About these ads

>"I have come to view women as elegant machines"

>

When pick-up guru Roissy isn’t going on about herpes and hypergamy, and demonstrating his utter ignorance of both subjects, he’s apparently helping to rid the world of misogyny. At least according to one of his readers. a guy names Marcus, who offered his take on Roissy’s teachings on “Game” in a comment that Roissy highlighted as one of his favorite “comments of the month” for December. Here’s Marcus:

It sounds strange, but this blog has made me less of a misogynist. I have come to view women as elegant machines — machines for using, to be sure — that mostly do a damned good job of doing what they were designed to do. As I get more comfortable and consistent at either aggressively torquing their levers or gently greasing their gears at just the right moments, my appreciation only deepens.

All this talk of talk of torque and gears and levers reminds me a little of one of my favorite songs by T. Rex, Jeepster, in which Marc Bolan offers a strangely similar, er, appreciation of women:

Just like a car you’re pleasing to behold
I’ll call you Jaguar if I may be so bold
‘Cos you’re my baby, ‘cos you’re my love
Oh girl I’m just a Jeepster for your love – oh

Now why is it that Marc Bolan could get away with comparing a woman to a luxury car without sounding like a complete douchenozzle? Well, for one thing, he’s fucking MARC BOLAN, and his lyrics are always completely fucking insane. For another, he also compared himself to a car, specifically the Willys-Overland Jeepster. And, third, because he did it in one of the sleaziest, catchiest glam rock songs ever.

About these ads

Posted on January 2, 2011, in misogyny, PUA, quote of the day. Bookmark the permalink. 57 Comments.

  1. >You have to give Marcus credit. When he decides to objectify women, he goes all-in.What a shame he will never treat a woman like, you know, a human being.

  2. thevagrantsvoice

    >You have to admit, though, it's better than hating them. At least somewhat.

  3. >If you appreciate the insight, wit and wisdom of Roissy/Citizen Renegade, you may also find enlightenment at my own humble tribute site…http://citizenlemonade.wordpress.com/

  4. >If you only like your dog for his tail, then you don't like your dog. This is hatred of women because they are not discussing women. They are discussing meeting desires they have. What they need is not a pick up artist objectifying frame of mind, they need a humanist frame of mind. They need to understand the human animal, human development, psychology. But the fact that humans suffer being used is common sense and experience. Don't these men know themselves and their own natures enough to see humanity in a woman? Is it so far from them? It must be because they don't relate to themselves on any level which is an emptiness on the spectrum of sociopath. No empathy to feel even for certain aspects of self, and only desires to be met. Jeffery Dahmer slept with a mannequin, he drugged his victims and wanted to lie with them like they were mannequins. This was a huge part of what he did. Some people with autism who cannot relate to others see themselves and others as machines. This condition is more common in men. Hence these issues that MRAs lay at the feet of woman, the "other".

  5. >"This is hatred of women because they are not discussing women."I'm not sure. There are a lot of people who think of other people as machines because they aren't really able to approach things in a holistic way. This is an issue of temperament and doesn't make someone a bad person. It's weird in the extreme that this guy only thinks this way about women. I can't explain that. But while it is jarring to hear those who think of other people as machines talk about this thought process, it is not itself troubling. It's not "normal" in that most people aren't like this, but it's not abnormal.-

  6. >I'm just thankful that most men are not like these idiots.

  7. >Most men are just like these idiots. Take Raul here. He is a nice and compassionate man. He has learned that his best chance of getting ahead in life (finding a mate, etc) is to be nice and compassionate (and smart I"ll add). These traits are desirable. Raul has natural game. He will successfully find a mate, possibly have children and succeed in business.An unnatural has to learn how to play the game. This is what the PUAs are doing and teaching. They are teaching these men to be desirable to women (and others) to aide them in success.Just like most things women do to attract mates are slightly deceptive, these males are being slightly deceptive. When a woman wears lipstick, she is faking a sexually aroused state in which the lips become flushed with blood. Likewise with rouge (blushing). The liquid foundation hides imperfections in the skin while the padded bra makes her look more like she is ready to have babies. The hair treatments help make her look younger and healthier. These are all instinctive mating queues.The PUA is usually a beta who makes himself appear to be an alpha male. He knows instinctively that as a beta he will be begging on the floor for scraps of shop worn pussy but as an alpha, he can have first pick.

