About these ads

Men Going Their Own Way baffled by lesbians, refuse to believe they exist

Silly lesbian! Girls are icky. Also, you probably don't even exist.

MGTOWers, mostly straight and mostly narrow, don’t really spend a lot of time discussing lesbians. Lesbians, after all, are not only women, but women who like other women — you know, like like. But recently one of the regulars on MGTOWforums.com discovered the concept of “lesbian bed death” – the mythological notion that lesbians in long term relationships barely ever have sex – and, well, a very strange conversation ensued. Shade47 started off the discussion with these, er, observations:

Looks like the super hip lesbos forgot the small fact that in lesbian relations no one ends up paying for sex so it doesn’t happen…

The, “we don’t need men not even for sex.” club isn’t a banging scene these days.

I guess this outcome should have been obvious since you can’t put a hole inside of a hole. I keep trying to picture that and it sends me in a logic loop like a computer tasked with calculating infinity. I just can’t grasp how nothing going into nothing can create the best thing since sliced bread. …

Shade47 is so baffled by lesbians that he refuses to believe that they actually exist:

Do you guys think women are really lesbians or is it just another form of “look at me” attention whoring? I mean they don’t have sex, they don’t reproduce, they don’t achieve financial success like the gay male community does. In fact I’m not sure exactly what lesbians are doing in their relationships. I still don’t believe they are real. In order for two people to come together there must be a very specific purpose and attention whoring is shallow even for women. They usually only shack up for babies and money.

Drauger seconded the notion that lesbians are imaginary:

What do you think would happy [if] you put [two] hateful women in a home together? Bliss? Bitches go fucking shit nuts if some man isn’t giving them attention.

Repeat after me: there is no such thing as a Lesbian, only really confused women. Women are by nature whores that will change their whims depending on the whim, depending on what they perceive society rewarding them for, i.e. whores.

However there are such things as gay men, they are men who have made a defining choice.

Goldenfetus added some conspiracy theory to the mix:

Honestly, I think the entire homosexual scene is about attention – for both men and women. I’m not denying that there are men who are attracted to men and women who are attracted to women, but I do believe the entire ‘gay culture’ was intentionally manufactured to further destroy the birthrate, with the reward for participation being attention and the approval of their elite masters.

Avoidwomen, for his part, not only accepted the existence of lesbianism; he also predicted a big lesbian upswing in the future after more and more men Go Their Own Way:

I expect to see a big increase in lesbianism as more and more men avoid women. We know that women are far more social than men and they really hate being alone, even having cats is considered companionship. As for sex, it’s possible one lesbian couple is a dyke with high T(for a woman) so she pressures the more feminine lesbian for sex and the dyke may actually be paying for sex.

Then he returned to his favorite hobbyhorses: sexbots and “virtual reality” girls:

It will be very interesting to see how much sex men have vs. how much sex women have with their virtual reality computer generated men and women in the year 2020. I bet most men get laid everyday while women try it a few times and not bother with sex anymore when she realizes there’s no money in it. Women will use VR men for his virtual money while men will be with virtual women for virtual sex.

The Great One imagined a slightly different result:

I think that instead of a rise in lesbianism we will see a rise in bisexuality among females.

When females can’t find a man, they will settle for another female (or several pets). ..  These female on female relationships will fall to the side when an available man offers a long term relationship.

Several pets? Hmm. If this guy is right, the future may bring severe cat shortages, sending the price of cats through the roof!

I’m putting all my money in cat futures right now.

Stay tuned for more on MGTOWers and lesbians. It gets even weirder.

About these ads

Posted on October 21, 2011, in $MONEY$, homophobia, idiocy, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, sexy robot ladies, vaginas. Bookmark the permalink. 559 Comments.

  1. @Eneya: yeah NWO wrote it back to me a lil while back i don’t have the quotes thing down yet ha. I said that I would venture to guess that pre-feminism males still had higher suicide rates but I don’t know for sure and he said suicide was practically non existent pre-feminism and that if anyone who really cared would therefore want to eradicate feminism

  2. Eneya, yes, that would be NWO. Good luck trying to get him to read a history book, one written after 1950 anyway.

    I think at this point he likes embarrassing himself, because otherwise I don’t know why he’d keep coming back. Getting your ass handed to you daily would get old for most people.

