Ogi Ogas, a computational neuroscientist, and author of A Billion Wicked Thoughts, has ventured into enemy territory with a post at Psychology Today – Why Feminism is the Anti-Viagra. He’s aware of the risks, which is why he begins his article by whispering this:
Gender equality inhibits arousal.
Of course, he might as well have announced it with cannons – it wasn’t two shakes of a lamb’s tail before feminists came out screaming snark.
“The majority of women have submission fantasies. From classic romance The Flame and The Flower to classic erotica The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty to Twilight BDSM fan fiction, submission themes are immensely popular in cross-cultural female erotica. The fact of the matter is that most heterosexual women are wired to find sexual submission arousing–and so are most female mammals.”
Any woman being honest with herself knows this is true. That even includes, on occasion, ardent feminists. Nothing can produce the clit twinge faster than mental images of rough, unexpected sex with a favored male. Consider these quotes:
I have struggled with two competing images of the opposite sex: oppressor, and dream date.
—J. Courtney SullivanI blame my recurring rape fantasy on the fact that I’m a feminist.
—Tracie Egan
(By the way, Tracie Egan has shared the story of having paid a male gigolo to enact a forceful rape with her, according to Ogas. She’s also put together a list of articles proving that “Psychology Today Hates Feminism.” Since Psychology Today is a network of bloggers motivated by science rather than ideology, perhaps that should tell us something.)
Ogas: “Almost every quality of dominant males triggers arousal in the female brain: dominant scents, dominant gaits, deep voices, height, displays of wealth…women still want strong, dominant men.”
For insight into the effects of feminism on the SMP, Ogas interviews Angela Knight, a successful author of erotic romances.
“I think this is one of the problems we’re having in romance in general right now: our heroes have gotten a little too PC. We’re portraying men the way feminist ideals say they should be—respectful and consensus-building. Yet women like bad boys. I suspect that’s because our inner cavewoman knows Doormat Man would become Sabertooth Tiger Lunch in short order.”
Meanwhile, Ogas notes that the “massive popularity of dominance-themed websites for men” demonstrates that men have the opposite, and complementary arousal triggers.
“Our mammalian brains come wired with very ancient sexual preferences, quite prominent in the most popular forms of male and female erotica preferred by Homo sapiens. Men are aroused by being dominant and by submissive women, women are aroused by being submissive and by dominant men. In the bedroom, inequality beats equality.”
Note that final statement. Ogas is talking about what turns people on sexually, in the bedroom. He is not saying that women shouldn’t enter the boardroom. Rather, he addresses the loss of acknowledged differences between the sexes and its effect on relationships.
Women’s gains have undeniably been at the expense of men. In an era where women have an unprecedented amount of “power, independence and clout,” men have lost a corresponding share. Today, there are often two dominant people in the bedroom. As women grow more dominant, they exceed the dominance of a significant percentage of the male population, leaving them with a much smaller pool of men they find attractive. Even feminists don’t want submissive males, which is why so many of them are perpetually single.
Ogas explains why we can’t just educate, or even guilt people into rewiring their attraction triggers to accomodate feminism:
“Just as democracy has no effect on our basic taste preferences for sugar and fat, democracy doesn’t affect our basic sexual preferences for domination and submission.”
Linda Young, a counselor in private practice and popular media figure who also blogs at Psychology Today, responded last week:
Feminism is the Anti-Viagra, Not!
The crux of her argument:
“Feminism is about social, economic and political equity and is independent of what turns someone on in a bedroom or fantasy.”
What Young fails to address, or even see, is that as women have become more dominant in the social, economic and political realms, many have also become more dominant in the bedroom. It’s the reason men keep shouting from the rooftops that women’s career achievements don’t make them attractive sexually. Successful women in their 30s claiming that they’re single because they intimidate men has become a cliche. Intelligence is not a boner killer, but an aggressive demeanor is.
Meanwhile, Feministing had this rebuttal to Ogas:
Feminism, once again, blamed for, well, everything
The interesting excerpts from the article:
Courtney: One could be in a truly egalitarian relationship, that consensually and joyfully plays around with power dynamics in the bedroom. I would argue that the foundational equality of their relationship would actually make role play even more available to them.
SW: It is precisely feminism that makes role play necessary. If couples have to negotiate and agree to “experiment” with dominance and submission, isn’t that proof that they’ve drifted away from their own sexual natures? Why not inhabit the role each secretly craves, rather than pretend?
Lori: I appreciate that he’s attempting to speak publicly about women’s desire, and validating this as a subject, but his analysis lacks nuance and shames those women, and men for that matter, that dare to have fantasies about control with an immature scientific argument that amounts to little more than a feminist “gotcha” attempt.
SW: Ogas is not in the business of shaming. He’s a scientist. He describes a research finding he characterizes at startling:
In humans, the hormonal vagaries of prenatal development appear to cause a substantial portion of men to be born with active submissive circuitry. These men find sexual submission as arousing—or, quite often, far more arousing—than sexual dominance.
He also states that a much smaller percentage of women are born with “active dominance circuitry.” As we know, the internet provides, and BDSM communities thrive in every flavor. The point is that the overwhelming majority of humans are wired a certain way, and that is inconvenient for feminists.
Lori: Plus, dear Ogi ignores basic scientific studies that have demonstrated that feminism is damn sexy. A Rutgers University study found that feminism boosts sexual satisfaction for both men and women, and that having a feminist partner is linked with healthier, more romantic relationships, at least for heterosexual couples.
SW: Oh, I am so glad she referenced that study! I dug around till I found the paper and then proceed to wade into the regression analyses (so you don’t have to). I suspected, from long experience, that claims such as Lori’s usually reflect cherry-picking results, usually from a researcher with a specific, i.e. feminist, agenda. This proved to be the case.
Let’s have a look at what this study found. Spoiler Alert: Is feminism in fact “damn sexy?” Nope.
The Interpersonal Power of Feminism: Is Feminism Good for Romantic Relationships?
The paper is actually comprised of two 2007 studies conducted by feminist scholars Rudman and Phelan at Rutgers. Study 1 included 156 female students, and 86 males, all in heterosexual relationships. Subjects got credit for participation and the experiment was run in a lab. A questionnaire asked participants about their identification with feminism, and whether their partner was a feminist. It also asked questions to establish the relative degree of relationship quality, equality and stability.
Fearing that the first study did not adequately incorporate the full range of feminist experience, Study 2 was constructed to include 289 volunteers, 208 female, 81 male.
Rudman had found in an earlier study that “women and men who endorsed beliefs such as “men perform better sexually when they are in charge” and “romance depends, in part, on men being in charge,” showed low enthusiasm for feminism. This suggests that female assertiveness and autonomy, attributes that are instrumental for gender equality, are perceived as promoting sexual conflict. Study 2 afforded a check on the accuracy of this perception.”
The age range was 18-65, and the questionnaire was administered online. Participants were recruited from Craigslist, various Yahoo! and Google Group forums, and two psychology websites. The average education level was 14 years.
This study has been trumpeted by feminists for years, without any justification – well, I take that back, there is one tiny statistic they may take comfort from, which I’ll share in a bit. In fact, the study demonstrates clearly that female feminism has a negative effect on relationships, though not surprisingly, the effect is mitigated if they are in relationships with male feminists.
The Studies
First, subjects were asked if they agree with the statements “I am a feminist” and “My partner is a feminist,” on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree).
| Study 1 Mean | Study 2 Mean | |
|
F: I am a feminist. |
6.2 | 6.2 |
| F: My partner is a feminist. | 5.4 | 5.3 |
| M: I am a feminist. | 4.9 | 5.4 |
| M: My partner is a feminist. | 5.4 | 5.7 |
In other words, the degree of feminist identification among the participants overall was a big meh. Neither study was predominantly feminist in its identification, and no analysis was conducted based on the disparity within this response.
Subjects were then asked a series of question re relationship quality, equity and stablility. In Study 2, a question was added to determine the correlation between feminism and sexual satisfaction in the relationship. According to the researchers, this was because the first study missed the “fish/bicycle” generation of feminists, who were more qualified to weigh in on sexual matters.
Young women’s experience is inarguably limited, compared with older women, vis a vis intimate relationships, balancing them with careers, and with sexual discrimination.”
That is not inarguable. I would indeed argue that young women have a very different sexual experience than did the second wave feminists, one with much more physical intimacy and less emotional intimacy as characterized by hookup culture. The erosion of emotionally intimate relationships among young people has been steady since the Sexual Revolution, and picked up steam in the 90s when dorms went coed and hooking up became the collegiate norm.
Here are the correlations derived from the regression analyses. Don’t go away – it’s more interesting than it looks, and I’ll highlight the best bits.
| Quality | Equality | Stability | Sexual Satisfaction | ||||
| Study 1 | Study 2 | Study 1 | Study 2 | Study 1 | Study 2 | Study 2 | |
| Women: | |||||||
| Self | -.11 | -.35 | -.20 | -.43 | -.09 | -.24 | -.24 |
| Partner | .33 | .39 | .32 | .57 | .29 | -.30 | .32 |
| Men: | |||||||
| Self | .24 | -.12 | .44 | .27 | .14 | -.27 | -.20 |
| Partner | -.20 | .13 | -.29 | -.20 | -.03 | .40 | .33 |
The Findings
1. Being a feminist woman is negatively correlated to all measures of relationship happiness across the board.
However, having a male feminist partner was positively correlated. The researchers believe that this is the similarity effect. Women feminists are happiest dating other feminists.
According to the researchers, “It is not clear whether women feminists select like-minded partners or shape their partners’ beliefs.” They acknowledge that asking only one partner in a relationship about views on feminism is problematic, and that future research should attempt to ask both halves of any couple.
2. For men, having a feminist partner correlated to relationship dissatisfaction.
“[Men's results] are the mirror image of women’s reports, [and are an indication] that feminism troubles relationships.”
3. Relationship length was negatively correlated to relationship equality.
The longer women were in relationships, the more disagreements arose around gender roles.
4. Study 2 results were similar.
“We found [that] feminism [was] a negative predictor of women’s relationship quality, equality, stability and sexual satisfaction.”
5. The statistic highlighted in yellow is the singular finding that has feminists kicking up their heels in triumph throughout the media.
It’s may be the most abused piece of data ever to come out of an academic research project.
Here’s what is says:
81 males, aged 18-55, whiter than the original group (72% vs. 56%) and 10% outside the U.S. found that while being feminist themselves decreased sexual satisfaction (-.20), having a feminist partner increased sexual satisfaction (.33).
Rudman and Phelan were unhappy with their results, and adjusted them for “suppressor variable effects.” Their explanation was weak and did not stand up to scrutiny, in my opinion. This reduced, but did not eliminate the negative results for women’s view of feminism in relationships.
The study authors conclude:
I. Feminist male partners may be important for healthy romantic relationships.
II. Feminism may also be healthy for men’s relationships. First, feminist men in Study 1 reported greater agreement about relationship equality. Second, men in Study 2 reported greater relationship stability and sexual satisfaction to the extent their partner was a feminist.
