
A woman doing ANYTHING = empowerment.
So we have come to the point wear the word basically means anything a woman does is double plus good.
Grr, where not wear. Reading Piers Anthony in middle school messed me up big time.
A woman doing ANYTHING = empowerment.
Except for the traditional things that women are actually good at.
In the old days, it was simply not possible to be a slut (unless a woman was acting as a prostitute). Contraceptives were not there, the risk of poverty and social ostracization was real, etc.
I don’t think that outside of prostitutes (which themselves were a group always at high risk of violence, etc.), virtually no women had sex with more than five men in their lifetimes, in pre-modern times. The vast majority of women only had one or two.
Being a slut was a high-risk filtering mechanism in the past.
Obsidian:
It’s not me I’m worried about when it comes to crap like this. I’ve got little sisters, and the last thing I want for them is to be seduced by this sort of life-killing nonsense.
Beta guy:
Dude, I link to and read race realist blogs (there’s one linked in this very post), and you think I’m a liberal on race issues?
In any event, the point of my analogy is that people who do stupid things that get them hurt deserve partial blame. I could have easily said “anti-Semite who marches into a synagogue wearing a swastika and snapping off Hitler salutes.”
Brazilianguy:
Another reason to expatriate ASAP.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
1) Healthy libido != sluttiness.
2) Sluttiness usually has certain activities associated with it that increase the chance of rape. Good girls don’t wander the city streets sloppy drunk at 4am all on their lonesome. The writer here is claiming that women should be able to do anything and not be blamed for anything bad that happens to her – which is absurd.
Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech:
I think I can grant you (and only you) an exception on this one based on what you’ve written. And you won’t gain any “mystical knowledge” – you’ll get depressingly banal knowledge. But some things have to be seen with your own eyes in order for you to truly get them.
Anakin Niceguy:
Joke is the best word to sum it up. Women gain prestige and sexual market value from being chaste. A woman being proud of being slutty is like a slave being proud of being bound in chains.
The way that it makes sense is if you see it as an extension of their sexual power. All attractive women have sexual power — the power to attract and mesmerize men purely by their appearance. All women *use* sexual power to one degree or other. For women who have a lot of other things going for them (smart, personality, morals, etc.), the best approach to maximize the utility of their sexual power is to use it sparingly. And that has been the traditional approach. However, for women who have less going for them (trailer park trash, no morals, no intelligence, etc,.), deploying their raw sexual power can be a road to much more empowerment, as a practical matter, than they could otherwise have. Most of the porn queens come from the latter category, and for them, being a porn star *is* a road to power. It’s also fundamentally self-destructive and demeaning, of course, but they’re coming from a setting where they don’t have much else going for them.
For women who have other things going for them to advocate the wanton use of female sexual power, however, is quite insane, because it only serves to water down their own deployment of sexual power. When the market is inundated with raw sexuality, each exercise of female sexual power that is more mild than that is also less effective and less powerful. In other words, what happens is that the relatively chaste girls don’t get as much of a bang for their buck by using their sexual power minimally — which is why we see the trends towards promiscuity and raunch culture. In other words, if tehre are enough girls who will make wanton use of their sexual power, this creates pressure on the rest of the girls to follow suit, to some degree, which is not really in their best interest. So it’s quite silly for such girls to be advocating sexual libertinism — it’s something that really only works to the benefit of girls who want to be slutty.
Basically, sexual displays like that only are good for prostitutes that promote their business. And, they eliminate the market value of the non-sluts, so males go to the sluts.
Fine. The only males getting close to that parade are feminist manginas, but when the parade is over, the high testosterone pieces of shit that GO TO THEM ANYWAYS will make them bow. And they will enjoy every second of it.
No GX1080, I don’t think it’s the manginas that are hanging out with sluts. It’s usually the alpha male types, like what would be considered alpha male types in college, like high T jocks and the popular guys.
The thoughtful geeky guys are usually hanging with thoughtful geeky girls.
And aren’t thoughtful geeky guys considered manginas?
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
No. Men who support the goals of feminism, irregardless of their attitude or success with women, are manginas. It is entirely possible for an alpha male type to be a mangina.
Hmmm… well, I consider myself a socially conservative feminist. What’s wrong with the general goals of feminism? Am I missing something? I’m not familiar with all of the different “waves” and their theories. But the feminism I was exposed to as a child is the one I support.
I have a problem with “sluttiness implies consent”.
So, if a woman has say 7 boyfriends at a time, and then you, (or X,Y,Z) comes along…. the fact that she has 7 boyfriends already implies consent for you???
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
A “conservative feminist” is a contradiction in terms, because the goals of feminism are opposed to conservatism.
Feminism and feminists have done countless damage to the fabric of civilization. See: men’s rights advocacy, MGTOW, Roissysphere, seduction community.
It was a joke – an “attention-grabber,” some call it. You won’t get far in these parts if you take everything at face value.
I support men’s rights (human rights) but what sort of new and deep analysis about civilization can be got from the seduction community?
They are just a bunch of horny dudes.
They are just a bunch of horny dudes.
They’re a successful bunch of horny dudes, and they’re successful because they understand women better than the feminists or the Social Conservatives do.
“They’re a successful bunch of horny dudes”….
Successful at what? Getting laid?
Big deal. Animals do it more than humans.
They offer no insight into “civilization”.
They’re horny, they do what they gotta do to get laid.
Is that something new?
They offer no insight into “civilization”.
Animals have no civilization–that is an artifact unique to humans.
“Animals have no civilization–that is an artifact unique to humans.”…………
Exactly my point! LOL.
My primary point about the seduction community was the fact that there IS one in 2009, when there wasn’t one in 1959, 1969, or 1979. In our day, men need a whole friggin community in order to figure out how to get laid. THAT is the problem.
Quick question – how does walking down a street wearing a miniskirt compare with walk[ing] into a black neighborhood wearing white sheets and throwing burning crosses onto front lawns? Seriously, how does walking down a street wearing clothes that show some flesh the equivalent of acting violently while wearing an outfit that stands for racist oppression?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Maybe not walking down the street wearing a miniskirt, but dressing like a porn star, getting drunk in a bar surrounded by horny men and so on is a big risk. It doesn’t justify what may happen, but the point is simply that prudence needs to be exercised in light of a frank assessment of the risk.
The issue is this: feminist women want the “right” to dress however they like and have it have *no* effect on the men around them other than the men on whom they *want* to have an effect. And frankly that is just completely divorced from reality.
“My primary point about the seduction community was the fact that there IS one in 2009, when there wasn’t one in 1959, 1969, or 1979. In our day, men need a whole friggin community in order to figure out how to get laid. THAT is the problem.”…………….
Well, men have been devising various schemes to get laid FOREVER. Now, because of easy communication via the internet you can all share your techniques and experiences. But it’s nothing new.
Nothing is really new.
Human nature just keeps getting recycled over and over again.
Excellent post, thank you. I wrote some posts about this issue a few months ago, and some feminists had hysterics over it.
http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-feminists-claim-rape-has-no.html
http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2009/07/does-more-porn-really-lead-to-less-rape.html
http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2009/07/hysterical-male-feminist-fathers-rights.html
http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2009/07/for-their-own-good-women-shouldnt-be.html
The worst of it was, the feminist leading the charge was a man, though his arguments were so irrational that I assumed he was a woman. He was really creepy, too; he told women that they should go ahead and undress and get into bed with men they had no interest in having sex with because “only a piece of shit” would take advantage of the situation, and no matter how many times I told him I wasn’t going to waste my time on conversation with him, he kept net-stalking me. If I weren’t a gun owner and my blog weren’t anonymous, I’d have been nervous.
Female Misogynist:
Yeah, I linked to one of your posts in my entry. And I know about your run-in with that freak. He was trolling The Spearhead a month ago as a result of Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech’s sci-fi article. What a maroon.
What I don’t get about women like Female Miso and Paglia is …. since they promote traditional gender roles within a family context for women, why the hell don’t THEY just marry a dude and settle down already!
@ DADT
wow…um…not very observant are we? FM is a lesbian i believe, please correct me if I’m wrong. But I’ve been reading her blog for sometime now and she has mentioned this in the past. And as for Paglia I don’t know, she may be married, she may be a lesbian. Just because a woman settles down doesn’t mean she’s going to stop the good fight. Look at Hestia, and Anna T., and the ladies at LAF….they are married and still going at it.
But really the point isn’t just about traditional gender roles. It’s about the destruction of our nation and HUMANITY, BY FEMINISM. It is a social experiment and brain washing gone bad. Allowing women to act a complete ass and take absolutely no consequences for their insidious behavior. Not only that, but then blame MEN for THEIR stupitidy. There in lies the problem. Not to mention the fact that feminism draws women away from what they naturally want, and then gives them no resources to cope with the loss later in life. Do you know how many women I know who hate their jobs? Many of my professional friend are absolutely MISERABLE. But refuse to admit it….anyway getting off topic.
I can’t believe I just wasted 5 minutes typing this out cuz I’m sure you’re never going to understand what I just said because you don’t want to understand. Understanding would mean that you would have to change your own behavior, and I’m sure personal accountablity is not on your agenda.
Ferdinand, Cool! I didn’t notice the link to my blog. And Hexadecimal’s been trolling the Spearhead? Damn. I apologize to my fellow MRA’s for putting us on that freak’s radar.
Kimberly, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Well put!
“wow…um…not very observant are we? FM is a lesbian i believe, please correct me if I’m wrong. But I’ve been reading her blog for sometime now and she has mentioned this in the past. And as for Paglia I don’t know, she may be married, she may be a lesbian. “…..
Kimmy, Paglia’s a lesbo, so is Fem Miso.
My point is – “lesbianism” is a social construct.
They need to walk their talk or shut the f*ck up.
wow at your ignorance….homosexuality is not a social construct. These women didn’t wake up one morning and say, “oh I guess based on what society says I’ll find women sexually attractive, and want relationships with them”. Just like I didn’t say, “oh I guess based on what society says I’ll find men sexually attractive, and want relationships with them.”
You’re attacking their personal character, while ignoring their urgent and ligitimate subject matter. And that my non-friends is what we call ad hominem.
Grow up, and find something better to do than personally attack people.
Little girl Kimmie,
Lesbianism is a direct result of both feminism and the sexual revolution. Prior to both, mutants who felt un-natural and immoral feelings for the same sex SUBSUMED them in heterosexual MARRIAGE and FAMILY.
Feminism and the sexual revolution has given vent to this particular form of perversity in a big way.
As Fem Miso states on her blog;
“And unless she is curing cancer, every woman will be making a far more important contribution to society by giving birth to and loving a child than she could ever possibly make in the workplace.”
Replace “every woman” with “every lesbian” and “than she could ever possibly make in the workplace” with ” “than she could ever possibly make in a same sex relationship”.There i
There is absolutely no reason why “lesbians” like Fem Miso and Paglia cannot do what thousands of “lesbos” before them did for the GREATER GOOD OF SOCIETY — repress their (un)natural instincts, marry a good man, have kids, act as exemplary mothers and be upstanding citizens!
The fact is that they prefer the to reap the benefits of both feminism and the sexual revolution by continuing in same-sex “relationships” or “unions” or whatever they call it nowadays…. or perhaps remaining “single” and childless.
Yet they wanna tell HETEROSEXUAL women what to do, as if they are somehow off the hook by virtue of being “lesbian”.
Just subsume your “homosexuality” and conform to the majority hetero culture for the sake of society and that will be a far greater contribution than any book or blog or whatever you might write.
In fact, they might want to consider writing books/blogs about that – the virtues and benefits of conforming to a healthy, monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
“You’re attacking their personal character, while ignoring their urgent and ligitimate subject matter. And that my non-friends is what we call ad hominem. ”
……… oh you mean like this?…
“I’m sure you’re never going to understand what I just said because you don’t want to understand. Understanding would mean that you would have to change your own behavior, and I’m sure personal accountablity is not on your agenda.”
Anyway, you’re just a young kid. In a few years you might get it.
Paglia and Fem Miso are not solutions to the problem
They ARE the problem.
And the sad part is, they choose to remain that way.
PS: do you have kids?
DADT, are you so desperate for female companionship that you want to be married to a woman who shudders with disgust when you touch her because you’re male and not female?
It is immoral for homosexuals to attempt heterosexual relationships. It harms the unwitting heteros involved immeasurably. You want to wreck the life and peace of mind of some innocent man who would end up married to me.
“DADT, are you so desperate for female companionship that you want to be married to a woman who shudders with disgust when you touch her because you’re male and not female?”…
1. I’m a married woman with kids, Honey.
“It is immoral for homosexuals to attempt heterosexual relationships. It harms the unwitting heteros involved immeasurably. You want to wreck the life and peace of mind of some innocent man who would end up married to me.”…
2. Excuses!!!
Why is it that heterosexuals who want us to grit our teeth, suppress our gag reflexes, and marry members of the opposite sex never think about the people we w would marry? Why don’t any of you marry a homosexual who finds you repulsive yourselves? You sit there in functioning marriages (if you really are married, which I doubt) and state that other heterosexuals ought to condemn themselves to a life of misery. Of very little sex, and what little there is endured with eyes squeezed shut and possible vomiting afterwards. Of no possibility of real affection. You must really hate your fellow heterosexuals to want them condemned to such a dismal life. You must also hate the children who would be born into such a loveless, strife-ridden home. These poor kids haven’t even been conceived yet and you’re sadistically plotting to wreck their lives!
If you really mean this, start asking lesbians to marry you. Contact one of those scam organizations that pretends they can “cure” homosexuality and offer to marry any woman in their program who’ll have you. If you can’t put your dick where your mouth is, stop trying to sentence other straight men, and straight women who you want to marry gay men, to a horrific life.
@DADT
“1. I’m a married woman with kids, Honey.”
Why did my heart just break for your children? Oh that’s right, because their mother is up here spewing hatred at people she doesn’t even know. Can’t imagine what home life is like.
As for my comment that was rhetoric or an assumption, not an attack on your character…..I obviously hit a nerve.
Let me ask you a question…are you a Christian? Would you be able to cast that first stone? Because if you are, your words speak against Christ’s teachings….maybe you should check that Bible one more time, and go back to tending to your children.
NOT a christian, Honey.
Religion is a private/personal matter. What does religion or the absence thereof have to do with the current rot in “Western Civilization”.
When Gandhi was asked, “what do you think about Western Civiilzation”, his reply was, “it would be a good idea”.
Let me give you 2 American women, Kimmie and Miso, both products of feminism and the sexual revolution a clue as to what life was like BEFORE all that, and what life is like NOW for many people around the world.
Before the Sexual Revolution homosexuals were not given vent to their (un)natural fetishes. They married, managed to have hetero sex and produced children. Their spouses died without even an inkling that they were married to a gay man or woman.
[You are unsurprisingly full of shit. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, a full 10-25 percent of European women did not marry. (Source: A Farewell to Alms) Wanna take a guess as to the sexual orientation of a good many of the unbetrothed? - ed.]
Those marriages may have been “passionless” for the homo, but they were not without affection, friendship and a genuine sense of caring due to family bonding.
This is how homosexuals currently function in some socieities around the world, even now, that have not undergone sexual “revolutions”.
There is more to life than your gina tingles, ladies.
Subsume your tingles to a greater cause.
And by the way, only in post-modern “politically-correct” America would the suggestion that a homosexual subsume their “natural instincts” for the greater good of society be considered “spewing hatred”.
Americans are soooooooooooo spoiled.
So spoiled.
Really, you don’t know how good you got it.
So there is a bit of jealousy involved here….now I see. Bitter are we?
Bottomline is, it’s not heathy to be in a relationship like the one you described. Those kind of relationships gave fuel to the fire of feminism. Yes unfortunetly this movement has been tied in with homosexuality. But it is not the same. It has been used as the adversary to heterosexual relationship. There was no where else to go on that one.
“Let me give you 2 American women, Kimmie and Miso, both products of feminism and the sexual revolution a clue as to what life was like BEFORE all that, and what life is like NOW for many people around the world.”
First of all you assume that we are americans, how do you know we are? Second of all you assume that we do not know what it’s like for others around the world. Both are pure assumptions. Fact is I’ve done mission work and have seen 3rd world countries and the suffering in them. So don’t tell me I don’t know. Truth be told YOU DON’T KNOW!
Now may I remind you, that your ass is sitting behind a computer typing these messages. So you, like I, must be privaledged….YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. Besides that, you talk as if you KNOW what it was like before the feminist movement…..what did you do? Go back in time?
Now get down off your high horse, your pedestal that your husband put you on, and get back to the kiddies.
Oh and I KNOW how good I got it, and I’m glad I’m not YOU!
Kimberly, FM:
Really, don’t bother arguing with DADT. She is a moron through and through, who resorts to stereotypical shaming language insults whenever anyone debunks her fact-free ravings. You’d be better off slamming your head into the nearest brick wall.
“Fact is I’ve done mission work “…
Oh god, a christian “missionary”.
OK I’m done.
That explains everything.
Fem Miso:
“You sit there in functioning marriages (if you really are married, which I doubt) and state that other heterosexuals ought to condemn themselves to a life of misery. Of very little sex, and what little there is endured with eyes squeezed shut and possible vomiting afterwards. Of no possibility of real affection.”
……………………………………………..
Why would you assume that a marriage between a homo and a hetero would be devoid of real affection?
Feminist Misogynist, there is more to “love” than sexual attraction – a lot more.
You might want to read the first part of this blog on WHAT IS LOVE?
http://thecomingnight.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-is-love.html
The problem with marriage in your culture (American) is that it is seen solely as a means to obtain INDIVIDUAL happiness.
Traditionally marriage was never about the individual, nor even about the couple, but rather about the greater good of the family,tribe, society, culture.
Cultures that still follow that have little to no divorce rates.
There is also personal happiness and satisfaction to be felt when you perform your duties to family, tribe and society.
It’s not all about you.
Really, don’t bother arguing with DADT. She is a moron through and through, who resorts to stereotypical shaming language insults whenever anyone debunks her fact-free ravings. You’d be better off slamming your head into the nearest brick wall.
So this should explain her bringing her nonsense over to my blog and twisting my words to insult Kimberly and FM here? It’s not just me being crazy?! ;)
Hestia:
Yep, that’s basically it.
Interesting post.
I admit, I was one of those who railed against “victim-blaming” believed for the most part what the manifesto stated. Now I think differently.
In general I agree with what you’re saying and with how ludicrious the manifesto is. There are just a few things.
How do you define sluttiness? Nowadays, a female virgin can be called a slut. I don’t think that a woman or man (because sluts shouldn’t only be applied to females) who has sex outside of marriage is a slut. Not even someone who has casual sex. I guess in that case, the question is how “casual” we’re talking about here. People keep complaining about female sluts, but what about the guys?
Also, I do have a problem when it seems that people alleviate responsibility from the rapist. I’m all for stating and bringing up the subject of percautions, but not completely blaming the victim for being raped. She may have made some wrong decisions in regards to safety, but in the end, the rapist choose to rape.
Renee:
Roissy has a pretty good post on this subject here, but in short, I define a slut as a woman who has had a large number of sexual partners. I determine sluttiness by ID’ing how many partners the woman has had in relation to her age. For example, an 18-year old who’s had four partners is sluttier then a 32-year old who’s had the same number.
In what weird world do YOU live? In my corner of the universe, female virgins are castigated as prudes if anything.
Not everyone who has casual sex is a slut, but all sluts have casual sex.
The double standard is real, and it’s here to stay.
I covered that in the last paragraph.
It’s not me I’m worried about when it comes to crap like this. I’ve got little sisters, and the last thing I want for them is to be seduced by this sort of life-killing nonsense.
The problem that a lot of you don’t seem to recognize is that the situation has gotten so out of hand that even the “nice girls” (chaste young women, married mothers, serious career women) are treated like sluts today. The assumption seems to be “all women are sluts until proven innocent”.
I have to deal with this on a regular basis (although the cold weather is giving me a break, thank God) and I’m a modestly-dressed married woman with small children usually in tow, living in a majority-white middle-class neighborhood. I get groped, holla’d at (yeah, by white guys in Mercedes and Dodge Rams, no less), rubbed up against, etc.
I used to go walking in the morning in my neighborhood but I had to stop because men were starting to follow me around and annoy me. They were waiting on me to come by or trailing me slowly in their cars. This is 8am in a $300k/house area, not a dark alley at night. Most of these men are even MARRIED. I got the one in the car to stop after shouting at him that I’d memorized his license plate and would call his wife and tell her what he’d been up to.
Some of my friends are afraid to walk down the street in our nice town because they get CHASED. One actually had a guy stop and get out of his car to come after her. I was once nearly run off the road this summer in a nice neighborhood with my kids crying the backseat. Two guys in a truck, hanging out of their windows screaming obscenities at me.
The result: it’s like hunkering down. We’re already dressing and behaving modestly. Now we avoid making eye contact with strange men (bitch shield intact), drive instead of walk, even if the destination is only 20 feet away, and more women are putting on head scarves. When I first moved here just a year ago I hardly ever saw a woman in a head scarf. Now they’re everywhere. At first I thought it was a Muslim invasion but now I even see them at Mass on Sunday. When I asked a few recently why they were doing this they said it was to differentiate themselves from the promiscuous masses. They’re trying to send a message: “Not only am I a respectable woman. I am a respectable woman and, no, I will not suck your dick. Thank you.” You see it all over here: plain and simple clothes, turtlenecks and ankle-length dresses in 90-degree heat, etc. What’s next, the burka? The sluts are ruining it for all the rest of us. It’s like the inmates are running the asylum. Maybe it’s better in other areas but it’s certainly a problem around here.
And all of these false-rape claims hurt virtuous women more than slutty women. Why should anyone take us seriously if we’re #53 on the docket for the day?
Black&German:
Where do you happen to live? In my neck of the woods, I haven’t seen anything like this.
At last I checked, that’s illegal. Have you gone to the police?
Where do you happen to live?
Maryland.
At last I checked, that’s illegal. Have you gone to the police?
LOL. How very white of you. My husband said the same thing.
Look, I have a choice. I can stay home and hide or I can go out and deal with street harassment. If I ran to the police every time something happened I’d have to hang out there on a semi-permanent basis. And what would I say? “Some guy tried to cop a feel while holding open a door for me?” Are you serious?
Black women aren’t really protected by the law. We’re protected by the general climate. If the climate says, “Women are to be treated with respect.” then we get treated with respect. When the climate says, “Women are all a bunch of sluts.” then white women (and maybe East Asian women) are treated with grudging respect and everybody else needs to watch their back.
Why do you think we go around looking angry all the time? We cultivate that expression ON PURPOSE.
“The double standard is real, and it’s here to stay”
Yep FB .
However it is something that is lost on young women today.
I just cannot believe how young women can so casually discuss with all and sundry, “faking an orgasm” with some guy who means nothing to them! (as is happening on a blog at the moment) Where is the self respect. How many guys will these young 20 something women go through before the penny drops?
.
By then of course, it’s usually too late to meet a decent guy, because these girls have had so many partners no decent guy wants them! (Are you listening girls?)Sex is meaningless to them. I mean, if you put out for every Tom DICK or Harry what do you expect.
The pardox here, is that while they are young these girls open their legs with great frequency. If they do eventually marry then they shut ‘em like a book.
Which brings me to another point. This nonsense that married women don’t have to have sex if they don’t feel
like it!! …. Feminism has a lot to answer for.
Sex is not something to withhold in a marriage. It is not something to be used as a weapon against a man.
Make an effort girls. (You might even enjoy it) It’s a man’s right to have sex in marriage. It’s your duty to comply. You are breaking your wedding vows if you refuse . If you can fake an orgasm with someone you don’t love, how hard would it be to open your legs to the man you supposedly love??
And, before anyone asks..
No I have never faked orgasm.
And, I have never given my husband a knockback(the favour is reciprocated) even when he has woken me in the middle of the night.
Black&German:
Well, you DID say you lived in a “a majority-white middle-class neighborhood”…
This is part of the collapse of civilization. Someone over at Obsidian’s referred to it as the “Whiskeygeddon”, referencing the blogger Whiskey. Beta men, spurned by women, are now going to go out of their way to make life hell for them in various small ways.
My suggestion – learn how to use a pistol. And carry one if you can. An armed individual is a safe individual.
Kathy Farrelly:
I presume you’re talking about Sofia’s post at Girl Game. In any event, a lady who fakes an orgasm is only hurting herself. And in their defense, the GG girls are looking for LTRs with good men, not to sleep around.
There’s a reason why marriage contracts used to stipulate that the wife had to sex her husband when he wanted it, irregardless of her desires.
“Heh. Actually, sex is 100% better when a production is made out of the male orgasm. There’s some act of closure in swallowing, some ineffable quality, that makes it supremely satisfying.”
Just the kind of girl you would like to take home to meet Mom, eh?
AND THIS..
“If you always insist he comes on your face or in your mouth this isn’t an issue”
Would you want someone like that to be the mother of your children?
Yep the GG girls are” lookin” alright FB.
You’ve been desensitized mate!
A question FB.
What makes a slut.. or not?
“This is part of the collapse of civilization. Someone over at Obsidian’s referred to it as the “Whiskeygeddon”, referencing the blogger Whiskey. Beta men, spurned by women, are now going to go out of their way to make life hell for them in various small ways.”
It’s also not happening. Not yet at least. Not even in Maryland. Don’t believe everything (or quite possibly, anything) this one says. When someone says sonething as laughable as “Black women aren’t really protected by the law”, it should send up the pathological, paranoid, victimologist flags.
I’m sure there is heinous stuff going on in Detroit and some of the other “darkest hearts” of the urban jungles, but not in white middle-class neighborhoods. Not yet, at least. Not even in Maryland.
“A question FB.
What makes a slut.. or not?”
I’ll answer that one for him. An inability to form a long term bond with a partner.
It happens to both men and women, the more they sleep around the less they will be able to form a lasting bond with someone. Not that it isn’t possible, people are different, but it is more unlikely with each subsequent partner.
This is part of the collapse of civilization. Someone over at Obsidian’s referred to it as the “Whiskeygeddon”, referencing the blogger Whiskey. Beta men, spurned by women, are now going to go out of their way to make life hell for them in various small ways.
My suggestion – learn how to use a pistol. And carry one if you can. An armed individual is a safe individual.
It’s getting worse. Last summer it was a rare occurrence but this last summer was downright awful. They’ve laid off some guys near here (outside of town) and cut other’s hours and now they seem to all be hanging out downtown during the day or driving around aimlessly. And they’re there during the hours when it used to just be homemakers and retired folk. Now there are 20 and 30-something men chilling at the park or library at 10am. It’s bizarre.
And it’s definitely MUCH worse here than in my native Germany. I lived there most of my life and was never ONCE even cat-called at. When I first moved here last year I used to wonder why the women were so careless (sloppy, really) with their appearance and seem to drive EVERYWHERE instead of walk. Now I know.
I used to dress very “European” so I thought that it was my attire that was drawing the attention. I’ve since switched to extremely modest American clothes and no makeup but it hasn’t helped any.
I know how to shoot (Army brat). But I’ve got little kids so carrying around a pistol isn’t such a good idea. And it’s not that these guys are doing anything worth shooting them. It’s just street harassment. But it contributes to a general climate were women feel unsafe and are forced to change their habits accordingly. And it’s also just plain annoying. If you’re just walking to the library with your kids and some stupid guys drive by screaming at you in the parking lot then it doesn’t exactly brighten your day, KWIM? What did I do to them? They don’t even know me.
Once I was crossing the street with my preschooler and this guy honks at us when we’re right in front of his car so that my kid starts crying hysterically. When I gave him a dirty look he leaned out his car window and said, “You know you like it.” (or something like that) and sneered at me. Then he stuck his tongue out and shook it at me. How revolting is that?
Or once I was in a bakery and was seated drinking some coffee when this guy puts his hand on my shoulder and squeezes it while passing behind me, pressed up against my back, and says, “Excuse me, Honey.” It was a bit crowded in there so I didn’t think anything of it and didn’t even turn to look at him. It wasn’t until he’d left that I turned around and realized that there was 4 feet of free space behind me. That happened last month.
It’s mostly that kind of stuff. Bad enough to wear on you after a while and make you generally wary but not bad enough to go bother reporting. It’s pretty bad here but it’s downright awful in DC. Sometimes even in the nicer, touristy areas that I frequent. In DC it seems to be less of an individual-thing and more of a group-pastime, though.
For what it’s worth, most of the guys think I’m Hispanic or Asian, so it’s not a white/black thing, per se. I also live in a college town, so I think I’m getting lumped in with the slutty college girls (I look very young), despite the stroller. They walk around downtown in typical attire I call “sludge”: half slut, half grunge. Sometimes they wear shorts so short that their butt is hanging out of the bottom and they have stretchy t-shirts on that say “Skank” or something equally charming.
My husband and I went out to our favorite sports pub a few months ago and they were having dancing out on the patio. We went to check it out but escaped back into the restaurant pretty quickly. There were girls nearly naked (despite the cold) BENT OVER rubbing themselves on guys crotches. And I’m not just talking about rubbing their behinds on them; one was rubbing her FACE. I thought I was going to throw up. We have not been back there since.
There’s a very large, active Rape Prevention organization here and I don’t know what to think about that. Are the guys here such animals or are the women fanning the problem with their behavior and attire?
My point is: these kind of women make life hard on all of us. When I’m with my kids I usually just ignore them but if I’m alone I’ll sometimes talk back or tell them off. But that just seems to encourage most of them. Some of them actually seem to get excited that I responded.
And, no. I’m not making this stuff up. It’s strange because I know other women here who have similar experiences and others to whom this has never happened. Go figure.
I think it’s true that the sluts are dragging everything down. The thing is, B&G, there are likely young mothers who are putting it out for guys — hence driving the “market” for that.
The problem with sexual liberation is that when you free something up, generally speaking it devolves to the lowest common denominator. So of course the sluts and cads were going to be the ones running the sexual marketplace. That’s fine in and of itself, but the problem for everyone else is that the ways and means for men and women to meet each other have also been dramatically reduced, in many ways, to the places where the sluts and the cads dominate. I encourage people to use other ways to meet people — friends, parties, activities, hobbies and so on — but it’s not that easy, really, especially in the bigger, anonymous urban areas where most of the more attractive folks seem enmeshed in the bar and club scene, which means the land of sluts and cads.
Kathy Farrelly:
I never said they were the epitome of class. Being rude doesn’t make a woman a slut.
I’ll quote one of my earlier comments on this post:
Talleyrand:
Given the differing nature of male and female attraction, it’s far more likely that the promiscuous man will retain his ability to form a bond then the promiscuous woman.
Black&German:
Well, the mere sight of a gun is usually enough to deter would-be harassers, especially if they themselves are cowardly.
You’re black and German, but guys think you’re Hispanic or Asian? I imagine you are rather exotic-looking for a middle-class college town. Guys tend to focus on women who are exotic-looking in relation to their surroundings, which may explain why you garner so much attention.
That’s just another night at the pub when you’re under 30. This is gonna be the most fun decline of civilization ever!
Probably a bit of both. Over at Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech’s blog, I asked why so many of the folks in this corner of the ‘sphere are from the greater DC area (PM/AFT, Novaseeker, Roissy, Roosh, anoukange, and now you). Both PM/AFT and Nova remarked that it may be due to the fact that male/female relations are uniquely abysmal in that area. From the time I’ve spent in Washington, which has from what I can tell a greater-than-normal percentage of asshole men and bitchy women, that explanation may have some weight.
The thing is, B&G, there are likely young mothers who are putting it out for guys — hence driving the “market” for that.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering about that. Some of the other mothers dress like they’re selling something. Those that aren’t fat and sloppy, that is. And I definitely get MORE attention, not less, if I’m with my children. I rarely get hit on when I’m alone.
My point is that I DON’T dress or act like that and I get the same attention. Hence my recent fascination with modesty. At our church it’s even been a discussion point at the women’s group recently. Does it really help to stop wearing make up? What does the Bible say about head coverings? But most of us don’t want to go down that road.
Guys tend to focus on women who are exotic-looking in relation to their surroundings, which may explain why you garner so much attention.
Yeah, I know. I’m also a brown woman with white-looking kids and from their comments I think they think I’m a foreigner or au pair. Like I said, I look really young. There’s a Filipino woman whose son goes to my son’s preschool and she has it even worse.
That’s just another night at the pub when you’re under 30. This is gonna be the most fun decline of civilization ever!
It’s revolting behavior. Get a room!
Both PM/AFT and Nova remarked that it may be due to the fact that male/female relations are uniquely abysmal in that area.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering about that, too.
Like I said, I’ve never experienced this in Germany and it was more rare in Austin (where I lived in my late teens). I’ve heard it’s even worse in New York City, though.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, the overwhelming majority of men around here are polite and courteous. My beef is that the small minority of jerks, that exist everywhere, are very bold here.
“Given the differing nature of male and female attraction, it’s far more likely that the promiscuous man will retain his ability to form a bond then the promiscuous woman”
I agree FB. Women are much more likely to become emotionally attached to a lover, than a man would.
A man can have a mistress with no emotional attachment and still go home to his wife at night.It doesn’t usually work that way for a woman.
“When you put sex early in a relationship, you make courtship* and dating a much more vulnerable process. Most women tell me that they become emotionally attached when they take a lover. Emotional attachment makes you vulnerable…and because sex doesn’t give men an automatic emotional attachment… It may come as a shock when she finds out the bond is not shared.” Judith Sills, Ph.D. A clinical psychologist in Philadelphia, quoted in Women’s Encyclopedia of Heath & Emotional Healing, (Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, Inc., 1993) p. 128. “
Given that women are more likely to become emotionally attached to a lover, how would a man feel if a woman had, say , half a dozen(or more) lovers over 10 years, from age 18-28 in her quest to find the right man.
Would he not feel a little daunted?
Considering that many men have “meaningless” sex with women that they would not consider marrying.
In other words it means nothing emotionally or spiritually to them. No bonding involved.
Would he really want to be the 7th man.? Perhaps she has expectations based on previous relationships? Baggage?
Really, decent girls need to keep their legs closed .The old saying, why buy a cow when you can get the milk for free, still rings true.
If women didn’t drop their panties after only a few dates they would soon discover if men truly cared for them or only for the sex they can get .(so easily)
A woman then gets a nice guy and the guy gets a woman who is chaste.
A win win situation.
“We live in a culture where sex is not so much an act as a thing: a substance that can be given, bought, sold, or stolen, that has a value and a supply-and-demand curve. In this “commodity model,” sex is like a ticket; women have it and men try to get it. Women may give it away or may trade it for something valuable, but either way it’s a transaction. This puts women in the position of seller, but also guardian or gatekeeper … Women are guardians of the tickets, men apply for access to them. ” Thomas Macaulay Miller.
Girls hold on to your tickets. Don’t give ‘em away for free.
Although I agree that men are more able to keep the ability to bond longer, it still impacts them and at some point their ability to bond is gone.
Roosh has said as much, each new conquest makes each individual woman less valuable in his eyes.
“Roosh has said as much, each new conquest makes each individual woman less valuable in his eyes.”
I don’t doubt it, Talley. There’s nothing special about conquering a slut. How much different would it be if the woman resisted his advances-rebuffed him?
Kathy:
Why do you assume the women he (or other men like him) conquers are sluts?
Because I cannot imagine that a decent woman would be sucked in like that.
My husband had a Roosh like mate, who had different women hanging off his arm all the time. He certainly was very attractive, well dressed, intelligent. It was easy to see how he could “pull the birds” so to speak.
Fascinating to watch really. He had natural game that’s for sure. However in my opinion, I did not consider these women to be of very high moral character. in other words-sluts. Hubby was of the same opinion.
.
Kathy:
Imagine it. Decent women get “sucked in” all the time. Casanova and Byron didn’t spend their lives chasing slatterns – they went for the cream of the female crop.
A few of them probably were, but all of them – no. Men are all the same irregardless of behavior – they want good, virtuous women even if they themselves are scum. More of those women are willing to play the fool to a sweet-tongued devil then you’d think. I’ve seen it and done it myself.
Male and females are of identical value but of opposite evolutionary designs. Therefore identical seeming behavior will hold opposite value, and opposite seeming behavior will hold identical value.
A Slut/Bad Girl (woman who gives away much female investment while receiving little-to-no male investment) is equivalent to a Dud/Cuckold/Sissy/Fag/Beta/Nice Guy (a man who gives away much male investment while receiving little-to-no female investment). Both the Slut and the Fag are regarded as the lowest social positions for their respective genders, and the worst/lowest insults that can be hurled. In this sense homophobia has little to do with actual homosexuals, but fear of straight men who cannot gain access to female investment. Homophobic insults are used by both men and women almost entirely against lower ranking straight men.
A Stud/Alpha/Bad Boy (a man who gives away little-to-no male investment while receiving much female investment) is equivalent to the Madonna/Princess/Good Girl (a woman who gives away little-to-no female investment while receiving much male investment). Both are usually the highest social position for their respective genders and usually the best/highest complements that can be received.
To summarize:
Slut is equal value to Fag.
Stud is equal value to Princess.
Slut and Fag are low value.
Stud and Princess are high value.
Slut and Fag are opposite value to Stud and Princess.
“Also note – why is it that feminists demand total autonomy for women, something men have NEVER had throughout the history of the civilized world?”
Because women (all women, not just feminists) see themselves as equal to alpha males – men who (from women’s pov) seem to have power without a reason for it, choices without consequences, rights without responsibilities, etc. Of course this is not true, but it is how women see it, and they lust for such status and the men who have it. Conversely they see non-alpha males as dummies who are unwittingly tricked into accepting lower status by alphas (the “smart” men). Iow, women see status as something that one tricks their way into, therefore there is nothing wrong with the irrational, have-it-all-ways, hypocritical arguments feminists/women make – the dumb men (betas) will and should buy it just as they do from alpha males, and to not buy it is sexism.
“We are feminists. We call ourselves “Sluts Against Rape” because we believe that a woman should have the right to be sexual in any way she chooses and that she is never at fault for rape.”
I have always disagreed with the conservative and feminist framing/definitions of sex, rape, consent, or that only women can be raped – and have always wondered why more men simply go along with feminist framing. I define rape as “sex without giving overt, rational consent” and have concluded that most men are raped daily by women, and even most so-called male rapists are actually rape victims of women – men who did not willingly consent to being aroused/teased/seduced into sex by women who (wittingly or unwittingly) dress/act in ways that provoke the male mating response. We are animals after all, and if the females are sending sexual “in heat” signals (wittingly or unwittingly) then men will respond – this is inevitable. Most men will be able to restrain themselves but some will not, and I don’t see this as their fault since they did not ask to be aroused by slutty women, and in fact most men wish to protect themselves from this female psychosexual aggression. Most men (aside from young men) are usually against women behaving slutty – it is women/feminists who are forcing this psychosexual aggression upon us – this rape of men by women.
Also, there is an underlying sense of entitlement to male support, money, protection, etc in all feminist discourse. I do not believe men – because we are men – have a collective obligation to protect women from rape or any other crime. We are not free bodyguards. In a democratic society the government has an obligation to protect all of it’s citizens from crime. Citizens have an obligation to do simple things that provide for their own self defense/protection (like avoiding dangerous areas/people), to not engage in crime, to discourage crime, and to report criminal activity. Most men are beta nice guy and go above and beyond in these obligations of citizenhood. Beyond this, modern men – as private citizens – should not have gendered/traditional/chivalrous obligations to women. Modern women swore off all gendered obligations to men 50 years ago. If individual men CHOOSE to provide traditional protection to their own women (mothers, wives, etc) then that is their choice. But women in general should not feel entitled to this. And most women encourage/enable/reward criminal bad boy behavior. Iow, most women are more responsible for crimes like rape than most men.
Really, here is what women really want and why they complain about rape so much: they want to have lots of promiscuous sex with alpha males with the hope of hooking one of them, and don’t want non-alphas getting in the way of this. Any sexual attention from non-alpha males is “rape” in women’s minds. It takes a lot of abuse from an alpha for women to complain about it, they will usually rationalize it away e.g “he’s misunderstood”, etc. Women want to dance by the fire and when they get burned, they want beta white knights to rush in and save them. Of course it doesn’t mean she is ever going to give the beta white knight any pussy, she will be back to spreading for bad boys in no time.
The male gender across the globe needs to WAKE UP and see women for what they really are, and stop giving ourselves away for free to women, most of whom have no intention of giving us anything of what we want, and would be content to force us into involuntary celibacy to eliminate us from the gene pool (as women have been doing to men throughout human evolution).
edit
Upon reading over my last post I would change the following sentence:
I define rape as “sex without giving overt, rational consent”
to:
I define rape as “nonconsensual sex”
because of course consent is a fuzzy concept itself, as consent can be implied, can involve imperfect rationality or consciousness, can change from minute to minute, can be standing, can take time to comply with as arousal can’t be switched on/off immediately, can be contextual, can be conveyed via non verbal cues, etc.
My basic point was that if rape is defined as nonconsensual sex, then men are frequently raped by women since erections, penetration and sex itself does not necessarily mean that the man wanted or consented to being aroused or seduced by the woman. An analogy: if someone rests their drink in front of a known alcoholic who then drinks it, then who has been wronged? The alcoholic or the person who lost their drink? I would say the alcoholic, because it was known he had less control, and that such behavior would harm him, but the person still put the drink in front of him, arousing/teasing/compelling him to drink it. The male brain is essentially addicted to sex, and even the slightest stimuli can trigger overwhelming and sometimes uncontrollable desire. Feminists are manipulative brats who refuse to accept this reality of human nature, which is part of the reason why they advocate for greater female sluttiness and greater male sexual responsibility/propiety at the same time – which are of course contradictary and incompatible concepts.
Stupid people admire studs. The sexual market is zero-sum, unlike the economic market. Admiring succesful entrepreneurs makes (some) sense.
“Because women (all women, not just feminists) see themselves as equal to alpha males – men who (from women’s pov) seem to have power without a reason for it, choices without consequences, rights without responsibilities, etc. Of course this is not true, but it is how women see it, and they lust for such status and the men who have it. Conversely they see non-alpha males as dummies who are unwittingly tricked into accepting lower status by alphas (the “smart” men). Iow, women see status as something that one tricks their way into, therefore there is nothing wrong with the irrational, have-it-all-ways, hypocritical arguments feminists/women make – the dumb men (betas) will and should buy it just as they do from alpha males, and to not buy it is sexism”
In other words, because beta-men let alpha-males get away with it, women think they can get away, too.
[...] Going back to the second feminist revolution of the 90’s, we men have been bombarded with a nonstop barrage of hysteria about rape, “date rape” in particular. According to the mean-mouthed commissars of the false rape industry, there’s purportedly an epidemic of men spiking womens’ drinks with roofies and dragging the newly helpless damsels off to have their way with them. When I was in college, girls were admonished to guard their drinks as zealously as if they were protecting a vault of treasure, and the resultant panic fed into the myths about the prevalence of campus rape. I always wondered why, if date rape of this variety was so common, why the girls concerned about it simply didn’t avoid the sorts of venues where it would likely happen, but that was before I figured out that feminism is all about allowing women to do whatever they want, damned be the consequences. [...]
[...] points in time – take these excerpts from the “Sluts Against Rape” manifesto that I trashed back in October: This piece from the Women’s Direct Action Collective reflects my belief that a woman should be [...]
[...] this made me think of all those manifestos written by foolish feminists that blame normal men for rape. Here we have a normal woman freely giving a rapist her love and [...]
[...] my God, you’re BLAMING THE VICTIM?! Heretic! Stone her! Time and time again I have been amazed at the behaviour of women towards men [...]