  3. Ethics does not equal aesthetics (unless one is trying to make a case for ethical expressionism, not actually an overly common ethical theory in practice). “X is disgusting to me” does not tell you much about the ethics of X. For example, I find eating mayonaise disgusting, and do not particularly like watching people eat it or thinking about eating it. However, I do not think other people are doing something ethically wrong when they enjoy their mayo. That is because I do not confuse aesthetic judgements with ethical ones.

    Ethics is not an opinion, it is a fact. There isn’t a heckler’s veto on whether something is ethical or not. As a rule utilitarian, yes, I most certainly do think you can collect empirical data to guide you in your determinations on ethical questions. You actually need to show that a thing causes harm to prove it is bad. Good things are things which, as a general rule, bring pleasure. Bad things are things which, as a general rule, bring suffering. You weigh the pleasure against the suffering and pick the best results. Asinine sex/gender/sexuality binaries cause massive harm, and minimal at best good. The ways these systems are enforced also encourages massive harms and not much good in general.

    I can’t think of a single theory of moral realism that fits your statements, Simon. Natural law (often bundled up with a Divine Command Theory)? Nope. Kantian ethics? Nope. Platonic ethics? Nope. Egoism? Nope.

    Your statements also make no sense from most moral antirealism positions.

    Are you then a subjectivist about ethics? Do you think right and wrong is determined by majority vote? If so, is it the global majority? Local majority? Majority of stake holders? If we can get half the population to say something is okay, then does it suddenly become okay? How permissible is moving for any social or cultural change?

    Sidenote on simplicity, occam’s razor only applies to the simplest theory which adequately and fully explains all available data (and is a position on rational belief more than on “truth” per se, but I don’t think you are up to more epistomology at the moment). Mere simplicity is not a sign of correctness. Plato’s physics are simpler in many ways than Newtons, and Newtons are simpler than Eisteins. Yet Einstein was more correct than Newton, who was more correct than Plato.

  4. @darksidecat: *applauds*

    Bets on Simon’s only response being “it’s ONLY my OPINION” (with subtext of “why are you so mean to me”)

  5. @CassandraSays

    It’s more a case of working myself up into being a dom, because apparently that’s the only game in town. Of course, Hollywood club kids are Hollywood club kids, but the infiltration that’s taking place here is of club culture into preppy culture, not the other way around.

  6. @Viscaria:

    Do you see how your personal feelings about your family (the second quote) don’t justify the much grander factual claim you’re making in the first quote?

    ok, yes.

    As far as your feelings about your own sexual urges… I’m very sorry to see that you’ve had such a negative experience with them. But obviously neither I nor anybody else can tell you how to feel about your own body and thoughts. Just know that what you’re describing seems very typical, healthy, and harmless; and unless you’ve acted on some urge without the consent of your adult partner you haven’t done anything wrong.

    No, I’ve never done such a thing. It’s nice that you think it’s normal, though when I read Broseidon’s comment “but after an honest self-assessment I realized it was mostly because of how she looked.” I instantly think “ah, there you have it again: sexual desire is essentially manipulative and so insistent that it clouds your reasoning!” and though it sounds very offensive there may be even a feeling like “well… another not-yet-a-rapist” somewhere in my mind.

    If you look how manipulation permeates the whole search for sex and sometimes the whole arsenal of tactics is used to get it, I can’t help but think that this “consent – no consent” distinction is just wishful thinking (also perfectly fits in my “desire for simplicity” theory).

    I’m really, really happy that I never felt such a strong attraction over a longer period of time, that I started to actively pursue it, my sexual attraction is luckily more like short spikes. I’m also very happy, that I don’t have fantasies where violence plays a role (sorry, Shora, I don’t want to judge you).

    @Shora:

    I agree that Simon should seek help, but nothing about his actual sexual desires are at all frightening, and pathologizing them can only make it worse. I think learning to accept and work with his sexual desires is way healthier than just outright killing them.

    It’s nice that you say that I already felt bad about the “frightening” word.

  7. @ithiliana:

    @darksidecat: *applauds*

    Bets on Simon’s only response being “it’s ONLY my OPINION” (with subtext of “why are you so mean to me”)

    No, I’m not going to reply to that at all! But I read it carefully. ;-) As you said it’s probably better not to write here anymore, and this is one of my last posts.