  8. >I would bet a lot of money that Marcus actually has no real experience operating real heavy machinery, and is probably a bad driver who couldn't tell you how to change a tire.

  9. >Of course it's hating women. Marcus is delighting in the idea of saying women aren't human. That's hatred, and if you said it about men, it would be obvious that it's hatred.

  10. >Bump bah bump bump … I"m just a love machine and I don't work for nobody but you …Men are such tools.What about referring to men as stallions?God why do women hate men so much?

  11. >How do you PUAs feel about politicians treating you the same way — like easily-manipulated votes? It's dehumanizing.I look at you talk about women "manipulating" you. You never seem to put the shoe on the other foot and think that it should be just as valid for men to be manipulated by women. Instead, you rail against it and demonize women who epitomize to them the very strategies that maximize the woman's benefit.If you believe it's normal for men to want to spread their seed, then it's normal for women to demand value to submit to this. Women who do this are smart players.Women who submit to PUA tactics and give it away for less than its value are bad players in the genetic lottery! And I think some of you PUAs realize this, at least subconsciously. You end up with a Groucho complex — "I wouldn't want to be with any woman who would want to be with me." Hence disdain for the women you actually bed, a neverending search for someone who will accept you and is still worthy, which by definition cannot exist.

  12. >Ditto!Except you just put value on pussy which is prostitution. You're saying that a good player in the genetic lottery charges much much more for pussy than a poor player.BTW, most PUAs don't want to spread their seed, only the woman's legs.

  13. >witman, if PUAs don't want to spread their seed, they are fighting nature. Bad PUAs!You are confusing value with money.Don't you guys make a big deal about wanting a woman who is nice, smart, attractive, and some kind of trophy? Not just the pussy, of course all you have to do to get that is pay money.Any woman who has more than just a pussy shouldn't let a PUA manipulate her into sex without concomitant value. And by concomitant I mean someone who's nice, smart, attractive, and some kind of trophy to her, if that's the game they are playing.You won't get any more meaningful respect from her than you give to her. If she is "low status" for you, then her admiration for you means (in your heart) about as much as that from a dog you feed sometimes and don't kick too often.That she is a real person and shows more respect for you than you do for her makes her the superior being in that transaction.

  14. >"Don't you guys make a big deal about wanting a woman who is nice, smart, attractive, and some kind of trophy? "Are you talking to me like I am a PUA? I am out of the running. I have been married to the woman mentioned above for 12 years now. "Any woman who has more than just a pussy shouldn't let a PUA manipulate her into sex without concomitant value."What you seem to be missing is that a PUA is projecting these traits through training. You'll not be playing into a PUAs arms but rather a nice guy who will commit and love you. Do you think PUAs where buttons that say "Hi, my name is Soandso and I'm going to pump you and dump you"? No, they are going to act like they want to be with you forever and that you are the most cherished being on the planet. Hell, the odd PUA might actually have ramped up his game to get a mate. You'll never know.

  15. >Sorry, that should read wear, not where. (at least I spelled it right)

  16. >"The PUA is usually a beta who makes himself appear to be an alpha male. He knows instinctively that as a beta he will be begging on the floor for scraps of shop worn pussy but as an alpha, he can have first pick. "Shop worn pussy? WTF?The only thing good about PUA tactics is that basically they make men advertise that they would like to get laid, so women who would like to get laid can go to them and women who do not avoid them. I don't know why people tend to assume that PUAs are manipulative, instead of considering that probably many of the women they "pick up" are actually interested in random sex and there is no easier way to get sex than to follow a PUA.

  17. >Witman, perhaps women tend to be suspicious of PUAs because they (as you say) only want to spread women's legs, but then refer to them as "shop worn pussy" if the women agree to do so.I think that most women prefer to sleep with men who see sex as a fun, mutually-enjoyable experience, rather than one where the man benefits and the woman is degraded.

  18. >Ellen,That's a good point. I'm fully in support of men and women who want to have casual sex finding each other and having a good time.I do have to wonder, though, if your average PUA would be much fun. They don't seem to address their partner's pleasure at all- at least from what I've seen, they see the game as all about what they can get from women, and not what they can give in return. There are exceptions, I'm sure. But if I were a woman out looking for a casual good time, I might look for someone who doesn't see me as a non-human.

  19. >I'm not saying I agree with PUAs, I'm just giving you my take on the situation.

  20. >Perhaps you should be clearer, Witman, because your comments here sound exactly like you agree with these guys.

  21. >I agree with the premise that a man needs to appear more confident in their approach to women or they will give off a creeper (beta) vibe and scare them off. I don't agree with objectifying anyone.

  22. >Witman, calling women "shop worn pussy" is pretty objectifying and just plain mean-spirited.

  23. >"You have to give Marcus credit. When he decides to objectify women, he goes all-in.""What a shame he will never treat a woman like, you know, a human being."Guess what? Males are entitled to have liberated sexuality too. The problem with feminuts is that they believe they are entitled to attempt to regiment male sexuality. But if males want to tell women what to do with their sexuality, its against female liberation or its being patriarchal. All it comes down to; you feminuts need to stop acting like the gender police. We can operate our sexuality however the fuck we want. Deal with it you matriarchal control freak

  24. >booboonation, I realize this probably wasn't your intent, but your comment is pretty insulting to autistic people. People with mental disabilities–including autism–are, in fact, much more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators. Suggesting autistic people can't help but dehumanize others is itself dehumanizing to autistic people.

  25. >Guess what? Males are entitled to have liberated sexuality too.The problem with feminuts is that they believe they are entitled to attempt to regiment male sexuality. But if males want to tell women what to do with their sexuality, its against female liberation or its being patriarchal.All it comes down to; you feminuts need to stop acting like the gender police. We can operate our sexuality however the fuck we want. Deal with it you matriarchal control freakNick, I am trying to make sense of your angry screed.Firstly, you cannot 'operate your sexuality however the fuck you want'. For example: if expressing your sexuality involves coercion of or violence towards women there are statute laws that can put you behind bars for attempting it. Society has determined reasonable limits on sexual behaviour.Surely we can agree that there are reasonable limits on what men can do and that coercive or violent behaviour should rightly be restricted?Secondly, if you objectify women, and they discover that you objectify them, you should be unsurprised if you get rejected. Women are entitled to say no to creeps who treat them not as humans but as things.Surely we can agree that women have the right to say no to people who treat them with little respect? Also can we not agree that it's up to the women themselves to determine whether someone is showing proper respect?Thirdly, yes men *are* entitled to be sexually liberated. Men should be able to indulge in sex for mutual pleasure without shame or guilt. However, this is not a license to run rampant with your cock. My view is that relationships and sex should be done in a spirit of mutuality. Where a relationship involves an imbalance of power, or in which one partner controls another, this is not healthy. I might even call it abusive.Surely we can agree that relationships in which one person controls another or in which there is a great imbalance of power are not good? Does it not then follow that we should point out and criticise those behaviours when we see them?This is where the animus towards pick-up artists comes in. PUAs don't seem to be big on mutuality. Rather, they tend to be controlling types (see Marcus's quote about manipulating women) who are in this for their own selfish gain.Surely we can agree that a philosophy of manipulating and controlling people for sexual conquest is not healthy and may in some circumstances be abusive?Fourthly, it seems to me that the grand feminist conspiracy against teh menz (which doesn't exist, but I'll humour you for the moment) is not out to stop men having sex or dates. However, it takes a dim view of men who are controlling, coercive, abusive, violent towards women or fail to treat them with sufficient respect. PUAs, on the whole, tend to tick at least a couple of items on this list.Is this really so unreasonable a position?

  26. >I didn't call women shop worn pussy, I called shop worn pussy shop worn pussy. There is a difference. Nobody wants sloppy seconds.

  27. >Sorry Marcus, but thinking of women as objects to be used to your own ends–and "designed" to be used that way–is as misogynistic as it gets. Why is it so hard for some people to conceive as others a autonomous human beings with needs, wants, desires and fears as rich and varied as their own? Marcus sounds like he's fashioning himself into a sociopath in order to get laid. Interesting technique, but…no. Just no.

  28. >Oh please, Witman. Insulting women who've had more partners than you judge appropriate is such a sad, tired cliche. I thought you might be more intelligent than that.Percy, you matriarchal control freak (and I mean that with love), that was a wonderfully reasonable, logical response. I think it will be lost on Nick, but I appreciated it.

  29. >percyprune Angry screed? I think there is a lot of irony to that when comparing it to your post.Yes, we can operate our sexuality however the fuck we want. It's called male liberation. And that's something that feminists don't seem to want as they want to make the rules.Anyway, male sexual liberation has nothing to do with coercion, violence, or rape. But it's typical of you as a feminist to put that label on male sexuality. It’s no surprise as the whole aim of the feminist movement these days is to demonise the male gender in every possible way.As for this objectifying garbage that feminists spew out; if a man thinks a woman has a nice set of legs, nice butt, nice breast…he is entitled to feel attracted to that. He is entitled to feel attracted to the female body. After all, being born as a heterosexual male, I thought it's our instinct to be attracted to the female body. It's the heterosexual male's nature to feel this way. But unfortunately feminists discriminate and demonise our natural sexual instincts just for an excuse to find something to whine about.This has nothing to do with treating women as animals or not human. But to come up with these assumptions is just the usual feminist ploy to claim another faulty premise of female victim status.All the time, the feminist nutters point their fingers at men and talk to us like children in a very condescending manner on how we should function our sexuality. I am glad that I have the spine to not buy into this BS.It never ceases to amaze me how feminists will just make up anything or complain about the most petty things just for an excuse to demonise and whine about men.The behaviour of many to most feminists that I acknowledge, it could be defined as a disorder. Feminists will over turn rocks looking for something to whine about or be offended by, simply for an excuse to create anger over men. It’s like they need someone to change their diaper.All in all, feminists just need to handle the fact that men are different. And to say that men are wrong for being different is incredibly sexist.

  30. >@iodineshuffle,I can judge who I want by whatever criteria I wish to. This is especially true when choosing a mate so you can call me cliche and I'll just call it shop worn pussy.Just remember that you cannot motorboat a personality!

  31. >Witman: It's funny how there are no derogatory terms to describe men who aren't virgins, isn't it? Tell me, what would be a highly offensive term for a man who has put his penis into someone and is now therefore used goods and dirty? I sure can't think of one. I suppose that's because men are entitled to be promiscuous if they so choose and then not merely expect their wives to be virgins, but sanctimoniously denigrate women who aren't. Can you imagine a woman who sleeps around and then states that she'll have nothing to do with a used dick? What kind of a reaction would she encounter? But men aren't privileged, oh NO.

  32. >Amused, a man who sleeps around is commonly labelled as a pig, someone who is desperate, a sleazebag, a user, or someone who only thinks with their little head. I've heard plenty of women say that they don't want to touch men who sleep around in case they catch something. So the thought of used goods and dirty is very alive and well towards men too.Considering the slut shaming, I think it's mostly women who call other women sluts more so than men using that label on women. It's mostly women who criticise other women for being too easy while it's mostly men who try to encourage women to have sex. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. It would be stupid to say that men are sex starved in one stance and then flip to another stance and say that we don't want women giving it. Women are the main culprits of limiting the freedoms of sex for their own gender. Yet, of course, it’s always the fault of the evil menz.

  33. >Amused,Isn't it funny how PUA-types seem to have a particular hatred for promiscuous women? They want women to sleep with them, but if they do, they're dirty, dirty whores.Of course, they seem to hate promiscuous men, too, for doing what they can't. Equal-opportunity vitriol, I guess!

  34. >Dave, did you set up your own special web page just to troll me? http://derpaherp.blogspot.com/Probably not, but fun stuff nonetheless.

  35. >I figured you wouldn't need a sock puppet. Still hoping to be a big enough douche to wind up on your enemies list one day ;[

  36. >Oh, David. My (male) heart goes out to you with some of the extraordinary pig-headed stupidity you have to encounter and respond to on a daily basis. The woeful lack of self-knowledge of the sort of man who will sneeringly refer to 'shop worn pussy' – and then go crying to Uncle Roissy that modern women don't respect modern men and they're evil and horrid and call him names. The breathtaking stupidity of not seeing the difference between a woman slapping her boyfriend round the face and her boyfriend retaliating by putting her in intensive care for a month with four broken ribs and a shattered jaw. The extraordinary, mind-blowing insistence that male domestic violence and female domestic violence are equally dangerous and commonplace. I feel there may be a few hundred shelters for abuse victims that would beg to differ. The you-either-laugh-or-you-cry jeering dismissal of any woman less attractive than Jennifer Aniston as a sub-par specimen fit only to be pumped amd dumped. Immediately followed by an endless, pathetically self-pitying soliloquy attacking evil, shallow, hypergamous females for only being interested in the superficially attractive men – and rejecting perfectly eligible and desirable 'nice guys' like themselves just because they happen to weigh 350 pounds and smell of haddock. The dark hilarity of gentlemen who'd be considered a little on the slow side at a school for special needs children castigating women for their intellectual inferiority – and holding up the works of Milton and Da Vinci to justify their argument. I wonder how many epic poems and gloriously timeless works of art the MRAs themselves have generated with their dynamic and superior masculine energy. I am putting my money on 'none.' They remind me more than anything of inbred white supremacists whose sole achievement in life has been the regular collection of an unemployment cheque. Claiming racial superiority to the clearly sub-standard likes of Will Smith and Oprah Winfrey – when, in reality, these godlike Aryan master racers wouldn't be superior to a race of bonobo monkeys with body odour. David, I find your patience and perseverance truly admirable. When I learned of these eerie little specimens lurking under the rock of humanity, I found the best approach was simply to point and laugh; if I may pimp my blog again, the results can be viewed at citizenlemonade.wordpress.com Yet if it is any consolation, David, there is one great certainty in life. And that is, ironically, that 'manginas' like you and I have infinitely more success with women than these ghastly little aspiring disciples of George Sodini. Please visit my now-defunct-but-still-rather-readable blog and become enlightened in the dark art of Game. Unless you are one of the frightening cretins who posts on here from the MRA movement. In which case, please don't.

  37. >"Yet if it is any consolation, David, there is one great certainty in life. And that is, ironically, that 'manginas' like you and I have infinitely more success with women than these ghastly little aspiring disciples of George Sodini."As a female, I would like to do the "raise the roof" gesture in response to that.

  38. thevagrantsvoice

    >Yet if it is any consolation, David, there is one great certainty in life. And that is, ironically, that 'manginas' like you and I have infinitely more success with women than these ghastly little aspiring disciples of George Sodini. No offense to either you or our gracious host (and for what it's worth, I got a kick out of your August 9th entry) but I really wouldn't bet on this.

  39. >"No offense to either you or our gracious host (and for what it's worth, I got a kick out of your August 9th entry) but I really wouldn't bet on this."I wouldn't either, but that's because I don't see human sexuality as an appropriate basis for gambling.Why wouldn't you?

  40. >@citizenlemonade:"The breathtaking stupidity of not seeing the difference between a woman slapping her boyfriend round the face and her boyfriend retaliating by putting her in intensive care for a month with four broken ribs and a shattered jaw."OK, would it make it better then if men just slapped women around? Maybe just a spanking when they throw a tantrum or something?Slap me and one is coming right back at you lady (and I use that word loosely). Then you can use your victimhood to join the useful idiots.

  41. >In regards of the steaming pile of BS Citizen has postedHow often does a man give a woman broken ribs and shattered jaw? How often do women get put in intensive care from DV? I would say very very rarely.There are cases of women stabbing, murdering, cutting off the penis of their husbands/boyfriends. But when it comes to feminism, ALL of this gets pulled under the rug.What feminists such as citizen ALWAYS ignore is the woman's part of violence. And even if the woman's part of violence is self defence and she stabs or murders the guy, it's not deemed as evil. It's only evil when the woman is the victim. But can we ever get it through to these extreme bigots? I don't think so. They hate men so much that they just totally ignore the victimisation of violence against men altogether.Yet, they have the audacity to claim they are on the higher standing ground ROFLOn the part about modern women don't respect modern men; there is a lot of truth to this as misandry is a lot more accepted in society than misogyny. A woman is still socially accepted to express things like; there are not many decent men, most men only think with their little heads, most men are assholes, men have to buy me dinners because I’m a woman, all men are guilty of being evil until proven otherwise.There are a large percentage of women in today’s western society that express one, or some, or all of these things about men. If you can still say that these women respect men, I really really pity your intelligence. As I was saying, it’s a large percentage of women who truly have this mentality. It’s not something rare, it’s not only some women.And how about some total irony? If you think 99 percent of feminists respect men, you are as dumb as a door knob. How can any human being respect men when their daily agenda is to bash/criticise/demonise men on a daily basis? Their daily agenda is to constantly prove female victim status by expressing how evil men are. WOW so much respect.And to take the feminist part even further, don’t feminists think that most modern men don’t respect modern women because of this objectifying controversy? You see, if it was just something that feminists believed only some men did, feminists wouldn’t make it as such a public outrage like they already have. But of course, it’s only acceptable to claim that most modern men have no respect. When the tables are turned it’s deemed as misogyny. From expressing all these things that women do in this whole post; if a man is even close to being this negative towards women, he is deemed as a total misogynist creep that would be placed as a social outcast. So much for male privilege, ay? heh

  42. >How often does a man give a woman broken ribs and shattered jaw? How often do women get put in intensive care from DV? I would say very very rarely.There are cases of women stabbing, murdering, cutting off the penis of their husbands/boyfriends. But when it comes to feminism, ALL of this gets pulled under the rug.What feminists such as citizen ALWAYS ignore is the woman's part of violence. And even if the woman's part of violence is self defence and she stabs or murders the guy, it's not deemed as evil. It's only evil when the woman is the victim. But can we ever get it through to these extreme bigots? I don't think so. They hate men so much that they just totally ignore the victimisation of violence against men altogether.Yet, they have the audacity to claim they are on the higher standing ground ROFL

  43. >On the part about modern women don't respect modern men; there is a lot of truth to this as misandry is a lot more accepted in society than misogyny. A woman is still socially accepted to express things like; there are not many decent men, most men only think with their little heads, most men are assholes, men have to buy me dinners because I’m a woman, all men are guilty of being evil until proven otherwise.There are a large percentage of women in today’s western society that express one, or some, or all of these things about men. If you can still say that these women respect men, I really really pity your intelligence. As I was saying, it’s a large percentage of women who truly have this mentality. It’s not something rare, it’s not only some women.And how about some total irony? If you think 99 percent of feminists respect men, you are as dumb as a door knob. How can any human being respect men when their daily agenda is to bash/criticise/demonise men on a daily basis? Their daily agenda is to constantly prove female victim status by expressing how evil men are. WOW so much respect.And to take the feminist part even further, don’t feminists think that most modern men don’t respect modern women because of this objectifying controversy? You see, if it was just something that feminists believed only some men did, feminists wouldn’t make it as such a public outrage like they already have. But of course, it’s only acceptable to claim that most modern men have no respect. When the tables are turned it’s deemed as misogyny. From expressing all these things that women do in this whole post; if a man is even close to being this negative towards women, he is deemed as a total misogynist creep that would be placed as a social outcast. You are totally blind as a bat if you can't see that political correctness these days swings heavily in favour of women. And yet, the nutty feminists still have the audacity to claim men are privileged. *yawn*

  44. >@nick:I like how you put a little review of your own post in asterisks at the end. That way I don't have to read it and I still know how to react.

  45. >Raul Groom Only a bigot avoids acknowledging the other side of the story

  46. >Hahaha come on, Nick, you can't say that when your worldview is partly premised on attacking an idea of feminism that doesn't have anything to do with feminism actually is.I mean…unless you're saying you are yourself a bigot.

  47. >MI just call out on what I see from feminism. It gives women a licence to be blatantly sexist without any ramifications

  48. >@nick:p "How often does a man give a woman broken ribs and shattered jaw? How often do women get put in intensive care from DV? I would say very very rarely."While both men and women commit DV, women are far more likely to be seriously injured by DV than men are. http://manboobz.blogspot.com/p/not-so-great-debate-on-domestic.htmlhttp://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/further-reading-domestic-violence.html

  49. >"It's mostly women who criticise other women for being too easy while it's mostly men who try to encourage women to have sex."This doesn't seem to jibe with the claim that women who have sex joyfully are "shopworn."Women aren't items on sale.

  50. >Well then I guess you're admitting you're a bigot, Nick, because you're espousing one ideology without attempting to understand or acknowledge "the other side of the story"!

  51. >David"While both men and women commit DV, women are far more likely to be seriously injured by DV than men are."That may be the case. But men get seriously hurt to.That said, why should female victims be more important than male victims? Why should that be more so in the spot light than men who get the worse out of the situation?A victim is simply a victim regardless of gender. They are human beings to. I never see feminists making a big fuss over that as they do towards women. But wait, isn't feminism about gender equality? That's what makes the feminist stance so friggin ridiculous.jupiter9"This doesn't seem to jibe with the claim that women who have sex joyfully are "shopworn."Where did I ever say that women are shopworn? Please point it outM"Well then I guess you're admitting you're a bigot, Nick, because you're espousing one ideology without attempting to understand or acknowledge "the other side of the story"!"How does this make sense? I acknowledge the feminist stance. It practically tells that women come first and men come second. I know very much that there is the other side to the story. But you see, feminism and political correctness seems to favour one side of the story compared to the other. That doesn’t make me a bigot to point out this obvious bigotry towards men.If a woman does worse damage than a male out of self defence, it’s likely to be validated. However, if a man does worse damage than a woman out of self defence, it’s deemed as totally evil. Complaining about bigotry against men doesn’t make me a bigot.

  52. >Nick, nothing you've posted about feminism on this site has had shit to do with feminism. Your "feminism" is invented misandrist boogeyman.

  53. >MI pity your reading comprehension and/or acknowledgment.

  54. >Hahaha condescension about my reading comprehension from someone who elsewhere is demanding the evidence and case histories that make up a *state penal code*.

  55. > David: While both men and women commit DV, women are far more likely to be seriously injured by DV than men are. Not so sure, if this is true – for sure not always…..There are various studies about this subject, and this is one of it.http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/42/15/31.2.fullAmerican Psychiatric AssociationRegarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time).

  56. >"jupiter9"This doesn't seem to jibe with the claim that women who have sex joyfully are "shopworn."Where did I ever say that women are shopworn? Please point it out"Where did I ever say you said that? Please point it out.What you said and what another MRA/PUA type said are in conflict. Which is the "true" MRA/PUA position on women who enjoy sex and therefore have as much of it as possible?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,569 other followers

%d bloggers like this: