>I love Nightstorm! He's my favorite manboob. I think he should have his own TV show.I love how epically he fucked this up. The girl wants a fairly standard casual relationship (sex, snuggles, attention)– I've done it loads of times. But instead of talking to the actual person on the line, he's talking to Girl Stereotype #14. Girl Stereotype #14 wants money– actual girl, not so much!What do you bet he decided she wasn't serious when she said "um, dude, I want sex and a casual relationship, not a Fifties marriage"? I really want to read the full The List, but I don't want to sign up for weirdosite. Someone in the comments help?

>That guy in the vintage ad looks a bit like Desi Arnez (I Love Lucy)."Lucy! You got some 'splainin' to do!"

>"How she feels"="meaningless garbage," on a par with "getting her nails done."

>That list has scared me off of marriage.

>I like how "shoes" and "new car" are like, totally the same expense or something. How about a candy bar? Some Mountain Dew? A pack of smokes?But I have to say, number 45 really takes the cake. The "your virginity" added to the list says it all. Yeah, there's healthy, well-adjusted people out there who don't have sex for whatever reason, but this really isn't well-adjusted. I mean, he does realize that you don't have to get married to have sex, and that there are people out there who just want sex? And that you don't have to marry your girlfriend? Or that most people usually start off causally?

>So, he watched a movie or something? I mean, this is the guy who already told us that he's never slept with anyone, so I'm assuming he's never moved in with a woman, or bought anyone a car, or impregnated anyone. Hell, I question whether any woman has ever asked him to meet her parents.The beauty part to me is, not only is he making sure his potential girlfriend from before the time their relationship even begins knows that he's willing to support her financially–he's actually promising to do almost everything he's complained suck about relationships. He's going to give her endless romance (#21). He's going to boost her self esteem (#19 and #20). And he's already letting her know that this is not going to be any fun at all! It's hard work, goddammit!Well, shit. A relationship with Nightstorm sounds like no fun at all. Sadly, people get what they ask for. If he ever finds a woman who lets him near her, I'm sure it'll end up being exactly as horrible as he says they all are. [name redacted] is almost certainly stupid, but she's lucky as hell.

>In the absolute worst relationship I was ever in, I think only 4 of the 45 actually applied. Six if you count the 2 about meeting parents and relatives, but actually I enjoyed that. (Her sister was cool; her mom was a great cook who insisted on feeding me until I was stuffed.) In my current relationship, only #1 applies: "Respect her."

>The female chauvinist in this day and age is very common and passes as something that's sociacally acceptable and PC. Yet, that exact term (even that it's the ultimate truth) will get pulled under the rug

>Where on Earth do you get the idea that respect equals obedience or slavery? Respect doesn't mean doing whatever the other person says. It means taking someone else's wishes and desires into account when deciding what you yourself want to do. It means not telling someone they're wrong just because they happen to disagree with you.

>@nick:Who said anything about obeying anyone? That's a connection you made yourself, that's straight out of your head. I'm not willing to be in a relationship with someone who expects me to obey them, but I am equally unwilling to be in a relationship with anyone who expects me to lead them and make decisions which they obey. Both of those options seem like a recipe for a difficult relationship, and I have always believed that if one's relationships are hard work (more angst than elation) it's because it's the wrong relationship, and both members would probably be happier somewhere else.

>Kratch: I'm curious David, when was the last time you were in the dating scene?Last summer. Again, I wonder where these guys are meeting women if the women they're meeting are all like this. (With Nightstorm, that's not the case: he's simply imposing his expectations on the women he's meeting, or at least on [name redacted] here.)Attributing this guys one opinion with all MRA's?Nope. I have seem numerous examples of MGTOWs/MRAs making very similar arguments. That's why I felt safe to generalize. The word "all" in my post is only a slight exaggeration. MGTOWs, after all, tend to swear off ALL women, or at least ALL western women. As for the list itself, some things are actually quite benign, and the fact he's adding them makes me think he's a bitter divorced 1930's style ex-husband.He's a 25-year old virgin, by his own description. The most common of these is the loss of access to male friendsWelcome to the real world, in which people have competing demands on their time. Of course, if one person in a relationship (male or female) is demanding that the other *never* see his or her friends, that's a problem. But that's not typical. For me that would be a sign that the relationship wasn't healthy and I would get out.

>Gee I guess it's too much to ask these menchildren to respect their SO's. Especially since respect is something that BOTH people in a relationship have to have for each other. I think nightstorm needs to get in line for one of the sex robots of the robotpocalypse instead of dating real women

>If the woman you are in a relationship with is an 18 year old then chances are you might have to financially support her. You know why? BECAUSE SHE'S 18! Unless she's heiress to a fortune or has been in a very unusual circumstance then she isn't going to have much money. If you want her to dress a certain way, have the best hairstyle, and look like a model then you better pay for it. You know why?BECAUSE SHE'S 18.On the other hand you could find a woman who is older (mid 20s or 30s) who has gone to school and has a career. These women are less likely to expect you to buy them things because they can buy stuff for themselves. Then again, they are also going to have higher standards for the guys they want to date. Either because they are evil bitches (MRA answer) or because they have enough self-confidence that they would rather be single than date anything that comes along their path. So, it's your choice. You can date women who can take care of themselves, but then you risk being rejected because these women don't need you. Or you can date helpless women and have to pay for them to survive because they are dependant on you. Or wait for that sex robot to come along. But then that stupid bitch will probably expect you to change its oil or something.

>If the tables are turned, it's misogynyWell, not exactly. It's one thing to say "I want to live an independent life" and another to say, "women (or all American or Western women) are evil, moneygrubbing whores, and to show how much I don't need them I'm going to spend all day on the internet talking about what moneygrubbing whores they are."

>Word to what Lady Victoria said, but I would add this:"It's not misandrist to not want to date a man who can't hold down a job any more than it's misogynist to prefer redheaded artists."It would be misadrist to say "I only want to date men who work and all men who don't work are worthless assholes who don't deserve to live." It would also be misogynist to say "All women should be forced to dye their hair red because only red heads are worth anything in society."I haven't really seen the former on any female centered blogs or sites. I have seen the other on MRA sites. Although it is usually something like, "I don't find fat women attractive and so fat women shouldn't be allowed outside." Too often MRAs seem to think that any woman who doesn't fit into their definition of fuckable doesn't deserve any respect as a human being. I also think it's possible they are projecting their own views of fuckability=respect onto women. Therefore, if a woman doesn't want to fuck them they assume that the woman doesn't think they are worthy to live. For most of us (men and women) we respect everyone because of their humanity. Not simply because they make our genitals tingle.

>Basically, these MRAs cannot accept that women reject them and cannot accept that the women they want are attracted to other guys. They are narcissists that believe they are entitled to women. It's why they hate women and bashes other guys by calling them manginas.

>David: "It's one thing to say "I want to live an independent life""but that's not an example of the tables turned. nick noted that women are taking the "reject a man cause he's not needed" too far, for example, claiming men altogether aren't needed (IE, they are a novelty, something to amuse them), and if men considered women like that (using the sexdoll as an example), then there are rampant claims of misogyny.being independent is one thing. not needing men because you are independent is something else akin to MGTOW's and players. And just to clarify, I realize there are different interpretations of need, there is needing something, as in, it's required, but then there is "not needing" something, as in not being of any use, in which case it often gets tossed aside or put away. While you may often be referring to required, when coupled with other attitudes common on these boards, it is very easy to take the "of no use" interpretation. Just a friendly FYI, be wary of your wording or you may find yourself on a counterpart to David's board.David. Read missy’s post above talking about what MRA’s write and tell me again why I shouldn’t believe your blogs intention is to paint the entire MRM in the light of the worst examples you post here? She has a very distinct view of MRA's that would match what your site depicts, but not my own personal experience.

>Kratch, I'll get back to your comments later. In the meantime, I want to second this from Lady Victoria: "But instead of letting the experience turn them bitter against an entire gender, they learned from it, moved on and found someone else they could be happy with."Exactly. I've had girlfriends who were clingy and demanding. I didn't like it. What I learned from this wasn't "all women are clingy and demanding" but "maybe I should find a women who isn't clingy and demanding, and see if I can date her." And lo and behold that worked.

>Kratch, MRAs are obsessed by the idea of finding slutty women in clubs or finding money grabbing women that are below them and then they bitch because these women are not good companions. As one commenter said on another blog ( http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/06/sex-and-city.html?showComment=1275871002567#c7537574413053948406 ) :================================================I personally think that there is some male personality type that delights in “revealing” womens’ promiscuity. Blandishing it as a ‘cruel fact of life’ to wake the listener from a supposed romantic dream he has fallen into about female purity. They do this, it seems, to paint a picture of a world where women are adventuresome whores, yet pretend not to be. It is always implied that “I have seen so much crazy shit, stuff you wouldn’t believe” – and the person listening is simply naive to this deviousness of women.Completely aside from the actual phenomenon of women’s promiscuity, for myself I like to notice the steadfastness with which this viewpoint is emphasized by those who adhere to it. I also notice the delight they take in ‘revealing womens’ dirty side’. Then I notice the ambiguous nature of most of the evidence, and the fact that it generalizes the behavior of the 12-20% of women who I know are genuinely promiscuous and slutty, to the totality of women (or would like to).I personally think it is a way for these men to justify to themselves neglecting emotional development, by “revealing” women not to be worthy of an emotionally developed man. According to these guys, it’s all just a game, and we are all just lying to each other: women are whores – with this premise one sidesteps all the questions about emotional commitment, trust, and intimacy which otherwise crop up.I write this only because I have now encountered 4+ men giving me these kind of assurances about the devious sexual lives of women, all with the same tonality and emphasis, all pointing to the same understanding. Each of them was also unhappy in their relationships, I may note by the by.=============================================

>Kratch said:"He's a 25-year old virgin, by his own description. "Then he's a twit and deserves to stay alone.sigh, I hate virgin shaming for men.

>"I've dated multiple women who make more than me."And how many of those were looking for a good time vs wanted to settle down with you?"Then I notice the ambiguous nature of most of the evidence, and the fact that it generalizes the behavior of the 12-20% of women who I know are genuinely promiscuous and slutty, to the totality of women (or would like to)."isn't that what you're doing to MRA's right now? Well, with the exception that 4+ doesn't even come close to 12-20% of the MRM

>avpd0nmmng said… Basically, these MRAs cannot accept that women reject them and cannot accept that the women they want are attracted to other guys. Basically, MRAs are interested into a long-term relationship with ONE honest woman.We reject women, who prefer a wild nightlife in alcohol and drugs and with various rich playboys and/or violent thugs instead of a serious relationship.MRAs reject women in their 30s and 40s who are suddenly looking for a NiceGuy, demanding he takes care of them and their children. For better understanding we have to point out, that exactly these women were making scornful fun of us, when we all were still young men. You did not need us in your past, and we do not need you in our future.Sorry ladies, but finished is finished. Men (still) have the right to choose and to accept or reject certain women.

>FWIW, I've never demanded anything from my boyfriends except companionship, love and support. I take pride in being able to support myself, and even offered to support my current boyfriend if he needed it. So, I suppose, Yohan, please do not expect EVERY woman treats every man as an ambulant ATM.

>It isn't luck, it's being a good judge of character. Something that MRA's suck at.

>SpeedlinesI think that the people mra's engage tend to have a decent abilty to judge character, hence they get the cold shoulder.

>David"Well, not exactly. It's one thing to say "I want to live an independent life" and another to say, "women (or all American or Western women) are evil, moneygrubbing whores, and to show how much I don't need them I'm going to spend all day on the internet talking about what moneygrubbing whores they are."No David, you are trying to cover up the truth. Women practically scream with neon flashing lights “I don’t need a man” and rub it all over your face. It’s done in a fashion that gives the impression that men are useless idiots and they are superior princesses.It’s amazing how sexism that’s so obvious coming from women, feminists will be full of excuses and make shit up to twist the truth. Yet when it’s men acting sexist, it’s misogyny, end of story, no excuses.You can deny being a feminist bigot all you want, David. A feminist bigot is someone who will make up any excuse in the world for terrible behaviour or actions from women but then be the first to call out on sexism within a second when men are acting terrible.Lady Victoria von Syrus"If you feel like you are continually being slapped in the face by women, I'd suggest the problem is not women"Look shit titts, the problem is women when they act in such a sexist and chauvinistic manner as what I have been pointing out. It’s perfectly fine for a woman to feel that she doesn’t need men. On the other hand to shout it out, rub it in a man’s face in the attempt to intimidate men and act like a superior princess is another thing.

>Look, yes, I can understand that in your simplistic model of the world, diamond rings are mandatory.But one of the funny consequences of regarding women as people is that you can talk to them about these issues rather than just feeling perpetually aggrieved. So if you for any reason don't want to buy your fiancee a diamond ring, you can tell her so and explain why.But of course you have it in your head that almost any woman would dump you for that. Some women might. I don't know. I don't date women like that. I was very nearly engaged to my first girlfriend (we were young and silly) and she said when I proposed I'd better not buy her a diamond ring. I laughed and said I had no intention of doing so.In that particular case it was because we both personally boycott blood diamonds. (Not that it's hard to boycott diamonds…) There's really no point to this anecdote except that, like everyone else here, I'm kind of hoping that enough examples will eventually get into your head that WOMEN ARE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE.Yeah. I used all caps. Deal with it.

>But one of the funny consequences of regarding women as peopleWhat I find funny is that feminists don't see men as people as men are never allowed to disagree with women or have freedom of speech.If men think different to what many women think, they are wrong. If women think different to what many men think, they are not wrong.We live in a society that tells men if you don't shut up and agree with women or do what women want, we will never get laid or we are not good enough for womenThanks to political correctness that always seems to favour women (the so called second class citizens)In a political correct view, women are never wrong

>@ NickoThe fact that you think it's perfectly fine to call me 'shit titts' when complaining about female chauvinism says more about you than I could ever hope to. @ triplanetaryWhen my current boyfriend and I were first discussing living together, he said he'd probably propose if things were going well after a year or so. I told him right then that I didn't want an engagement ring. It's not even blood diamonds that bug me, it's that I think the concept of an engagement ring encapsulates everything wrong about American consumer culture. I'd much rather have a proposal inscribed in a book of love poetry.

>Straw man is made of straw, Nick. Try again.

>It's not even blood diamonds that bug me, it's that I think the concept of an engagement ring encapsulates everything wrong about American consumer culture.Oh, I agree. It's a wasteful, exorbitant show of wealth. Plus I can't help thinking they're supposed to symbolize bondage (and not in the kinky way).

>nicko81m:Here we have feminists in this very thread telling men that we have to accept the fact that some women think we are too shit to date.Well yes, women do have the right to decide who is and is not up to their standards. Men have that right too. We all have that right! Yay rights!You're just bitter because you feel like women should give you pussy whenever you demand it and they shouldn't have a right to reject you.We grown-up men can deal with the fact that not every woman on the planet wants our mighty cock.I guess these certain women who think I am shit to date are chauvinists too heh No, they're not. And you're not sexist for deciding you don't want to date a particular woman. You're sexist for a lot of reasons, such as for reducing a woman to her tits just because you can't best her in an argument.

>We live in a society that tells men if you don't shut up and agree with women or do what women want, we will never get laid or we are not good enough for women And yet quite a few men–not rich, not alphas, just ordinary guys–manage to get laid and have relationships with women every day. And somehow they seem to do it without sacrificing their personal integrity. How do you suppose they do that, Nick? Are they deluded? Just lucky? What do you think, Nick: how do so many men manage to have successful relationships with women every day? Maybe, just maybe, the problem doesn't lie with women, Nick–or even with the cartoonish perception of feminism that you seem to have. Maybe, just maybe, the problem is with you. Is there any part of your situation for which are willing to accept responsibility? Anything at all? Is there anything wrong with Nick's dating and relationship life, or lack thereof, that can be blamed on something other than feminism?

>Lady Victoria:I certainly agree that they're sexist, but like most things MRAs complain about, they're very much a function of the patriarchy. In a patriarchy, one of the ways rich men show off their wealth is by buying expensive things for their wives.That doesn't mean the pressure to buy expensive-ass engagement rings isn't something men face. Of course it is. In this case it's largely because the tradition of buying expensive-ass engagement rings trickled down into the middle class because the middle class is constantly trying to emulate the upper class.But I mean, seriously, MRAs, you're adults. If you don't want to buy a diamond ring, don't. If your partner doesn't understand, clearly you don't share their values, so it's time to reconsider the relationship. The idea that women are all wallet-sucking harpies who won't give you sex unless you buy them expensive shit is just getting trite.

>Lady:I think the logic regarding the term "mangina" runs thusly:Women are bad.Women have vaginas.Therefore, vaginas are bad.A man with a vagina (or who is a vagina, I'm not sure which it is) is bad because he has (or is) something that a woman has. And that's bad, because, you know, women are bad. QED.It's really hard to take seriously any supposed adult who hasn't matured beyond the "girls are icky and have cooties" stage of development.