May be? The study concludes little, and has inspired no additional research since it was conducted. I’m troubled by the merging of Study 2 with Study 1, and I find the design of Study 2 especially poor. The Sexual Satisfaction finding seems flimsy, especially as women in Study 2 still felt that being feminist was detrimental to their own sexual satisfaction.
Obviously, Feministing’s claims are blatantly false. But what do you think about the bigger question?
Does gender equality in the bedroom inhibit arousal?
Are women turned on by male feminists?
Are women feminists hot in the sack? If so, why?
Related posts:
{ 252 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 »
Oh you don’t say….
Something that Roissy touched upon is that as women become more and more masculine, they still desire someone that is more dominant than they are. This can be problematic as the alternative to a high T dominant woman can sometimes be a violent thug.
Dream Puppy here btw, I am converging my online personas into one. Too many IRL ppl know me as the pup.
@GudEnuf:
Equal in what way?
Women can never be equal to men because:
Their brain fibers are “delicate”.Their spinal cord is smaller.They have a different skull shape.Their uteri drive them hysterical.Whatever theory is trendy today.
The science changes, but the sexism stays the same.
wow, thank you.
Yes. I get turned off by dominant women. Big time. My dick has trouble feeling it.
Im fine about competing with other men about whose penis is bigger, but competing with a woman makes no sense: mine is bigger, hers is imaginary.
Crabs get their big claws to compete with other males, not to compete with other females and their imaginary male claws.
In bed this translates to lack of chemistry, a hard on hard thing. Two leads, lack of connection, bad rhythm.
As far as I have seen, dominant women feel attraction for submissive males, and most feminist males I have known are submissive.
So there might be a correlation: if you are a submissive male, become a feminist and you might land a dominant female easier. And you will have a rationale for putting her in the center of the universe.
Nope.
@Gudenuf
Why is it a bad thing or sexist to say in some things women aren’t equal to men?
Escarondito´s last [type] ..Walking your own path
Nothing wrong with, every now and then, pushing us down and getting on top during/leading up to sex.
But, for the most part, and I think I can speak for most men, we derive a lot of pleasure from giving girls a good doggystyle. And, most girls love it.
Submissive girls in the sack are the best. Furthermore, I’ve found most girls want to be led in the bedroom anyways, I doubt these feminist pairings are having awesome mind blowing sex.
“Uh, honey? May I please finger you?” Wait what?
collegeslacker´s last [type] ..My Saturday- A near perfect template part 1
There is no such thing as equality in human relationships.
None.
Never has been, never will be.
Hypergamy means that a woman looks for a partner better than herself.
Well, as the resident “switch” let me just say that while I don’t mind submitting to a sexy woman in the bedroom, I wouldn’t want to give her my balls. Besides, if she’s like every other woman I’ve EVER met, sometimes she needs spanked
A cheerful little item, possibly related, here.
“Feminism is the Anti-Viagra”
Fascinating study. Next up: cheeseburgers are the anti-diet pills
@GudEnuf
Wow, is that list from the late 1800′s? I think we’ve learned a bit since then.
I don’t understand why as a woman you think I should be more like a man, and like it. I don’t want to have sex like a man. I don’t want to be pressured into studying a STEM subject. I want to be able to enjoy being female, without making apologies for it. That might include having children, or god forbid, even staying home with them.
My being XX means that I have different genes, hormones and chemicals than you do. Isn’t it preposterous to think that we might be the same, act the same, look the same?
The Sexual Revolution has made both men and women less sexy. That’s the ugly truth. Whether you’re dominant or submissive, having good sex means finding your opposite/complement. That’s just a lot harder to do with so many women behaving as sexual aggressors.
Also, if dominant women wanted submissive men, we might at least have good matches, even if things were upside down. But they don’t. Feminists revile “nice guys” more than anyone else – that’s very clear from the feminist blogs. I recall one feminist – I think it was actually Jaclyn Friedman – saying in an interview with Amanda Hess that she is really turned off by feminist men.
Did she say she was turned off by feminist men, or turned off by men who go on and on about how feminist they are when really they don’t have a clue?
Would like to see that source.
Okay, so if the chick in the picture had dark hair, how come her hairy legs were blonde?
If women were turned on by the thought of their man staying home, baking cookies, keeping house, looking after the kids, etc. then feminism would be all fine and dandy. Trouble is, they’re not.
It strikes me that if men didn’t want submissive women, the whole schoolgirl/nurse thing wouldn’t be so popular in porn. The men slap the women on the ass and generally order them around. That’s what Ogas says – look at romance novels and porn to tell you where people are spending their disposable income.
@david foster
From Ann Althouse’s piece:
This reminds me of a joke I heard about a couple of sexless (but maybe not) women I heard during the last presidential election:
Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because Janet Reno is her biological father.
Shudder, quoting Jaclyn Friedman:
From Fucking While Feminist
Worth a read. She allows that her experience with such men is limited:
What is dating trans men? Is that a woman dating a woman who identifies as a man? Or a woman dating a man who identifies as a woman?
Hey, how about responding to my earlier questions GudEnuf?
@collegslacker – I agree, I think most of these feminist just need a good lay.
That hairy legged pic gives me the creeps!
jessie´s last [type] ..10 Dating Faux Pas for Anyone
I don’t think feminism, the text book definition, is as much of a problem for guys in the bedroom as an unyielding and brittle sense of female superiority is.
Of all my partners the self-described sex-positive feminist is the best in terms of sexual compatibility and enjoyment for me. While she is very strong in her belief that she should not be considered ‘less’ or ‘beneath’ anyone because of her gender she has no problem with accepting my lead in the bedroom and has remarked on multiple occasions that she is actively excited by that dynamic. She will at times turn the tables and be aggressive or try to fight me into a submissive position but if I am not in that kind of mood and I fight back and don’t let her take control she doesn’t get offended and give me crap about it later.
On the other hand I have been with women who are so proud and unyielding wrt their female ‘power’ that they turn their nose up at things like doggy style or giving head because they see them as ‘submissive’ and refuse to do anything that ‘seems’ submissive to a man. These sexual relationships didn’t last very long as such rigidity is a major turn off.
@Susan
My understanding of the terminology of Trans people is that you ‘are’ whatever you say you are but you extend people the courtesy of indicated whether you are genetically what you say you are. So when a feminist/LGBT aware person says ‘trans x’ the ‘x’ is what the person identifies as and the ‘trans’ indicates that that identification may not match what the person has under the hood so to speak. So a trans man was born/raised a female and a trans woman was born/raised a male.
@Susan,
.
Yikes, that picture kind of gave me the creeps.
.
You have a link to a Feministing thread. There’s another interesting thread on Feministe (well, interesting in a sociological observation point of view) where one of the main bloggers was commenting on this NYC article “The Sex Drive, Idling in Neutral”
.
Here’s the Feministe thread:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/04/16/im-tired-of-having-sex/
.
It’s funny seeing the squabble. Seems like feminism and sex is a minefield…
In my experience, virtually all women want to be submissive in the bedroom. It’s just a matter of degree. For some, merely being given orders is enough, and going much further would be too much. For others, being slapped and choked and verbally degraded is just light foreplay. And some in the first category can be led to discover that they are actually in the second. I do what I can.
Feminist women are trouble in the bedroom. I dated a professional feminist for awhile, and she was as screwed up as they come. With great self-awareness, she told me early on, “I want what any feminist wants. I want someone to fuck the shit out of me.” But wanting it and being able to do it are two separate things. When I fucked her doggy-style and pulled her hair she would feel so much guilt that she’d have to stop. She was terrified to come while being dominated. When she talked about a past abusive relationship (he beat her up regularly) there was a wistfulness in her voice. Feminism had such a grip on her mind that she needed a truly abusive man to break through her barriers and literally force her to submit. (Not my thing. Buh-bye super-hot feminist.)
Women who try to be dominant in the bedroom are definitely a turn-off. When I was younger this kind of thing just confused me, and I’d roll with it if the woman was older and more experienced. But now I just view this attitude as a challenge. She wants me to overcome her token attempt at control as much as I want to overcome it. Men and women actually fit together really well when we stop trying to play roles for which we are unsuited. All boys should be raised with the knowledge that they are responsible for being the director, however.
One important element of women’s sexually submissive fantasies that is often overlooked is the narcissism at the center of so many of them. Many women want a man who is not just out of control, but out of control because the woman is so desirable. For a lot of women, I think this is the point of the fantasy; the man’s dominance is a result of her beauty. I like to tell a woman that she’s responsible for my hard cock (true), and she’s about to suffer the consequences (also true). When she gulps and says in a playful voice, “I’m sorry,” I know we’re about to have very good sex.
@Susan:
Re: Jaclyn Friedman’s interview with Amanda Hess, you’re remembering incorrectly (recall bias, I think). She did not say outright she didn’t like feminist men. In fact, she specifically states she wants to date feminist men:
.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/26/fucking-while-feminist-with-jaclyn-friedman/
.
BUT…this is an interesting quote from that interview: “How do you find the feminist guy who won’t self-flagellate to the point of unfuckability?”
.
Evidently, there are men out there so mangina-ized that they turn off even Jaclyn Friedman, a woman who has mostly dated other women and transgendered men (i.e., former women).
Oh, oops, sorry Susan, I missed your follow-up on the ever-unfortunate Jaclyn Friedman.
.
“What is dating trans men? Is that a woman dating a woman who identifies as a man? Or a woman dating a man who identifies as a woman?”
.
I had figured she meant women who now identify as men (like Chastity-to-Chaz Bono), but now you have me wondering. There are many, many more MtF trannies out there than the reverse. The dating pool of FtM trannies is probably quite small.
“Okay, so if the chick in the picture had dark hair, how come her hairy legs were blonde?”
.
She bleaches them.
Ohh this one is old. I didn’t knew you would be interesting. I read a couple of the responses at feministing. Jezebel had a simmilar article like a year ago.
The problem is “feminist science” works based on cherry picking, self selection and if they are forced to admit that a result can’t be debunked by their “logic”, then they use the magic stock phrase “Is Patriarchy’s fault, we are trying to overcome societal pressures and failing once the culture is female friendly we will enjoy sex with submissive men, because gender roles are a social construct…yadda yadda yadda”
I really hope we advance on neuroscience to show this things happening on the lizard brain. I know tons of feminists will just deny the results, but I know some of them have enough brain cells to accept this things.
@ExNewYorker
It wasn’t as bad as the hairy armpit one.
Re the thread at Feministe, I only tuned in for 40 comments, and in that small sample there were several proclaimed asexuals, one person who said that most women don’t enjoy sex with men, and several people blaming monogamy for low sex drive in women.
Very true. And the man is also on his way to being hopelessly in love with her, helpless to resist her.
I confess I wondered if those legs could possibly really belong to that woman. It’s got to be photoshopped. I have never seen a woman with legs that hairy, she’d have to be one high T chick.
My take on this is that “feminism” puts sand in the gears of heterosex by 1. Letting females natural hypergamy slip the leash and 2. In practice making more and more males into unattractive geldings.
I mean, the basic dilemma is that the average guy wants to boink the average girl about 100 times more than she wants him anywhere near her. And that is even before girls are taught, like they are nowadays from kindergarten that men are weak and doomed and inadequate because they are not more like the female ubersex. And lots of guys will internalize this same message – because they want to please women – but instead get poisoned for life for being too trusting of the society that bore them.
My guess is that 95% of women who say, “I no longer care about sex” would chuck their cloths off past their undies in a heartbeat if they thought they had a chance for an hour or two with Mr. Big (whomever that is for her).
Most feminists are in denial that unmasculine men are unfuckable, and yet Jacelyn is not. It doesn’t have any affect on her views, however…which means she is consciously pursuing an agenda to create dissatisfying relationships.
My take on this is that “feminism” puts sand in the gears of heterosex by 1. Letting females natural hypergamy slip the leash and 2. In practice making more and more males into unattractive geldings.
I mean, the basic dilemma is that the average guy wants to boink the average girl about 100 times more than she wants him anywhere near her. And that is even before girls are taught, like they are nowadays from kindergarten that men are weak and doomed and inadequate because they are not more like the female ubersex. And lots of guys will internalize this same message – because they want to please women – but instead get poisoned for life for being too trusting of the society that bore them.
My guess is that 95% of women who say, “I no longer care about sex” would chuck their cloths off past their undies in a heartbeat if they thought they had a chance for an hour or two with Mr. Big (whomever that is for her).
My personal take is that feminism though that women could satisfy their hipergamy themselves, by becoming like men. Earning big bucks, joining the army, getting social status and so on, and to make men to become like women to compensate and find the elusive equality myth but it backfired on them, because this revolution was not based on science facts about gender, neither was carefully planned (I mean maybe with some massive brainwashing we could had gotten better results at suppressing gender, but then maybe that is just the mad scientist on me) but some philosophy about social constructs.
My personal criticism of feminist has always being based on the fact that no one is reviewing the movement to notice that it has become corrupt, oppressive and decadent given that there is a ton of money to be earned of women in state of social siege, historically speaking all social revolutions go into this stages of flourish, peak and decadence and feminist is in due time for a new proposal (something that tries for the union of gender without forcing them into “new roles” and on fair treatment) or being replaced by a new movement. But I’m guessing they won’t let go without a fight, hence this “science”.
My guess is that the fatherless daughters of this women will look around see the harvest of this social experiment and decide this is a mess and try and set it right, still is a long way to go.
Feminism is on its last lap or two.
The pure reactionary nonsense, the hysterics, the total unwillingness to look at women critically in any way – these are the hallmarks of religious zealotry, not rational thinking.
Glad I’ve taken the red pill – I don’t take feminists seriously anymore. Oh, they are dangerous, so that must be taken into account, but the rest of it is just silly social bullying.
Besides, feminism has sown the seeds of its own destruction. The only reason men ever white-knighted was to get laid. Yes, really.
Once the inevitable occurs and most men realize that pedastalizing and supplicating to feminist shit-testing does not result in tail, they will abandon it wholesale.
Most human behavior is economic in nature – it took a decade for houses to become massively overpriced. But only a couple years to crash.
The crashing of the feminism bubble will occur with stunning rapidity to the shock and heartache of 10-20% of American women, and to the great relief of everyone else.
“The crashing of the feminism bubble will occur with stunning rapidity to the shock and heartache of 10-20% of American women”
.
The gloating over that will be palpable and so. much. fun.
Sigh.
Have any of you ever been to the submissive husband blogs beyond maybe a quick gander or two at enforced chastity or cuckolding? I’m not sure what percentage it is, sometimes it seems like a majority, sometimes a large minority, but there are a lot of men in that who either embrace radical feminism or female supremacy or both. Many of them are convinced a matriarchal/Fem Supremacist society is inevitable, a larger number that it is desireable. Once in awhile ..a great while..you’ll run into one who seems to know some game principles. I will state those few tend to have less worship of the female than the others and more pride in themselves as men.
I guess I’m mentioning this in part due to sadness: many of the enemies of traditional masculinity are indeed these kind of men, indeed some of them enable the very worst of female behavior. But also I find it fascinating that they exist and yet the default assumptions of so many of them about what makes and would make women really happy are almost totally at odds with what the vast majority of women express here.
Perhaps it really is a case that we all live in our own cocoons. Even Susan can only go so far: she allows that some men might be wired submissively and some women dominantly, but I suspect its even more complicated than that. After all, I’m both. I can serve (for a VERY brief and constrained time) and be served. I think its more like bisexuality, where most men go from “I’m always dominant everywhere all the time even in the bedroom and she better not LOOK at me funny or sideways” to ” Oh My Goddess: your humble toad begs to lick your toes clean today” being at opposite ends.
Anyway, some random thoughts that I hope some find useful.
Submission?
Not I.
Free spankings for all the gals over at my place!!
my most recent ex was VERY sub. she loved donimant men. i’m a dominant man (be it bedroom or otherwise) and even when i knew the relationship was going badly, i stil felt heistant to end it because we had such great chemistry ona man woman scale (she had persoanl issues that i had to disqualify her for).
i have to agree with Yohami, a masculine acting woman is a total turn off to me. but as a man…i feel a certain obligation to not abuse said dominance. i’m VERY respectful, and go to great lengths to assure my lady is satisfied, balanced, and protected.
True, but she finds women and trans men fuckable, so she disparages feminized men while pursuing masculinized women? There is no way to unpack what’s really going on there, and I certainly don’t want to try.
@Clarence
Your comment reminds me of that Dear Woman video that’s been making the rounds. Here’s what I don’t get – I can’t imagine that many of these men can boast a vibrant sex life of whatever type they prefer. They must repel almost all women, and it can’t really take very long to figure that out, can it? The husbands celebrating female supremacy had better get over to Married Man Sex Life quick, or they are going to get hit with divorce.
Re the spectrum of sexuality – I agree with you. And regardless of where one sits on that spectrum, there are plenty of people who enjoy a brief foray to another point on it. After all, that’s what role playing is. It’s just a question of matching fantasies – I once got very dominant with my husband during sex and his reaction was visceral and extremely negative. He was literally disgusted. Needless to say, that was a one off deal.
TINGLE
Does gender equality in the bedroom inhibit arousal?
Yes.
We’re equal, I want us both to have fun. Our natural tendencies (you heard that right ‘blank-slaters’) seem to be that the man leads and the woman follows the majority of time.
Are women turned on by male feminists?
Some are. I remember meeting the husband of my Feminism lecturer (I studied it as part of my degree) and unfortunately he lived up to all the stereo-types, no balls, she wore the trousers in that relationship. They had kids so it must have been working for them.
Are women feminists hot in the sack? If so, why?
They can be if they are sex-positive as someone else mentioned. The kind of feminists who see women and men as equal but different and appreciate we are animals not ‘blank-slate’ robots.
NomadicNeill´s last [type] ..Equanimity In The Face Of The Battle Between The Sexes
@Nomadic
Turned on and dutifully married are not the same thing. Turned on and being exclusive aren’t even the same thing. Why do you think alot of people break up with the fire goes? Sure they made children before but that doesn’t mean he lights her fire.
That’s always weird to me. If she does realize that we are animals, then she also must realize that most men are not equal to the worth of most women biologically. Meaning, weak men aren’t worth weal women in the reproductive sense. Right?
Escarondito´s last [type] ..Walking your own path
Feminist women are a HUGE turnoff, both in daily interactions and in the bedroom. They are also very schizophrenic about the males they’re attracted to. You find feminists with either very dominant men who treat them like shit, or very submissive “men” who lay down their testicles for feminists to walk on without getting their shoes dirty.
I have no desire to please a feminist in the bedroom. They just don’t push my buttons. I just jackhammer and go. Sometimes I don’t even want to finish.
A feminine girl actually makes me want to keep going and going.
Each of these arguments have been proved bogus. And each time a bogus theory was shot down, a new bogus theory replaced it. Don’t you think it’s suspicious that this new evo-psych theories are “proving” the same prejudice that supported so many bogus theories in the past?
“Isn’t it preposterous to think that we might be the same, act the same, look the same?”
It’s a matter of degree. Sure, men and women might have some biological differences, but those differences are probably overstated (given our history of creating bogus theories to support his prejudice).
Said the smart, white, liberal, upper-middle class woman who married a smart, white, liberal, upper-middle class man. People tend to pair up with people are similar, not different than them. And as their relationships get more intimate, they become even more similar. I’m sure you’ve noticed that when a couple has been happily married for a long time, they tend be “in synch” with each other. When they get out of synch for too long, it’s bye-bye relationship.
Feminists revile manipulative men who pretend to be nice guys, as self-flagellating men. (Although Hugo Schwyzer seems to be popular with feminists, and he hates men more than anybody). Pro-feminist men who try and engage women as equals (not lessers, not greaters) will find the SMP in feminist circles is very much in their favor. Guys like this can definitely marry up.
P.S. I think Jaclyn would love to go on a date with me.
Does gender equality in the bedroom inhibit arousal?
No, because every relationship is different. Yes, the whole schoolgirl/nurse thing is popular in porn, but so is the dominatrix thing. Assuming that it is only natural for women to be submissive and men to be dominant in the bedroom only puts more expectations that would make certain people feel uncomfortable or even inhibit people’s desires to reenact certain fantasies.
Are women turned on by male feminists?
Yes and no. I am a woman and I only date men who are
1) not sexist and 2) support ‘gender egalitarianism’ . I am not a fan of men who pretend to be “feminist” only to be liked by women in order to score with them. I like men who appreciate, respect, are capable of protecting and caring for, and who realize that they *NEED* females!
Are women feminists hot in the sack? If so, why?
As a woman and a feminist, I can only hope that being feminist doesn’t have have anything to do with being hot or not. Being hot depends on physical appearance for most part.
I see feminism as a subset of egalitarianism or more specifically as ‘gender egalitarianism’. I believe that most people who call themselves feminist (let’s ignore the militant misandrists who have tried to subvert the term ‘feminism’) also support equality in other areas, but they’re just more focused on gender equality. Personally, I believe that both men and women have an equally important role in this world and mutual respect is the best way to make things better for all of us.
“It’s the reason men keep shouting from the rooftops that women’s career achievements don’t make them attractive sexually. [..] Intelligence is not a boner killer, but an aggressive demeanor is.”- SW
The problem here is that success and aggressiveness go hand by hand. I am sure these women are not competing with men because they want to intimidate men, but because they want an equality in opportunity.
-Florence
Oh and I want to clarify one thing: most feminists are not evil misandrists with hairy legs!
-Florence
“Oh and I want to clarify one thing: most feminists are not evil misandrists with hairy legs!
-Florence”
Is it the misandry part, or the hairy legs part, that you object to?
And, what’s the proof of this? Or, are you just asking everyone to take your word for it? You may not be old enough to recognize this quote first-hand: “I can’t see how Nixon won, no one I know voted for him!”, but I’m sure you can see the point….
“Oh and I want to clarify one thing: most feminists are not evil misandrists with hairy legs!”
.
Perhaps. But since they are vastly outnumbered by non-feminist women, why would or should any man chance it with them?
@ Esau
A person doesn’t have to be a misandrist or to keep their legs hairy in order to support reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women’s suffrage, sexual harassment and sexual violence, which is what the feminist movement is about.
If women are protesting by keeping their legs hairy, it is to raise awareness that “waxing”, shaving or laser-hair removal is not exactly a painless or pleasant process. It is also time consuming.
-Florence
Ah. Its a protest. Can I support your cause by not using deodorant?
Ah…”raising awareness” – the favorite past time of do-nothing entitled brats raised on a diet of self esteem and high fructose corn syrup.
The statement one makes when not shaving their legs is the same statement a man makes when they do not wear deodorant: “I am not beholden to the hygiene guidelines of my society.”
You’re not changing the world. You’re not brave. You have not accomplished anything.
Stop being so goddamn smug.
“Ah. Its a protest”
.
aka a whine. To men. Who are not listening. And don’t need to.
.
Here is a partial whine list:
.
Work life balance
Repro rights
Diversity
IMBRA
Inclusion
Body image
Political correctness
Affirmative action
Maternity leave
Cultural Marxism
Third party childcare
Paternity leave
Opt out myth
Having it all
Pay equity
Fish riding bicycles
Takes a village
Mommy track
Biological clock
Gender role
Career vs family
Ah…”raising awareness”
.
Typical. When feminists fail to get laws passed that impose artificial equality on men, they resort to broadcast whining or “raising awareness” as if men should care. When that fails, as it often does, they resort to a lower form of raising awareness, aka shaming and its a downward spiral from there.
Susan Walsh:
You are correct, about the sex life in most of the cases I’ve seen.
Between the ones who seem positively ecstatic about forced chastity or cuckoldry (admittedly a minority but very vocal it seems) there are plenty who put up with it because that is what their female companions want, indeed some of the wives/girlfriends write for the blogs or even write the blogs themselves occasionally. So quite a few of them get the vag a few times a year or less.
It’s hard to measure their wives attraction for them, but you sometimes can. For one, how the guy says she treats him . If she writes, you can look for lots of contempt in their writing. Basically, look for contempt in treatment or language rather than anything else. I can say that some of these relationships seem loving, mutual, and with lots of hot sex, the majority seem to fall into the “not enough information is given to know” category, and some seem downright toxic with guys happy to do all sorts of degrading things for little or no recognition and the woman’s words or actions dripping with contempt or self-absorption.
I’ve tried to argue this stuff with some of them before, but it goes in one ear and out the other.
Anyway, here’s an example that is totally safe for both work and non-bdsm people as the post makes no mention of sex or S&M per-se:
http://subservient-husband.blogspot.com/2011/04/female-superiority.html
And this guy isn’t even really hardcore about it.
An interesting thing is I’ve seen little or nothing in terms of studying the political orientations of male submissively oriented men, but I would bet that most are at least feminist or fem supremacy leaning.
Which means I find that that the rare times that the 5 to 25 percent (I’m counting switchable males in here too) of males who aren’t strictly or mostly dominant in all aspects of their sexuality get mentioned in the manosphere we all tend to get lumped together, and criticized as a bunch of wimps who would want their wives messing around on them. So we are mostly ignored and when not ignored the prognosis is negative, which really sucks for me. Yet looking at this stuff, I can see why.
@Clarence
The thing is that the manosphere and the feminists are both extreme aspects of this whole issue, so they are both at odds.
Susan is more or less trying to be Switzerland, but in this adversarial culture, moderates got it worse, because both sides want them to pick.
I have issues with both sides and I agree on points with both sides, but then in my culture we are allowed to take a middle ground. In here it seems quite impossible, YMMV.
Well for sure, Amanda hates PUA duping of feminism. And what blogger is she referring to?
.
See this video starting at time 13:35
.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/35528?&in=27:27&out=42:40
Jaclyn Friedman is quite a dog. Is she related to New York Times War Propagandist and metaphor abuser Thomas Friedman, btw?
I always find it fascinating that feminists are quick to dismiss the “oxycontin myth” – and now you’re referring to “new evo-psych” theories. There’s a lot of scientific research being done that pictures and measures the various components of male and female brains, and they are different. Not better, not worse, and not the same. Researchers can measure brain activity in both sexes in all phases of mating and they are different. Hormones are released into the bloodstream throughout life, controlling the maturation process and the mating process. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that the sexes are very different. This is not newfangled pseudo-science. This is straight biology and anatomy.
People do mate assortatively wrt education, income, family background etc. And yet hetero sex is P in V, generally speaking. It doesn’t work with two identical parts. Push/pull, thrust/parry, hard/soft, submissive/dominant.
If you say that the feeling is mutual, I’ll be floored. I cannot imagine that there is a single man alive that would find her attractive. And I’m not speaking just physically either. *recoils*
You best put down that crack pipe and pass it my way. Your rock dealer must be Mt. Everest cause you are on some strong shit. Dominatix as popular as schoolgirl/nurse? *rubs eyes* Are you for real? Next thing I know you’re going to tell me it’s a common fantasy of males to have their wives banged by another man while they watch. The dominatrix thing is not popular in porn. Ron Jeremy only know where you came up with that idea. It’s a niche and will always be a niche.
And feminist ideas, not shaving your legs, not dressing feminine, show up on your outer appearance as well.
Check job market, college attendance, young adult incomes. You got it in spades. You wanna chill out now?
Escarondito´s last [type] ..Walking your own path
This is probably the little secret among females and the reason feminists will die lonely.
Mats´s last [type] ..Christian Nursing Student Magdalene Ashraf Raped by Muslim Doctor- Denied Justice in Pakistan
Escarondito +1
If feminist women rebuff all the traditional ways that women use to attract men:
wear makeup
remove body hair
dress to flatter the female figure
style hair
act feminine
…then they won’t attract men, right? The pool of men who want an overweight woman in sweats with crazy hair and hairy armpits has got to be very, very small. Which may explain why so many feminists identify as queer, i.e. non-cisgendered.
Hi Ms. Walsh,
You’ve done it again!-another thorough debunking of Feminist Church dogmas. Bravo!
And, for your consideration, here’s the blog address to yet another sex positive Feminist, this time on the Blackhand side:
http://lidia-anain.com/
I leave it to you and your illustrious readers to check her out and come to their own conclusions in line with the themes of the current discussion.
I’ve already addressed the dominant/submissive piece on my post “On Girl Game & Other SMP-Related Fallacies, which for the sake of discussion I repost the following excerpt:
“Having said all that though, there are some things that Women who are more middling of the pack on the scale can do to make themselves more attractive on the market. I’m not anywhere near a Ladies’ consultant on this score, but I’ll just mention a few things based on my experience as a Brotha, and that of other Brothas I’ve known over the years:
3. Submissiveness – A huge sign of attraction to a Man, let me tell you. Plus, you’re much more approachable that way. Trust me, a Sista who comes off like a ball-busting shrike can and will run off many a Man, and then these same Sistas have the nerve to turnaround and demand to know why ain’t no Brothas “coming correct”, LMAO! Well, the answer to that one is easy, Ms. Thang – it’s because when a Man thinks of stepping to a Sista in the club or other social gathering, images of a fistfight with Jason Bourne doesn’t exactly come to mind. A Woman’s comportment can take her a long way in our age of “strong, independent” Sistas; tone down the Angela Davis routine, and be willing to defer to your Man (or the Man courting you), and watch things turnaround for the better overnight.”
There’s more that I could add, but many of your (largely Male, but with a few notable Female exceptions) readers have already done a fine job in this regard.
Carry on…
O.
Abbot,
Speaking of Feminists having a parakeet over Game, I’ve been recently engaged in battle with one Ms. Clarisse Thorn, who is a self-styled “authority” on BDSM, by they way; fitting given the current topic.
Anyway, she’s got a bee in her bonnet over Game as well, deeming it “unethical” and the like. I’ve addressed her and related matters recently on my blog here:
Keeping It Real: The Game, Neil Strauss, The (Sexual) Politics Of Fear, & Why Both Clarisse Thorn AND Ferdinand Bardamu Got It All Wrong
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/65015
Quick excerpt as follows:
“”As some of my readers know, I’m fascinated by the pickup artist subculture (a community devoted to advising men on how to seduce women). It’s a very mixed bag. My feeling is that there’s good advice in the community for genuinely kind shy guys. But sometimes, it’s so mixed with misogyny and cold-heartedness that wading through it feels like panning for gold in a sewer…A good friend of mine recently told me that he’s been reading the blog of a misogynist pickup artist who I absolutely loathe. I was appalled. I provided a detailed feminist critique of this guy’s blog. My friend listened and understood, but in the end he said, “I hear what you’re saying, and I agree with you. The guy is an asshole and his advice is permeated with terrible opinions of women. But a lot of it is really good advice, and I don’t know where else I can find such good advice about women.”
So says one Ms. Clarisse Thorn out of the Chi; she is among the umpteen Feministas out there who specializes in “sex positive” Feminism and, like her sisters in arms, has a particular penchant for “deconstructing” this and “critiquing” that. If you’re a member of the community – the Seduction community, that is – you’re familiar with her kind; they’ve made it one of their missions in life to, if not shut us down, than to somehow shame us into more “ethical behavior” by upbraiding the whole of the community based on the whacked actions of a few.
In case you haven’t figured it out by now, my position here is to say that not only are both Thorn and Bardamu are wrong as two left shoes on the basic facts of the matter, big and small (big meaning sexual politics writ large, and small meaning the pickup community itself especially Strauss’ role in it) but they both severly misrepresent Strauss himself, someone who by every account I am aware of is just a cool guy. Which makes this post and the topic upon which it is based, all the more ironic, since Strauss’ latest book has as its central theme, “keeping it real” with his interview subjects, and which is something that deeply concerns both sides of the blogosphere – the Manosphere wants to “keep it real” by throwing literary Molotov cocktails at society filled with the gasoline of truth that the Wimminz have taken over; and the Femosphere’s chief concern with the Seduction community is that it peddles in “deception and manipulation”.”
Worth a read and wholly in league with what Ms. Walsh is saying here and in previous (excellently written and presented) articles. These ladies need some and bad!
O.
Obsidian´s last [type] ..Are You Getting Laid
Most “feminists” aren’t that much of a turnoff if you’re counting women who think they deserve equal opportunities in the workplace, at the polls, etc. This includes every single woman I’ve ever met. The problem is the “feminists” who are eat up with identity politics and confuse “equality” of the sexes with “sameness” of the sexes. They’re not attractive to most men, and they often find themselves with betas who are willing to accept the “equality means sameness” fiction. Many of these women are the ones who walk all over their men in broad daylight and then have the chutzpah to complain that they’ve lost their tingle.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with this as long as it’s a tradeoff they’re willing to accept. (I don’t date Republicans even though some of them are pretty hot.) What grinds my ass is the Revisionist Hystery (zing!) that insists that, not only should women be allowed to act like men, but that we should all get a hard-on by thinking about it.
“she’s got a bee in her bonnet over Game as well, deeming it “unethical” and the like.”
.
Its unethical because it demotes a woman’s absolute agency over her sexual expression and empowerment. If these paragons of women’s autonomy were really so concerned they would advise all women to marry young and avoid the possibility of being “had”
“not only should women be allowed to act like men, but that we should all get a hard-on by thinking about it.”
.
Wow. What a self-tortured misguided miserable bunch. Most concerning is the view foreigners have of American men who are blamed for allowing a segment of the female population to regress to such a level. Very embarrassing indeed.
I have no beef with “equity” feminism – which I view as meritocracy, no biases, no special priveleges.
Exactly. Women can choose to be as grungy as they like, but they don’t have the right to tell men what is hot, or to “re-educate” men about what is acceptable behavior, i.e. promiscuity.
“Women can choose to be as grungy as they like, but they don’t have the right to tell men what is hot, or to “re-educate” men about what is acceptable behavior, i.e. promiscuity.”
.
Only men get to decide what is acceptable and ultimately marriageable. That really pisses off feminists and spawned the slut-pozzy cult.
.
Anonymous/Florence—
As Escaronditon says through telling sarcasm, this is complete BS. Dominantix porn is a small niche market. The overwhelming majority of porn involves girls being submissive. Schoolgirl/nurse stuff is only one subset of the massive submissive woman type porn. She’s usually very sex hunger and active submissive, but submissive nonetheless.
Feminism definitely inhibits bedroom hotness. It does it too ways: 1) attitudes brought into the bedroom and 2) propagandizing women to be more masculine and aggressive and to fight submission to men and men to be more docile, feminized, less dominant, and solicitious / pedestalizing of women. This propaganda has been directly primarily at white and Asian middle class and up guys and women, and has gone on pervasively in most/many white homes, schools from early grades, universities, and in the entertainment media.
A good part of game is teaching men how to unlearn this feminizing, nice guy, non dominant, overly respectful propaganda. Guy who continue to buy into it are less sexy.
Susan Walsh–
There are plenty of special privileges. Affirmative action for women. The EEOC “diverse impact” for gender discrimination, which assumes women and men are on average as good at all the same things, such as carrying passed out people out of burning and smoke filled buildings while wearing heavy protective clothing.
Equity feminists are all up in arms when women don’t go into STEM fields or do as well in them as men, but it’s just fine with them that women now graduate from college at almost fifty percent rate greater than men (57% to 43%). If they cared so much for equality, where’s the feminist push to rectify that, or push as hard to do so as they could figure out?
All feminism has become about women have the edge everywhere, and men being deferential top women, etc. Misogyny is thrown around by them constantly but misandry virtually never. The later is not even many spell checkers (until the user puts it in). That’s despite the fact that there’s vastly more misandry in everyday American entertainment and other media and culture than misogyny.
What doug1 said.
If feminism strove for gender equality, it would be called genderism or something on the like. All feminism cares about is “more power to women”, without constraints or rationale to such power.
They will keep making demands and asking other people to jump through loops as long as there are men willing to listen and making their wishes happen, in the name of equity.
Thing is, “equity” is an abstract concept, like justice, its men territory. Men are fighting to reach an ideal and women keep moving that ideal further, pretty much like in regular male/female dynamics, with the female raising her price as much as she can and the beta male trying to fill that gap for good so he can find more peace.
At this point, I think the basis for gender justice has been set. We should work to make that work, meritocracy and no special privileges. For that men have to stop listening to what women say and go back to the objective reality. More alpha power.
Gudenuf–
The truth is sexist. Men and women are wired and chemicaled (hormones, etc.) differently to a significant degree.
Several funny Venn diagrams on what men want in women over at this BB site (esp. pgs 2&3):
http://tnation.t-nation.com/free_online_forum/sex_girls_pictures_hot_pics_photo_women/explaining_women_with_venn_diagrams?id=4444869&pageNo=0
Jeffrey of Troy´s last [type] ..The 4th D- NOT Fluid
@ Florence,
2) support ‘gender egalitarianism’ . I am not a fan of men who pretend to be “feminist” only to be liked by women in order to score with them. I like men who appreciate, respect, are capable of protecting and caring for, and who realize that they *NEED* females!
Ah, but why can’t your feminist ass take care of itself? I thought that was the whole point.
my view is that feminism has massively improved sexual fulfillment for women. The days of the Andrea Dworkin model of feminism have long gone.
A modern women these days wears make up and high heels, demands quality sex, a career, a family and a socail life.
I also think that women have NEVER really been atttracted to wimpy/short/pushover men, regrdless of the era- including the 60′s.
i do know of the odd couple that has a powerful women/weaker man dynamic and its, well…., a bit odd. (but all power too them).
I think its up to a guy to hols his own in a relationship and be masculine. That DOESNT men being disrectful or sexist or defensive. It does mean not being intimidated by succesful or intelligent women.
So do I think feminism has caused death of the boner? Nope. In fact its meant some girls more open with their sexuality to the delight of many men and women are more likely to enjoy and want sex more as better education means more orgasms.
Some annoying behaviours that can be found in domineering women, IMO:
1) Speaking for her man in social settings when he is right there
2) Nagging
3) Man-bashing or going on a big feminist political rant
4) Bossing her man around
5) Gloating about how intelligent, strong, or accomplished she is ad naseum
6) Not trying totally non-weird sexual positions in the bedroom because “OMG a women should never submit to a man”, as was brought up earlier.
In regards to #5, it is not a woman’s intelligence, strength, or accomplishments that are a turn-off. It is the bull-busting and narcissistic behaviours that are a turn off. If you have all these positive traits, why not be modest and let others pay you those compliments genuinely? No man likes a woman who is full of herself.
a few more points:
.
despite what some posters have claimed if you look at the development of feminism over the last 30 years, whilst of course female interests have been a priority there was always a keen awareness of male rights and in particular childrens rights. Feminism, taken in its entirety, is a humanist movement as opposed to just a female one. Those with a strong religeous background will rebuff that of course but if you consider things in an ethical framework it is the case.
.
also please understand the distinction between male and female desires. Whislt men and women ARE very different in many ways, sexuality isnt one of them.
.
Its perfect natural for both genders to WANT to be promiscious. The Science from the last 10 years is very clear. You may wish to look at the work of Helen Fisher, Laura Berman, Michelle Langley, Abby Levine or any journals on sexual anthropology.
.
This doesnt mean a human should not be sexually responsible but it does mean that the notion of the demure virginal girl being ‘natural’ is a nonsense.
Jess, you´re cherry picking the facts I like and neglecting the ones I dont.
So how about these hairy legs? or this:
How about the sexual fulfillment of men? the way I see it, feminism freed women from their beta hubby / captors, so more women can ride the infamous alpha cock. Nothing wrong with that, but are you seeing both sides of the coin?
I dont see many men cheering because they are sexually fulfilled. The way you present it, its as if its one against the other. Feminist response? to push these unhappy men more.
Feminism being about male rights? Do you have any facts to back this up?
Many of these women are the ones who walk all over their men in broad daylight and then have the chutzpah to complain that they’ve lost their tingle.
I most add that it might happen the other way around sex starved wife article from the same site: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/divorce-busting/200804/sex-starved-wives
there was always a keen awareness of male rights and in particular childrens rights. Feminism, taken in its entirety, is a humanist movement as opposed to just a female one.
I read Jezebel and Feministing and I don’t remember the last time they raised “male rights awareness” but please be my guest.
Ted,
It IS hard work. The choice is up to you.
A) You can take the fake easy road: run game on top of your persona, do it with unease, memorize stuff, do tricks, project this alpha persona in front of you, with the hopes some girl, after having sex with you, will fall in love with who you really are. So, tricking the girl into a relationship by exaggerating your unexistent alpha traits.
This is the most commercial, exploited, talked, devilized, and it works, specially on drunken fake girls, and feels, in my experience, bad. But hey, its a huge world.
B) Reduct game to principles and accept reality. Women are attracted to men. Men are supposed to be the kings of troy and women ditch and dont feel remorse for men that dont fit the mold. So you take the principles and understand the alpha beta women dynamics, then figure out a way you can change for REAL, internalizing and doing hard work and change your life in a way that both projects a real alpha, and is still you. So, the alpha version of you. You, but like God loved you.
C) Do nothing and hope for the best. Maybe you win the lottery. Probably not.
D) Complain.
@Doug1
Hmmm, I may have used the term equity feminism incorrectly. If so, apologies for the misdirection. Your comment pushed a lot of buttons for me, b/c I think feminists are just ridiculous on some of these programs.
I believe in a meritocracy – give me the chance to compete and may the best performer win. In your example of firefighting, unless a woman can literally carry the weight of a man out of a burning building she doesn’t belong there. I’m all for women serving in combat, but only in situations where her body size and strength makes sense strategically.
Larry Summers was right – women are not generally found in the long tails of the bell curve in the same numbers as men. They are also less analytical by nature. Most women don’t want to go into STEM fields, it’s not what makes them tick, and they probably are not as good at it, overall. That’s pretty clear.
I just watched an interview with Amanda Marcotte that Abbot linked to, and she actually celebrates the lopsided ratio in colleges. This is so wrongheaded, in my view, it makes me want to shake her. Society cannot thrive if its males do not thrive. How can feminists not see this? They take a short-term view about what happens in their lifetime – and most of them do not reproduce.
@Jeffrey of Troy
That thread is hilarious. I’m going to try and share some here:
and most of them do not reproduce
Err Susan I think that line was a little uncalled for, many of the members of manosphere are not planning on reproducing either. Unless you think is a factor oh their ideas you shouldn’t mention it for feminists either, my two cents.
This is actually an excellent antidote to narcissism for both sexes. Best of all, the genuine recognition from others feels 1000 x’s better than boasting.
@jess
This is totally untrue. What can you be thinking?
This is totally untrue. What can you be thinking? Feminism seeks advancement for women at the expense of men.
Helen Fisher’s work is all about the opposite of this. They are completely different sexually – different chemicals, different risk and rewards systems, different objectives.
Abby Levine? Do you mean Ariel Levine? Because her book puts the blame squarely on feminism for creating the Girls Gone Wild/Ladettes.
Not sure what any of this has to do with women being demure or virginal as natural. In any case, feminism has ensured that virginal, demure women are viewed as freaks of nature.
@Stephenie
My intention was not to criticize women who don’t have children. It was just an observation that feminists are not as tied to a future they won’t be alive for – their aims are very focused in the present. Those of us who are deeply concerned about American males not getting an education are taking a longer-term view. At least that’s my sense of it.
My intention was not to criticize women who don’t have children. It was just an observation that feminists are not as tied to a future they won’t be alive for – their aims are very focused in the present. Those of us who are deeply concerned about American males not getting an education are taking a longer-term view. At least that’s my sense of it.
Okay.
Where oh where did this lie start? Tell me people of the board, here is an SAT question for you.
Q69. Which of these statements does not fit?
A) “Dude, she’s with all her friends. It’s intimidating”
B) “Dude, I heard that QB is talking to her. He’s intimidating”
C) “Dude, she’s so accomplished in her academics and career. It’s intimidating”
D) “Dude, she’s fucking banging. It’s intimidating”
Wrong answers are no points. Correct answers are 100. Omission is a sign of social retardation and you will be force to attend remedial “Male Anxiety and it’s Cause 101″.
Escarondito´s last [type] ..Walking your own path
Jess: “I think its up to a guy to hol[d]s his own in a relationship and be masculine. That DOESNT men being disrectful or sexist or defensive.”
Jess, I’m just curious here: do you have any real-world, detailed examples of male behavior that you consider to be “masculine” which is _not_ also sexist?
As the Spaniard said, you keep using that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means. A few detailed examples, please, would help a lot.
1. sex fulfilment.
yes i would accept that modern femisism has been good for women and alphas at the expense of betas. (but i think they are 30% not 80% like others here)(sorry for my crude categorisation but i like zippy posts)
2. feminism and mens rights
i didnt say feminism was ABOUT mens rights only, i said womens rights were a priority but there have been many occasion when they are aligned. For many years the feminist movement was closely aligned with black, gay, lesbian and transgender movements. Because they were experienced similar forms of discrimination and oppression. A feminist supporting the rights of a gay male is supporting make rights. A feminist supporting paternity leave is supporting male rights.
@Jess
Err just a quick read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights
I think you are a bit confused about exactly what males rights are and how feminists don’t have use for them.
Well, I dress up feminine, wear make-up, style my hair, wax off body hair, eat healthy and go to the gym and I am attracted to men. I am not a ball-busting, narcissistic misandrist and I don’t think that the feminist movement is about being one at the first place, but if I ever over hear a man making a sexist comment or action, I will definitely speak up, rather than acting “submissive” and letting it slip away.
I also agree that certain negative attitudes towards men, aggressive domineering, refusing to make oneself look attractive for their partner, while expecting their partner to look and act at its best or most attractive way or to be turned on, are the way to bring a change, but only fuel more conflict between the sexes.
I am also anti-promiscuity for reasons such as STD spread and emotional disturbance, but I have to agree with feminists on the fact that men can be hypocritical in their demand to marry a virgin wife or a wife with a low number, when they themselves aren’t virgin and have a high number. I think that it is reasonable to refuse to accommodate needs largely fueled by insecurities (such as their size and performance). I am not saying that having insecurities is not normal or human, as I have them too sometimes, but expecting someone to have a certain history of not being “had” by other is TOO much to try to accommodate!
@Chico
Ah, but why can’t your feminist ass take care of itself? I thought that was the whole point.
By caring I meant more like nurturing and care for a family. I can take care of myself.
-Florence
That sounds like gender feminism, not equity. Maybe you’re using a different definition than I am, but as far as I know equity feminism isn’t about that — Christina Hoff Sommers would definitely not be up in arms due to lopsided STEM ratios: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism and she coined the term.
hah, that just shows how invisible are non alphas for you
But you are saying its about mens rights AT ALL? or you wanna change that about gay men? Show me ANY form of feminism that takes regular men´s needs and rights in consideration.
That if you insist on calling feminism a “humanist” ideology
3. sex differences
I meant abby levine. i used a variety of people from scientists to well known personalities/sexperts to talk about the science or simply modern female sexuality. Helen fisher does describe key differences and motives for women but she also describes the reasons for female natural promiscuity and strong sexual preferences for certain masculine body types or characteristics. Basically there is reason why tall men make out like bandits on the dating scene.
4. men being defensive/sexist
mmmm. tough one. i really had to think of concrete examples. ok how about this:
a girlfreind is being unreasonable at a party. a. slap her b. put up with it. c. tell her shes out of order
.
a girlfriend cheats on you?
a. put her in hospital. c. put up with it. c. tell her shes out of order and either dump her or issue final warning
.
during a heating 5 way converstaion do you:
a. boorishly talk over every one, b. shut the hell up, c make interesting and engaging conversation allowing all to contrbiute
. do you have a
a. crass offensive, sexist SOH, b. no SOH. c witty, satirical SOH
.are you
a. tall and excessively muscular, b 5ft 6in c. 6ft 1in
.
if you are mostly a’s you are a dick
if you are mostly b’s you watch a lot of porn and do on line gaming
if you are mostly c’s you probably have prety good luck with girls and have plenty of friends who like and respect you.
ps that last question was just a wee jest for Susan
5. Florence- your post was so well put. your insecurity thing was the focus of quite a few posts last year.
.
6. Feminism.
If you look at the development of feminism from the 60′s onwards the whole dogma/philopshy is based upon humanism. The rejection of religious roles imposed on men and women and traditional social strata. Feminism was often very entwined with 60/70/80 left wing politics which revolved around equality. Thats not to say these groups didnt fall out from time to time of course. Femisnism is about the idea of treating people equally regardless of what hangs between your legs. Im not going to post links to ancient feminist tombs here- if you re that interested pop down to your local library and read a few books from the feminist theory library. Germaine Greer is very readable for example. Dont bother with blogs- they are pretty supeficial and just about sex and shopping
Jess, how about ANYTHING to support your previous assert that feminism cares about the rights and needs of men?
7. evidence.
Yohmai i just gave you 2 examples earlier. just scroll up.
.
8. Steph
i looked at your link. most peoplle are aware of those rights- i’m happy to agree with many of them too. Soemtimes men and womens rights are aligned, someitmes they oppose each other. sometiems capitalism and socialsm are aligned, someitmes not.
Jess, where? number 5. maybe? if so, how is that about mens needs and rights?
Can you point out all the rights on the wiki article that feminism champions? And example of those endeavours, please?
Thank you Jess, your list of male actions gives an accurate example of how men should act to be considered Alpha.
‘a’ all the way.
So supporting men’s rights is to support gay rights?
Well it shows where feminist priorities are.
Jason´s last [type] ..The Best Things In Life Are Free
Anyway, here’s an example that is totally safe for both work and non-bdsm people as the post makes no mention of sex or S&M per-se:
http://subservient-husband.blogspot.com/2011/04/female-superiority.html
And this guy isn’t even really hardcore about it.
.
OMG…I feel mentally scarred. Followed a few links and have to think it is some sort of joke. I have to admit the thought of it being real truly inspires a level of pure contempt. I can see why a super weak, submissive man inspires contempt in most women, because it has the same effect in me. There is something truly revolting in someone who embraces their own abuse and servitude.
.
Yes, and it is entirely up to him to determine what masculine means and never ever up to women and especially feminists. Either accept it or move on.
.
.
How does that help men? I mean those who invent and run just about everything.
.
.
Bull. Shit. Very few men care about this but many women do. Why is that?
.
.
If the man gets what he wants and the woman he chose got what she wanted, why do feminists get all in a lather if he is proudly hypocritical? Because he got to empower a lot of feminist ass and left them all at the curb where he thought they belonged? Oh poo poo.
@Mike C
I keep saying men are the ones that hate Betas, SOME women might no get turned on by then, but they could still love them on a no sexual way, but men? They hate their gut’s. If you look at how a man reacts to submission on another male…is guttural. Its like that soldier on Saving Private Ryan that leaves the enemy soldier go to kill his comrades because he is shit scared. Men on the movie theater were completely revolted in a way that was far superior to women’s IME.
Just a few “across the bow of the ship” comments:
1. There’s a difference between being in control and being controlling. People do what you want because pleasing you matters to them. When you’re only interested in being controlling, you actually confirm that you lack power.
.
2. Some of those who use Game don’t realize they’re advertising their powerlessness. Supposedly, they’re not ruled by getting pussy yet they’ve created an entire “art form” around it. Seriously…
.
3. An inability to find people who are compatible with you is not the problem of an entire gender. If you have made poor choices regarding whom you pursue, fix your priorities.
.
4. Just because your tactics worked with one guy/girl doesn’t mean those techniques will work with another. “All my other boyfriends/girlfriends liked it” isn’t an acceptable rule of engagement. Try getting to know a person on an individual level.
.
5. Some nice guys/girls aren’t all that nice. Chances are if you’re interested in the same men/women that an asshole finds desirable, you either need to take a closer look at yourself or just admit you’re an asshole too. Also, being nice doesn’t mean you’re qualified to be someone’s partner. Plus, being a STEM major doesn’t mean you’re any more inclined to be a decent human being.
.
What exactly is a “modern woman” and where do they dwell? Can they be avoided?
.
Demands? From whom? Are there folks obligated or even available to meet these demands? What if they don’t want to participate or accommodate? Does this species [modern women] then go berserk? Makes attempts to “increase awareness” or lobby Congress for laws to calm her down?
@Steph
That is because it directly effected the men. Also, notice in Saving Private Ryan that they allowed him into their crew of masculinity, therefore he must follow the same rules of men that the do. The fact that his was disloyal to their code is what infuriated the men in the audience.
When a beta is not part of your crew and is being submissive, weak, or effeminate, you’re so wrong it’s terrible Steph. Mostly men are indifferent. Some feel pity. And some try to help the guy out. It is women who are mostly disgusted with beta males being in their presence. Men only get annoyed when the betas actions affect them, See, willy wonkas latest post on his friends acting beta and fucking up his game. See rivs post when he pedastals and we try to help him out. And Roissy does not hate betas to hate betas. When Roissy harangues on betas, he is haranguing on the beta that is in all men and is trying to beat it out of the man, not necessarily on betas being betas themselves. If you can’t understand that you have to understand that men will, can, and are effective at being brutally honest with each other as a way to grow. We generally don’t like, need, or want bullshit. If a girl rejects us cause we are fat, I don’t consider my boys my boys unless they say Esca you’re a fat ass bitch, lose some weight and fuck bitches get money.
Steph take off your female eyes and see from a mans perspective. “Stop being a bitch. You’re acting like a bitch” isn’t a diss. It often the greatest sign of friendship and care men show.
Escarondito´s last [type] ..Walking your own path
I always find it fascinating that feminists are quick to dismiss the “oxycontin myth” –
I think you mean oxytocin, right? Oxycontin is a narcotic.
Stephenie, I think we’ve already established that what you describe as beta is different to what is described as beta here.
Alpha is defined as someone attracts women, Beta as someone who doesn’t attract women, and Omega as someone who actively repulses them.
Also, other than our mothers men don’t care if women love us in a non-sexual way. Every man, if he is a man, wants women to want him, even if he’s not going to go further than light flirtation.
I like Athol’s way of breaking it up into traits that women respond to. Alpha traits including courage attract women, and Beta traits like kindness keep them comfortable in a relationship.
Jason´s last [type] ..The Best Things In Life Are Free
Mike C, are you saying that we need to drug some into submission?
Jason´s last [type] ..The Best Things In Life Are Free
@Mike C
I keep saying men are the ones that hate Betas, SOME women might no get turned on by then, but they could still love them on a no sexual way, but men? They hate their gut’s. If you look at how a man reacts to submission on another male…is guttural.
I don’t think men hate betas. Fact of the matter is most of us our betas. It would be the equivalent of hating ourselves. Over the last few years, I’ve integrated a lot more alpha behaviors, but I’m not a natural alpha. I don’t hate myself or other guys like me.
Now I do think guys hate cowards, and just completely spineless, super weak men who would take pride in being that way. It is the embracing of it that is really revolting. If the guy is trying to improve, become stronger, become a better man that is admirable, but to willingly embrace complete subservience and submissiveness. That is repugnant.
Let me put it this way. If a super weak omega said sincerely “I want to change, help me to change” I would extend my hand in brotherhood and sincerely help him. If on the other hand, he took sincere pleasure in it, especially being someone’s doormat, then I probably wouldn’t give a second thought to sharing in the abuse and giving him what he seems to desire.
.
I think what it is, is that most men value self-respect. If you don’t respect your own dignity, then I will degrade you. You actually see this dynamic in the way some women are treated sexually. I know guys…basically good guys who will do the most degrading things sexually to certain women (sluts)….why…because they allow it….and embrace it…and if you allow it and embrace it then you deserve to be as degraded as possible. That is the mindset.
Some men are actually able to look past the “powerless” status of some of these men. I admit that I’m one of them, too. Yes, having at least enough power to get by is important, but not the end-all be-all of what a man is. To say otherwise is to imply that power and conforming to society’s gender expectations is more important than honesty, integrity, civility, and empathy in the compassionate sense of the term. To me, if a person is civilized, constructive, ethical, and such – I say “So What?”
Yes, it’s not conforming to conventional/traditional gender roles. Yes, it’s not exactly a huge turn-on for many women. But is it REALLY such a “sin” on the level of “deserving of contempt“? It’s hard for me to see how – given that they are not likely to be doing anything that in any reasonable way may be considered a threat to other people, their property, livelihood, and so forth.
We’ve got enough societal pressure to conform as it is. Too many people having too many issues about how a person conducts themselves on nitpicky, non-character issues of who that person is. All in all, I have to say contempt for (as explicitly distinct from mere non-attraction) these men has more the result of petty personal distaste rather than the product of the rational thought process. The only reason why a man “has to” be “manly” is because society says so; and society’s say-so, as we’ve seen, is not a reason to believe anything at all – if it ever was one to begin with.
Stephanie Rowling:
Thank you for your kind words. It’s true this section of the internet is rather “extreme”. Still, here you can get pure undistilled truth and here people aren’t afraid to seem judgmental. But yeah, often like you I do feel in the middle of several fighting factions as to what true manhood is, how one should approach feminism, etc.
filrabat:
I agree. I find gay sex disgusting to think about, yet I wouldn’t dream of shaming gay people for it. It’s “not my thing” but provided it hurts no one it’s really not my concern. That’s where I think most here find a fair ground. Still, I’d rather people feel free to feel revulsion if that is really how they feel. It’s not “wrong” to be one way or the other. All one can really ask is live and let live. To the extent that any submissively wired male lets his orientation affect his sexual politics he is not really doing that. Instead he’s trying to impose something on men and women who do not want it.
That is because it directly effected the men. Also, notice in Saving Private Ryan that they allowed him into their crew of masculinity, therefore he must follow the same rules of men that the do. The fact that his was disloyal to their code is what infuriated the men in the audience.
What is missing on your (I mean all manosphere) idea is that on ancient times when men went into party hunting they were counting on numbers or strategy to beat the mammoth, the weak men on the group cannot be tolerated because their weakness will compromise their lives and survival precedes reproduction. That is why he is hated if they were playing chess and he wouldn’t follow the rules it wouldn’t be a problem, given that he being weak would end on them dying, don’t you think it makes sense from a evolutionary POV that men also were disgusted by weakness?
Steph take off your female eyes and see from a mans perspective. “Stop being a bitch. You’re acting like a bitch” isn’t a diss. It often the greatest sign of friendship and care men show.
But Mike was not dissing the submissive husband right? You are confusing what I pointed out. He described disgust.
Also, other than our mothers men don’t care if women love us in a non-sexual way.
I already know that from a man’s POV if a woman doesn’t want him he is insulting him, but this is not the way women process non-sexual feelings. Unless that woman already wants you or is an entitled bitch if you don’t want her she wouldn’t take it as an insult and most of the time she wouldn’t care. I meant from the female POV.
Mike C:
I’m sorry if my link upset you. I figured most here had seen much worse than this. After all, last year for a bit there was series of discussions at Roissy’s and other manosphere blogs about cockuldry and I’m lots of those links were far more degrading than this, so I felt safe. I actually viewed this post as sort of a political manifesto, with very little sexual content per-se, so I felt it was safe for everyone.
However, curiosity killed the Mike and you did follow a few of those links without me asking you to or warning you about them..maybe I should have left a warning about the links
I know guys…basically good guys who will do the most degrading things sexually to certain women (sluts)….why…because they allow it….and embrace it…and if you allow it and embrace it then you deserve to be as degraded as possible. That is the mindset.
I know that men’s morality is very relativistic. But on the example above there was no way to know if the guy will hate himself for it or improve it. It was the mere actions that created the reaction from the men. Like I said above it makes sense for men to hate the weak men, they are a liability to the community.
Yes, it’s not conforming to conventional/traditional gender roles. Yes, it’s not exactly a huge turn-on for many women. But is it REALLY such a “sin” on the level of “deserving of contempt“?
For what is worth I totally respect your POV and your ethics. I do know is no a path many men will take, due to their biology, but at least for me when I was single, a man with strong character and ethics, was a big turn on.
I don’t think men hate betas. Fact of the matter is most of us our betas. It would be the equivalent of hating ourselves. Over the last few years, I’ve integrated a lot more alpha behaviors, but I’m not a natural alpha. I don’t hate myself or other guys like me.
Let’s change the words do men hate men, that don’t attract women and/or can’t get laid? I mean did you loved yourself when you couldn’t get laid by the women of your choice?
Stephanie:
To be that way is to be ashamed. But no, other men might make fun and even shun you if they found out, but no, unless you are actively repulsing chicks or messing things up they will not hate you. Indeed, they might try to help you. So in my experience if you don’t scare the gals away you will get one of three reactions from the vast majority of men:
A. Derision
B. indifference
C. Active help
@steph
Steph. You’re the greatest cheerleader I can have. Did you notice the caveat where I said “where it effected them”? In saving private ryan they are on a life-or-death mission. And specifically in that scene, they are outnumbered, outgunned, outmanuevered, and out of luck. All the men are expected to man up at that time. Hunting a mammoth is life or death and everyone affects everyone. Why are you providing more examples to prove my point that men only really dislike beta men when it affects them personally? Also, why are you bringing up chess as an example? Unless this is a chess game in a Saw universe, who gives a fuck if your weak. I don’t even think there are rules of masculinity in chess. Anyone can clarify that?
Did not see Mike was talking about that blog and I do agree with him. So when beta actions effect you personally, or the beta actively enjoys submission, then he definitely receives disgust from women. But it must be said that in the former case, once the beta no longer effects the man he no longer cares about the beta unless it is to stop the betas future actions from messing him up again.
Are you properly medicated tonight? It seems like you’re now moving goalposts just to try and get men to say that men hate men. I’m wondering if it’s just hard for you to understand that men hate the beta in men. Point and period.
Escarondito´s last [type] ..Walking your own path
No, men don hate betas.
Just to be reiterate – the contempt for weakness post has nothing to do with what’s sexually desirable. It’s about basic morality and ethics. To me, contempt for a weak man simply because he’s weak is the equivalent of contempt for an obese woman simply because she’s obese. These traits – no matter how unappealing, say absolutely nothing about other societally redeeming traits that person may have.
As for Stephanie’s admittedly sound, plausible description of why pre-agricultural men hated their weak male members – it does make sense from an evolutionary psychology point of view. Back in the days when missing even one game animal meant “eat adequately or famine”, there remained an evolutionary justification of that mentality. But over the past few millenia and especially in the 21st century, contempt for weakness lost its evolutionary point. We don’t have to risk our lives to obtain food. We make our livings ultimately from people willing to “build a better mousetrap”, conjure up new kinds of products or services, or create some new entertainment form (or at least put new twists on the above) – none of which have anything to do with Alpha (in the macho/courage sense) traits. Yet..we’re still the same old human beings; for our psychological evolution has not kept up with our technological development. So unless you are in the police, the military, or employed in any position where literally direct hands-on physical security is an inevitable part of your job duties, contempt for weakness is pretty much a superfluous trait these days.
While there ARE indeed limits to how much we ourselves and/or society can purge personal distastes – the good news is that we humans are pretty good at figuring things out. Our brains allows us to overrule our DNA and the reptilian side of our brains when need be. So we transcend animals even if we physically remain animals. Therefore, to refuse to think our way out of our contempt for the weak is IMO frankly insulting to human potential, knowing we have the ability to think on a “higher” level, but choosing to listen to the animal side of our nature instead.
It’s frankly time for us to grow up as a species and enter the 3rd Millennium AD/BCE. Who knows? Our very survival as a species in this millennium could well depend on the ideas initiated by a weak person.
Mike C:
I’m sorry if my link upset you. I figured most here had seen much worse than this. After all, last year for a bit there was series of discussions at Roissy’s and other manosphere blogs about cockuldry and I’m lots of those links were far more degrading than this, so I felt safe. I actually viewed this post as sort of a political manifesto, with very little sexual content per-se, so I felt it was safe for everyone.
.
Don’t sweat it. I was half-joking about the “mentally scarred” thing. I’m very much a live and let live kinda guy. Hey, whatever gets someone’s rocks off, go for it. That said, assuming that stuff is real some guy who is going to let his wife put his dick in a prison and set a schedule for orgasms or talk about obedience and subserviance to his wife really is a POS in my opinion that I don’t even have a shred of respect for. Again, if you don’t respect yourself, then I’m just a fool to give you even an iota of mine.
I know that men’s morality is very relativistic.
.
Actually, my sense is the exact opposite is true. On Myers-Briggs, I think men tend more to be judgers rather then perceivers. My sense is when it comes to things like “justice” and “honor” men are more likely not to be relativistic. For example, I think a woman if she has a personal connection is more likely to find a way around the abstract principle whereas for example a guy…say a father and son…the father is more likely to say “yes, he is my son” but he must be punished or pay his dues. In other words, I’d say a man’s moral code is more likely to be black and white according to some set of unbending principles whereas a woman is more likely to shift based on personal feelings.
Also, why are you bringing up chess as an example?
You say that the guy no following the rules when you were talking about combat, like it was just a matter of following guidelines and no the fact that it was a life-death situation. Chess also has guidelines so that was the example is was not about guidelines only.
when beta actions effect you personally, or the beta actively enjoys submission, then he definitely receives disgust from women.
You mean men right?
Are you properly medicated tonight? It seems like you’re now moving goalposts just to try and get men to say that men hate men. I’m wondering if it’s just hard for you to understand that men hate the beta in men. Point and period.
Jason say that Beta is a man that don’t attract women sexually. I was just using the real definition of the word for clarification purposes. I said let’s change the word no the definition I didn’t moved the goal post I placed a light on it to make it look more obvious.
Actually, my sense is the exact opposite is true. On Myers-Briggs, I think men tend more to be judgers rather then perceivers. My sense is when it comes to things like “justice” and “honor” men are more likely not to be relativistic. For example, I think a woman if she has a personal connection is more likely to find a way around the abstract principle whereas for example a guy…say a father and son…the father is more likely to say “yes, he is my son” but he must be punished or pay his dues. In other words, I’d say a man’s moral code is more likely to be black and white according to some set of unbending principles whereas a woman is more likely to shift based on personal feelings.
That is contradictory. The example you placed of the guy that will do what the women wanted because they are denigrated themselves is a personal feeling. The action is denigrating, the only reason they do it is because the other person allows it, if it was black and white they would not engage on it because the action itself is something they consider wrong on the moral code, the relation with the women is what makes their actions right, so that is relativist. In this is case is relative to the person that engages the action.
I mean did you loved yourself when you couldn’t get laid by the women of your choice?
.
I was extremely frustrated but I never hated myself. I was always proud of the person I was although I questioned “what was wrong with me”. After all, I was doing what I taught I was supposed to do and not getting the successful outcome.
.
Let’s change the words do men hate men, that don’t attract women and/or can’t get laid?
.
No. I’ve mentioned this before, but when I was bouncing an alpha really took me under his wing. When I finally broke a major dry spell, I think he was more happy then I was. Not sure if that is a universal principle. I’ve always been good at being “one of the guys” so it may just have been he liked me. I’ve personally tried to help more then a few guys in this area of life. To use a Clintonism “I felt their pain”. That said, a few have gotten argumentative or not seemed receptive to help and then my attitude quickly shifted to Fuck Off.
Generally speaking though, I do NOT think men hate men who can’t get laid. Mostly they probably don’t care.
So unless you are in the police, the military, or employed in any position where literally direct hands-on physical security is an inevitable part of your job duties, contempt for weakness is pretty much a superfluous trait these days.
.
True enough…but so what. Just because something is superfluous doesn’t mean it is non-existant, and unfortunately we can’t just switch off these ancient, primal feelings. A lot of things women are attracted to are superflous, but it is what it is.
We´re animals, which means:
- Males are born and compete each other for the alpha throne. The fights are deadly but without animosity. No hard feelings, only business.
- Males kill rival males that try to enter the comune and grab the females.
- If some males dont want to compete for the alpha role, they are ignored. Some males serve the alphas, these are threated with respect, as servants.
- Females are born and compete against each other for the alpha male attention. The fights are superficial but full of animosity, hard feelings and personal issues.
- Females shame any rival that try to steal resources, male attention, etc, so they shame other females, mostly, but also rival tribes and strange individuals.
- Females dont pay attention to the weaker men, but get creeped out and cry for help is one of the weaker men attempts to court her / have sex / reproduce. THATs when the weaker male might get killed by an alpha male. Still, no hard feelings.
- The contempt females feel toward beta, non alpha males, because they feel in their guts they could have had better. Its not about reality, its about inborn aspirations.
- Contempt for betas is exclusively female.
- Men dont hate betas. Men live and die for ideals, so also hate for ideals. When a male turns hate into something close and personal, his pole becomes feminine, loses his alphadom, and usually dies as a result of it.
- When a male hates because of his ideals, he initiates a war. Theres no war towards betas. What we have is an awakening process because most of us have been turned, and the equilibrium is reaching a breaking point
I was extremely frustrated but I never hated myself. I was always proud of the person I was although I questioned “what was wrong with me”. After all, I was doing what I taught I was supposed to do and not getting the successful outcome.
Okay.
No. I’ve mentioned this before, but when I was bouncing an alpha really took me under his wing. When I finally broke a major dry spell, I think he was more happy then I was. Not sure if that is a universal principle. I’ve always been good at being “one of the guys” so it may just have been he liked me. I’ve personally tried to help more then a few guys in this area of life. To use a Clintonism “I felt their pain”. That said, a few have gotten argumentative or not seemed receptive to help and then my attitude quickly shifted to Fuck Off.
Heh okay. I think is probably more because he already liked you. I mean you USA) have a tons of jocks (successful with women) bullying the weak kids on HS. I don’t think this generosity is free for all penis carriers, IMO.
Generally speaking though, I do NOT think men hate men who can’t get laid. Mostly they probably don’t care.
Mmm could be, could be. Still the Spearhead and other similar sites, hates on men that seem weak and follow women’s orders and one of the first thing you see in the comments are: and they probably don’t even get laid or something along the lines. So my skepticism is not born out of my imagination, you can check how often the ability of get laid had women’s expressing hate for it vs the males and the difference is huge, YMMV.
That is contradictory. The example you placed of the guy that will do what the women wanted because they are denigrated themselves is a personal feeling. The action is denigrating, the only reason they do it is because the other person allows it, if it was black and white they would not engage on it because the action itself is something they consider wrong on the moral code, the relation with the women is what makes their actions right, so that is relativist.
.
I’m not following half of this here. All I’ll say is motivation matters. You can’t view an action in isolation without considering the motivation. The motivation affects the evaluation of it from a moral code perspective. In my book that isn’t relativistic. Relativistic means you keep changing how you apply the code depending on the person involved. For example, a woman might call one woman engaging in A,B,C sexual behavior a skanky whore, but if the girl is her friend all of a sudden a completely different set of rules applies. Guys are more likely to apply the same set of judgement whether the guy is no one to him or his best friend.
@Mike
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear, but I was not in any way addressing what women find attractive in men. I was addressing deeper traits, ones related to basic human decency.
Men live and die for ideals, so also hate for ideals.
As long as those ideals give them punani. Feminism is an ideal as well, but given that is not producing the desire result, men are not buying it anymore if all those feminist were undiscriminating sluts, you wouldn’t care about anything else.
To adress Escarondito´s point, men hate the weaker player when they lose because of him
If I go play basketball and I lose because some guy is acting funky, he´s hated bigtime. If he refuses to man up, he´s losing his position on the team. And thats the end of it, and his nickname gets changed to “that pussy”
And sometimes a guy´s behavior is repulsive so he gets group hate. Like the submissive husband – because he is infringing the ideal. Or if “that pussy” comes back and says “hey basketball players are loooosers anyway” he´s asking to get killed
Some MRA guys have “that pussy”´s attitude, and they play the victim when they receive the hate they asked for.
The world is so huge.
Men dont hate betas. Men live and die for ideals, so also hate for ideals.
.
Yes. And one ideal is that a weak man should strive for improvement, betterment, to become strong. That is respectable, admirable. The weak man should not embrace his weakness, and actually in complete perversity try to portray it as a virtue.
Steph, you seem to want to sincerely understand some of this. I’d strongly suggest reading closely what Yohami is saying. I can’t articulate the “gestalt” of some of this as good as he does. It isn’t about hating the Beta the man, it is about the qualities/characteristics. It isn’t personal.
No, the ideal calling is stronger than punani. Thats why putting yourself and your mission before punani is the first step to become alpha, or a real man. If you have punani before the ideal, you get manipulated because punani becomes the ideal: pedestal. You´re screwed up.
Feminism is failing because its based of lies.
Who cares if women are sluts, if all men are shamed into betas? still antinature.
And I dont want all women to be “sluts”, I want all women to be MINE. Thats what has been imprinted on my brain. Its not realistic, but nature isnt about being realistic.
Yep, thats pretty good.
Mmm could be, could be. Still the Spearhead and other similar sites, hates on men that seem weak and follow women’s orders and one of the first thing you see in the comments are: and they probably don’t even get laid or something along the lines. So my skepticism is not born out of my imagination, you can check how often the ability of get laid had women’s expressing hate for it vs the males and the difference is huge, YMMV.
.
You are conflating two things here. The “don’t even get laid” comment is just a throwaway after thought insult. That isn’t what is triggering the “hate”. It is the weakness and “following women’s orders”. I had the exact same feeling triggered reading about that “subservient, obedient” husband. Frankly, I don’t what a subservient, obedient wife which is not the same as the Captain-First Officer dynamic that I am a believer in.
Mike C
Actually both are relative judgment:
From:http://carm.org/what-relativism
* cognitive relativism (truth) – Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid than another one, and that there is no objective standard of truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth.
* moral/ethical relativism – All morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed.
* situational relativism – Ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation.
So your concept will be women are more ethical relativist (social group=friend) while men are more situational relativists (situation). I think.
No, the ideal calling is stronger than punani. Thats why putting yourself and your mission before punani is the first step to become alpha, or a real man. If you have punani before the ideal, you get manipulated because punani becomes the ideal: pedestal. You´re screwed up.
Wait aren’t the guys becoming Alphas to get punani? Everyone that enters and ask around and committing to the manosphere starts with: I don’t have luck with women, women don’t like me…so?
So your concept will be women are more ethical relativist (social group=friend) while men are more situational relativists (situation). I think.
.
Yes, if I lie to cheat you from your money that is wrong. If I lie to save a 100 lives, that is right. The situation is different.
Now if I lie to protect my son if he has done wrong, that is wrong. I may do it for personal/emotional reasons but it is most certainly a failure to live up to a true code. The Mom is probably more likely to say “but he is my son” and feel perfectly OK to lie because the personal connection trumps the ideal principle. The Dad knows he was wrong to lie.
.
In terms of sexuality and sexual behavior, you see this in some women’s behavior with comments like “it just felt right”, “it just happened”. In the moment, personal emotions trump principles.
Its a bridge. Alphadom comes first. If the impulse was just “punani” then in all the species, instead of the males competing with each other time after time, they would be all collectively raping women.
That is the feminist fantasy. It just doesnt match.
We have all these instincts because they work in favor of the specie. Men first compete with other men, and the winner gets the girl. If you get the girl without winning, you´re cheating the code – this is why a lot, a huge amount of men dont get “Game”, men want to play the rules and play fair. This is why so many men turn into betas, wanting to play the rules and fulfill the role, because they think thats how you win. –
So no. When Im in my bedroom and dreaming about becoming a superstar and full of power, women, money, respect, its not “just” about women. If I was able to get all these women but do nothing with my life, I would feel empty and purposeless. This is the point of break for PUAs.
Becoming alpha is a better deal.
Wait aren’t the guys becoming Alphas to get punani? Everyone that enters and ask around and committing to the manosphere starts with: I don’t have luck with women, women don’t like me…so?
.
That doesn’t mean they are or have to abandon the ideals that govern the rest of their life.
Here is your homework assignment. Read this 100 times until it hits
“No, the ideal calling is stronger than punani. Thats why putting yourself and your mission before punani is the first step to become alpha, or a real man. If you have punani before the ideal, you get manipulated because punani becomes the ideal: pedestal.
In terms of sexuality and sexual behavior, you see this in some women’s behavior with comments like “it just felt right”, “it just happened”. In the moment, personal emotions trump principles.
Men justify cheating as well “I’m a man” how that fits the code?
Here is your homework assignment. Read this 100 times until it hits
I already read Rive and Doug and the others. And they ideal is only mentioned in relationship of punani and how much is falling and don’t do this, because you will not get punani, if the ideal’s success is measured on punani how come the punani is not the ultimate goal?…I mean if I tell you that I love my husband but I constantly was salivating over men, talking about them, telling how much I wish they will be with me, would you believe me?
If I was able to get all these women but do nothing with my life, I would feel empty and purposeless.
I actually understand that and I might believe it from you, the others…I explained above. There is little talk about anything but punani and is amount, is hard to believe they are in for the journey and no the destination.
For starters, I dont defend “cheating” because its acting backstage. But. Men are supposed to have harems, not to be in monogamys. If a man decides to stay with a single woman, fine with me, and I do that from time to time, but the wiring is clearly, clearly designed to make you go and spread your seed wide and abroad.
Then “the code” is not morals, and the code isnt prewritten. Men change the code as the culture changes. The basis, what I described with the animals post, never changes.
And then some cultures are just corrupt. America is becoming one.
1 2 »