  8. Simon, having an attraction to someone that is primarily sexual and pursuing casual sex in a respectful, non manipulative and consenting way are not mutually exclusive. I see nothing wrong with broseidon wanting to have sex with that girl, as long as he always keeps in mind that she is a human being deserving of respect and acts accordingly.

    For example, there is a guy who I am attracted to, but am not interested in anything more than a sexual relationship, and I suspect the feeling is mutual. We get along well and enjoy each others company when we get together (both sexually and non sexually) but we don’t really have enough in common to truly be friends, let along be involved romantically. No one is getting manipulated, though, and everyone involved is happy.

    It’s nice that you say that I already felt bad about the “frightening” word.

    I sense sarcasm, but I don’t really know what you are getting at? I didn’t say you felt bad about anything. I said that your desires are not frightening (they’re not), and I urged Raincitygirl not to treat them as such (“pathologizing”) for fear of feeding into an already unhealthy view of your own sexuality, which you have already expressed quite emphatically.

  9. “No, I’m not going to reply to that at all! But I read it carefully. ;-) As you said it’s probably better not to write here anymore, and this is one of my last posts.”

    Bet 5 monopoly dollars he’s not going to stick it.

  10. I said this is one of my last posts, not my last post, redlocker, and this is not a flounce out of anger, I just prepare you that I’m leaving. ;-)

    @Shora:

    I sense sarcasm, but I don’t really know what you are getting at? I didn’t say you felt bad about anything. I said that your desires are not frightening (they’re not), and I urged Raincitygirl not to treat them as such (“pathologizing”) for fear of feeding into an already unhealthy view of your own sexuality, which you have already expressed quite emphatically.

    No, that was totally honest, I really thought, that the way I described it was frightening for her, there was no sarcasm here. And yes it was nice that you did explain it.

  11. Oh, okay then! I misunderstood. And you are very welcome :)

    I do mean it, there’s nothing wrong with sex, or your desires, or you. I being very sincere when I say that I hope you will learn to accept yourself and not be afraid your sexuality.

  12. @MollyRen “Once again, Raoul makes the common mistake that *all* women are sex workers.”

    I don’t draw any gender line here, Molly. My theory (which is mine) is that in late-stage capitalism, people are basically socialized by market forces. So *everybody* has to play the game. If you don’t, you’re going to be left trying to socialize with loseriffic creepazoids, or the fraction of one percent of sane, self-determined, nice folks out there.

    This <1% is much easier to find on the intertoobs than in real life. At any given time, its members appear mostly unavailable, because they are isolated from one another by the creepazoids one naturally gets thrown in with once one opts out of the market-socialized culture.

    If I'm making any gender assumptions here, let me know how and where, 'k? Thanks.

  13. @Raoul: I know that examples aren’t proofs, but most of the people I closely know are not playing “the game”. They’re definitely nice, hard to say if they’re sane, and I’m not sure anybody is 100% self determined, so maybe they (and I) are loseriffic creepazoids (I don’t know what that is, but that sound awesome. Or terrifying, I’m not sure which)
    Maybe the USA (in which I don’t live) is a completely different place, but I hardly think your theory is holding to reality.

    For the gender assumptions, what exactly are the rules of your game? Because something along the line of “women make men do whatever they want/pay for everything in order to get access to their vagina” wouldn’t really be gender neutral.

  14. Simply put, conformity trumps most things, for most people, most of the time.

  15. Raoul, you appear to be getting your information from the Encyclopedia of Raoul’s Ass. There is no support for what you say.

  16. @ithiliana:

    If you can tell me that this whole exchange makes you feel good, well, then, that’s different.

    But I doubt it does. Oh no, It doesn’t make me feel bad, I was only angry about katz’s comments.

    And again, you are so completely wrong about how the past was “simple”: that’s ONE current and very ideologically driven oppressive ideology that exists today (NOT subscribed to by historians–I live with a medievalist, by the way!) that pretty much comes to: “wow, life was so simple before the uppity women and the uppity people of color and the poor and working class white men demanded human rights that elite white men thought were only granted to them.”

    What actual place and time do you see as the SIMPLE utopia of human life, btw? You’ve been very vague about that.

    Medievalist sounds funny ;-) but yes, let’s take the life in the middle ages in Europe. It certainly wasn’t simple in the sense that it was not easy (because I don’t deny, that technical progress made our lives more comfortable and safe from certain dangers) but the world view of humans was very uncomplex and strictly ordered and that made it much easier for the majority to live:

    The world was created by God, maybe a few thousand years ago, and he was on top of the great chain of being. The intentions of the Creator could easily be inferred by looking at purpose you could see in nature. The church was founded by Jesus Christ himself, the monarchs were ruling by divine right. The world was very small, nobody knew that we live in a galaxy with billions of other suns. An intelligent human could acquire all the knowledge of his time (at least in it’s basics). People believed in dualism, there was the immortal soul put in the body and it was equipped with reason and moral sense by the Creator.

    Yes, there are still many people who believe a good deal of that, but let’s be real, we have to admit, that all this has been thoroughly debunked. And the new world view isn’t that nice anymore, and I don’t mean loosing your religious faith, no, the very basic stuff, for example today you don’t even know who you are! Really, you don’t know it, if you ever read about the extremely counterintuitive results of the split brain experiments, even the simple idea of a ‘single person’ is now under considerable suspicion.

    Add to that, that there was not an array of vague global unsolved problems, like the environment, demographics or a global economy which is dependent on fossil fuels. A series of bad harvests or a plague were no doubt absolutely horrible, but they were a) much more concrete and b) just blows of fate. Today’s problems have the very nasty feature that we don’t even know if they are real (and if we should act now instantly) or if they are just imaginary… there’s always room fort doubt!

    Look at the history Nauru, that’s probably the best example for this phenomenon. The single odd Nauruan who constantly felt this nagging feeling “maybe our phosphate will run out someday and then we’re finished” was the reasonable here!

  17. And once again:
    @ithiliana:

    If you can tell me that this whole exchange makes you feel good, well, then, that’s different.

    But I doubt it does.

    Oh no, It doesn’t make me feel bad, I was only angry about katz’s comments.

    And again, you are so completely wrong about how the past was “simple”: that’s ONE current and very ideologically driven oppressive ideology that exists today (NOT subscribed to by historians–I live with a medievalist, by the way!) that pretty much comes to: “wow, life was so simple before the uppity women and the uppity people of color and the poor and working class white men demanded human rights that elite white men thought were only granted to them.”

    What actual place and time do you see as the SIMPLE utopia of human life, btw? You’ve been very vague about that.

    Medievalist sounds funny ;-) but yes, let’s take the life in the middle ages in Europe. It certainly wasn’t simple in the sense that it was not easy (because I don’t deny, that technical progress made our lives more comfortable and safe from certain dangers) but the world view of humans was very uncomplex and strictly ordered and that made it much easier for the majority to live:

    The world was created by God, maybe a few thousand years ago, and he was on top of the great chain of being. The intentions of the Creator could easily be inferred by looking at purpose you could see in nature. The church was founded by Jesus Christ himself, the monarchs were ruling by divine right. The world was very small, nobody knew that we live in a galaxy with billions of other suns. An intelligent human could acquire all the knowledge of his time (at least in it’s basics). People believed in dualism, there was the immortal soul put in the body and it was equipped with reason and moral sense by the Creator.

    Yes, there are still many people who believe a good deal of that, but let’s be real, we have to admit, that all this has been thoroughly debunked. And the new world view isn’t that nice anymore, and I don’t mean loosing your religious faith, no, the very basic stuff, for example today you don’t even know who you are! Really, you don’t know it, if you ever read about the extremely counterintuitive results of the split brain experiments, even the simple idea of a ‘single person’ is now under considerable suspicion.

    Add to that, that there was not an array of vague global unsolved problems, like the environment, demographics or a global economy which is dependent on fossil fuels. A series of bad harvests or a plague were no doubt absolutely horrible, but they were a) much more concrete and b) just blows of fate. Today’s problems have the very nasty feature that we don’t even know if they are real (and if we should act now instantly) or if they are just imaginary… there’s always room fort doubt!

    Look at the history Nauru, that’s probably the best example for this phenomenon. The single odd Nauruan who constantly felt this nagging feeling “maybe our phosphate will run out someday and then we’re finished” was the reasonable here!

  18. Sigh, is it possible to ban from the internet the people who don’t know the difference between “loose” and “lose” – I can (kind of) forgive the their, they’re, there, and to, too, two, because those words at least *sound* the same, but what is it with loose and lose?

  19. “If you look how manipulation permeates the whole search for sex and sometimes the whole arsenal of tactics is used to get it, I can’t help but think that this ‘consent – no consent’ distinction is just wishful thinking (also perfectly fits in my ‘desire for simplicity’ theory).”

    So… what are you saying here, exactly? Consent is a pipe dream that people only want because they want life to be simple? o.O

  20. “So… what are you saying here, exactly? Consent is a pipe dream that people only want because they want life to be simple? o.O”

    Creeeeeeeeeeeepy.

  21. “This <1% is much easier to find on the intertoobs than in real life. At any given time, its members appear mostly unavailable, because they are isolated from one another by the creepazoids one naturally gets thrown in with once one opts out of the market-socialized culture."

    …you might want to get off the Internet and find a nice group that shares one of your hobbies? Knitting? Mountain biking? WoW even?

  22. Simon, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. The world isn’t as simple as it was when we had no idea how it worked? I guess so, but then what?
    Our problem are not really bigger than they used to be, it’s just that we understand them better which give us more responsibility to solve them.

    Would be prefer to be treated like a child? If so, any sect will be pleased to take your money and liberty in exchange of the assurance that they know exactly what’s going on and what to do to solve the world problems.

    Life is easier when you believe that the earth is flat and standing still, that the star are only dots painted on the sky, that the weather is controlled by god(s), that bad things only happen to sinful people, that everyone is straight (or gay, at worst),…
    However, basing your decisions on false data will surely lead you to bad decisions that will hurt yourself or other. If you continue to ignore reality, you’ll sleep easily but will also continue to make bad decisions. Don’t fool, yourself, the world is complex and having your eyes closed won’t make it any simpler.

  23. @Raoul: Simply put, conformity trumps most things, for most people, most of the time.

    Wow, I can mostly agree with this: human beings like other primates are social in nature, and we need approval of our group/a group.

    But, contrary to what you think, I think that in the industrialized nations (keeping in mind we’re MINORITY of the world population), technology a la the internet allows much more opportunty for socializing with others (and I don’t ONLY mean romantic/sexual relationships) than was the case before.

    That is: I grew up in small town Idaho as a geek and a GIRL and a queer who didn’t know it, and I was isolated liek whoa with no other options.

    Now I’m in rural Texas as still all of those things, and I have a great online social life with people who are not (for example) evangelical Christians (I’m an animistic pagan), and now all foaming phobic like NWO, and into sff (even here on manboobz sff rocks), and it’s not about game. It’s about finding a community or two of people in which I can feel “normal.”

  24. p.s also, that desire to conform has not ‘evolved’ or come about with post-capitalism–it’s been there all along.

  25. @Simon: but the world view of humans was very uncomplex and strictly ordered and that made it much easier for the majority to live

    ahahahahahahahah. No. I live with a medievalist historian.

    The “Middle Ages”(in Europe — there were medieval periods in China and India–i.e. all the other world civilizations) lasted about 1500 years, involved major social changes, and major religious changes and there is no fucking way that anybody who actually KNOWS anything about that incredibly complex period (which is rarely taught because, everybody wants to dismiss it as the Dark Ages in which nothing happened and them BAM THE RENAISSANCE blossomed) thinks it was “uncomplex and strictly ordered” and “easier for the majority” (WHO WERE PEASANTS) to live.

    Just, no.

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You are wrong. And I saw some mention of the “Great Chain of Being” but dude–remember that a good 95% of the population did not read or write, and there is NO FUCKING way to know what they thought of this “theory.” My partner studies social history, i.e. the peasants, not the elites.

    NOT simple in the way you’re talking here. Just looking at all the complex of theories and issues around the Black Death and its causes and the results (major shift in labor relations) could tell you that. I cannot prove this to you beyond saying take a bunch of GOOD history classes, but 18 years living with a medievalist has taught me something.

  26. @Simon: oops, should have read more.

    But simply put: you are engaging in presentism. You compare what you think of the world today, compare it to what you THINK of the middle ages, and make this incredible simplistic, naive, egotistical (OOOO our problems are MUCH more complex and so are we) claim.

  27. @Simon: read this very basic info:

    http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/European_History/The_Crises_of_the_Middle_Ages

    then tell me if you really think it was all that simple.

    There are reasons why so much of the rhetorical discourses around the Early Modern witch burnings (NOT medieval), McCarthyism in 1950s US, and the AIDS panic in the US are similar: human beings when faced with scary stuff love the “simplistic” choice of blaming it all on cultural minorities and burning them (or some equivalent) to make life simple again.

    The only thing is, of course, the simplistic dickbiscuits are always wrong, and it’s never simple or pleasant for the targeted populations.

  28. ithiliana: I guess Simon thinks there weren’t any gay people in the middle ages. Or any economic disasters. Or wars. Or any religion besides Christianity…

  29. @Molly Ren: I’m sure he thinks exactly that!

    My partner just got through the regular ‘debunking’ of the Crusades (meaning, gee, they weren’t all glorious chivalrous knights who WON) in her medieval history course.

    It’s always funtimes!

    The majority of men in the class sit around pouting.

  30. I remember reading in a children’s history book about sieges how they’d put rotting cows in catapults and then chuck them over the walls of the town. Imagining being stuck in a city while rotting meat was rained down on you (before reliable ways to clean water or remove waste) kinda ruined the romance of the Middle Ages for me. :P

  31. Molly Ren: Me medieval history prof once said something like “I’m sure all of you have sometimes thought how wonderful it would be to live back then, how romantic.” I almost sprained something, I was laughing so hard. Yeah, dying of the plague is soooo romantic.

  32. @Molly Ren and Kathleen B: the romanticizing of the “Middle Ages” began in the 19th century and is still going strong (SCA, anyone!). And I’m all for a good fantasy, but yeah, the material realities of the time are nothing to yearn for. And it was all so simple and lovely, why did so many social changes which led to the Early Modern changes occur during the high Middle Ages?

  33. Charles Darwin was asked along on the Beagle because the captain was afraid he would do as his uncle had done, and blow his brains out.

    Some years later, he did.

    I guess there was a lot of Early Victorian Feminism, just ruining the world already.

  34. Medievalist sounds funny ;-) but yes, let’s take the life in the middle ages in Europe. It certainly wasn’t simple in the sense that it was not easy (because I don’t deny, that technical progress made our lives more comfortable and safe from certain dangers) but the world view of humans was very uncomplex and strictly ordered and that made it much easier for the majority to live

    No.

    Just No.

    For just one example, in one small part of the world let me recommend the book, “Montaillou, The promised land of error” about the ways in which Catharism (after its “extirpation” in the Albegensian Crusade”) affected live in the Languedoc region of the border between France and Spain.

    People are complicated. Their lives are complicated. We just don’t see the complications they had, because we are los in ours. It’s the same thing with every generation thinking they invented sex/music, etc.

    The “middle ages” saw some of the most advances in technology, political theory, and understanding of the practical physics of the world we have ever seen.

    It was far from “simple” and people’s lives were at least as complex as they are now (moreso in some ways, doing business required being able manage different currencies, units of measure and barter. one had to trade at one market for things which would be useful at the next market, and do that for each market from home, and back again).

    I comment “The Letters of Balthasar and Magdalena”, or, “The Paston Letters (both of which are late medieval collections) for the ways in which the lives of the middle classes were complex.

  35. Charles Darwin was asked along on the Beagle because the captain was afraid he would do as his uncle had done, and blow his brains out.

    Some years later, he did.

    Weren’t ship captain’s not allowed to socialize with their crews, too? I’d heard that Darwin was invited along in part because he’d be basically the only person the captain was permitted to talk to for several years. Pretty sure feminists didn’t make up those weird crazy-making nautical rules, either. :p

    (Mostly I just wish Darwin had read that fucking German bible he brought. Darwin, LEARN GERMAN. There is a dude named Mendel. Learn to read his shit! IT IS COOL. XD)

  36. (Mostly I just wish Darwin had read that fucking German bible he brought. Darwin, LEARN GERMAN. There is a dude named Mendel. Learn to read his shit! IT IS COOL. XD)

    It’s not Darwin’s fault. Nobody read Mendel’s work until decades after Darwin had published Origin of the Species. Think of all the poor teams of scientists who struggled to figure out the mechanism of natural selection as described by Darwin, finally came up with a workable theory of genetics, and then, oops, turns out this monk did it like 80 years ago. Sorry, de Vries, sorry, Correns, you’re out of the history books.

    And personally I prefer a “complex” society to one where I’d be stuck at the bottom of the human pecking order for life because God said so. Not that strictly hierarchal societies are really simple anyway. I just read Eco’s The Name of the Rose, which goes into a lot of real-life medieval politics in detail, and damn, that stuff was crazy complicated. The character who anachronistically argues for democracy and equality makes it sound a whole lot more straightforward than the existing system.

  37. @Shora:

    Oh, okay then! I misunderstood. And you are very welcome :)

    Thanks, but I’m really leaving, it’s because you all write very fast and since next week I won’t have the time to post here for a while.

    I do mean it, there’s nothing wrong with sex, or your desires, or you. I being very sincere when I say that I hope you will learn to accept yourself and not be afraid your sexuality.

    Thank you! I guess I’m one step further that I at least now want to be able to accept it.
    I’m urged not to tell something about my family but one more time: everything which my parents ever said about sex was bad (though they weren’t especially religious), very bad, my mother made bitter jokes about the horniness of men all the time. I remember someday I read something about the castration of sex offenders and that was horrible for me, because I really (believe me) thought “… and that’s the same stuff your *** pump into your veins, too.”. Yes, it was that bad. But I’m quiet now before I become too depressing for the others here.

  38. Simon, I’m sad but not surprised your parents were like that. I suspected as much reading your posts. It’s hard, but possible to over come that kind of early conditioning. I hope you succeed

  39. It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see

    Sorry, needle got stuck there for a second. I’ll be better about cleaning the LPs from now on, promise.

  40. Simon, all of my crushes have been “wow, that person is really smart and intelligent” proceeded with “oh, wow… I feel attracted towards this person”. OK, I am not everyone, so it’s just my experience. But one can have sexual relatiobships with people and the sexual is not a veil which blindes us or makes us do things because of the sexual solely.
    Yes, there are people who enjoy sex for the sake of sex.
    There are also people who like adrenalin as well… so… different people and nothing more.

    I still think it will be best to speak with someone… a sexologist or someone else, in your own language, because at least it will clear some stuff out for you and locate some issues.
    How about it?

    Also… the only way the world could have been simpler in the past if people were… well… simpler. There are no huge spikes in intelligence or brain matter or anything like that indicating brains getting more complicated, thusw e getting more complicated, so that idea fails miserably.
    Hell, 2, 000 years ago people lived as complex lives as today. You can check so many examples, books/texts/art…
    Life has not been any more simple in the past. That’s just romantising it.
    I now think with love for my childhood how much easier it was.but I also have journals of mine from that time… and it actually wasn’t easier… it still was complicated but my memory has glossed over the details.

    Example.

  41. @Simon: “The Great Chain of being” my medievalist friend tells me was EARLY MODERN concept; the medieval concept of the relationship between parts of society was more that of the body: i.e. the ruling class the head, the peasants the feet, etc. (VASTLY oversimplified). More organic, less herarchial–all parts necessary.

    GCOB NOT medieval, OK?

    p.s. Early Modern is term most historians today use for what used to be called “Renaissance” fyi.

  42. Honestly could not stop laughing at this article. Comedy gold right here.

  43. Is anyone else intensely jealous of the outfits worn by ladies on the covers of pulps? They always look so polished. And their hair! How do they do it?

  44. I love the pulp artwork.

    And their hair! How do they do it?

    Artists!

  45. Also wigs probably! In some cases.

  46. @darksidecat:

    Your statements also make no sense from most moral antirealism positions.

    And from which one makes it sense? Because I think I am at least a moral antirealist.
    Are you male or female, by the way? You are mostly addressed as male, but not always…

  47. “Are you male or female, by the way? ”
    That’s a question we often ask, although it is a very personal one. (What do your genitals look like? Do you have boobs?)
    I’m struggling to find how it is a relevant one in a debate over moral.

  48. @Simon: More advice. Don’t ask people on the internet personal questions.

    And especially when it has no particular relevance to the discussion at hand.

  49. Bagelsan: The captain could talk with his crew, but there was no way to be at all casual with them. Since he (and I am forgetting his name) thought that level of isolation was what drove his relative to suicide he advertised for a person who was interested in nature to come along (no expenses paid) as a companion/naturalist.

    And reading German wouldn’t have helped. Mendel’s work was unknown. If there had been anyone who did know, it would have gotten back to Darwin. He maintained a vast, and vigorous, correspondence, which is why Wallace sent him the abtract of his theory, which Darwin was shocked by (in that it was so close to his own) and gracious enough to co-publish with him, when he had every possibility to just rush a paper out and claim it for himself.

    He was a splendid person, so far as I can tell from my reading.

  50. I think the Captain’s name was Fitzroy, and he went on to govern New Zealand.

  51. Okay, Darwin’s off the hook; I will proceed to scold Mendel. :D

  52. @Kyrie:

    “Are you male or female, by the way? ”
    That’s a question we often ask, although it is a very personal one. (What do your genitals look like? Do you have boobs?)
    I’m struggling to find how it is a relevant one in a debate over moral.

    I just wanted to know it, so that I use the right pronouns. I think darksidecat is female and I’ll address her now that way.

  53. And from which one makes it sense? Because I think I am at least a moral antirealist.

    Then you have been doing it wrong. If you are implying something is good or morally better than something else, or the reverse, you aren’t properly applying a moral anti-realist position. It is a pretty common trap for those who claim to be moral anti-realists. Consider, for example, your arguments regarding simplicity. Is ethical simplicity good? If so, why and how? Is someone wanted to sexually abuse your sister bad? If so, why and how?

    I was assuming, given your positions about social majority opinions, that you might be some sort of cultural relativist, which is a moral realist position in a way (for example, if what is good is what the majority thinks is good, that implies that morality is a real thing, it is just a relational issue, like “hot” or “near by”)., but is sometimes not grouped as such in certain quarters.

    On the sidenote about my gender, I am genderqueer and do not identify as either a man or a woman. My preferred pronouns are gender neutral ones, ze and hir (as a replacement for “he and him” or “she and her) or the singular “they”.

  54. Edit to clarify, cultural relativism regarding ethics is a subjectivist ethical realism, whereas things like utilitarianism are an objective ethical realism. I.e. the things which are considered factors in the former vary between groups but the things which are considered factors do not vary between groups in the latter.

  55. I made Simon angry! What’s my prize?

  56. I made him sad! I think I win this round.

  57. If he sticks the landing, I think we all win.

  58. Marie Curie, Jr. - the big ol' lesbo

    Simon: Sorry, but why should I be a misogynist?

    (I forget, sorry:) Good question. I can’t think of a single reason, dude. And yet you are one. Probably because you’re very stupid and easily led.

    Simon: “Very stupid and easily led” ==(sufficient reason to assume you are a)==> MISOGYNIST

    That’s what she meant in this context, don’t try to wiggle free by saying it was just meant as “cause and effect”.

    ……………………..
    Me:
    LOL – Simon, try it again. Misogynist ==(sufficient reason to assume you are)==>”Very stupid and easily led”

    You have it exactly backward. Basic logic here, Simon.

    Look, I have had it up to here with the idiocy of way too many people on & off this thread. Although, unfortunately, I am alone tonight, I am going to protest by masturbating while thinking about making out & having sweet, sweet [lesbian] sexytimes. [somewhat too specific reference readacted by DF]

    I also encourage all the women on here to masturbate while thinking about sweet, sweet, lesbian sexytimes and/or actually have sweet, sweet, lesbian sexytimes.

    It is, after all, the only logical response.

  59. Straight Man Says

    i am a straight man that had been married at one time myself, and it is very hard meeting another good woman for me today since they are so very nasty now. and there are certainly more LESBIANS than we ever had before hurting us innocent men. low life loser women now certainly exist, and there were much more good woman years ago that were very committed to their men as well. whatever happened today is beyond me. even the straight women that i have noticed are so difficult to start a normal conversation with, so you can clearly see what i mean by so many LOSER WOMEN TODAY.

  60. Pro tip: Helps if you start the conversation within earshot, LateManSays, rather than after all the women have left the building.

  61. women that are into other women would be an excellent reason why it is very hard for us straight guys meeting a good normal woman today. Gee, that is it.

  62. Wow, did you hurt yourself coming up with that brilliant nugget of a thought?

  63. Okay, assuming that the troll is okay with the idea that people don’t choose their sexuality…

    What he’s saying is that it’s a shame we don’t force lesbians into loveless, unhappy marriages. Because it’s more convenient for men that way, you see.

    That seems to be the most straightforward reading of his hateful little bigotry there.

  64. Whoops, forgot the tag. I mean that with /sarcasm LOTS and LOTS of SARCASM

  65. It always amuses me when MRAs and PUAs talk about being normal as if it’s some kind of distinction in their favor.

  66. normal women?, where are they today?

  67. I akin to a new clip as Tmz tila tequila sex tapes a area.

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 9,448 other followers

%d bloggers like this: