Women! Why must you assault men with your evil sexy outfits?
Women totally slutting it up in provocative waist-cinching attire
Apparently, or so I’ve learned from the manosphere, every single thing that women do is designed to torment men. Yesterday, we learned that women with jobs are leeching off of men just as much as women without jobs.
Further proof of female perfidy can be found in a recent post on the popular manosphere blog In Mala Fide with the provocative title Provocative Female Attire is an Assault Against Men. Guest poster Giovanni Dannato lays it out for anyone who needs convincing:
When a woman walks down a crowded sidewalk in revealing clothing, she is forcing herself on every man nearby.
The woman fully understands the powerful biological drives of men. She knows they cannot ignore her, not even if they want to.
Amazingly, the fact that a woman might show some cleavage does not automatically mean that she wants to have sex with every single man who sees her.
She has chosen to advertise herself to everyone passing by, but she is looking only for a few men. The wealthiest, the most famous, the most powerful men she can attract. …
There’s an old elementary school custom…when you bring something tasty to class, it’s understood that you should put it away unless you intend to share it with others. …
Likewise, a woman who puts her goodies blatantly on display is making false advertisements. Nobody supposes or expects that she could share herself with her entire audience—not even if she wanted to.
That’s right. Women are like gum. Or that pizza Spicoli had delivered to him in class in Fast Times at Ridgemont High that the mean Mr. Hand forced him to share with everyone. And if you gum-pizza-ladies are not willing to share yourself with every horny man (and, presumably, lesbian) who happens to notice you in your slut uniform, you are committing a terrible infraction.
Oh, sure, wearing a totally cute outfit is not specifically against the law, but, as Dannato reminds us,
looking for refuge in explicit written law is inherently disingenuous. …
[W]omen exposing themselves without intent to reciprocate the attention they attract is impolite and inconsiderate – an act of aggression in which they use the power of their sex as a weapon.
So how can men defend themselves against such evil feminine perfidy? By yelling “hey, whore! How much?” or “can I squeeze those titties?” or “Can you give me directions to Pussy Avenue?” Because street harassment – sorry, catcalling – is
a defense mechanism used by lower status men against women flaunting themselves publicly – for the benefit of millionaires only.
What else are men supposed to do?
[M]en are effectively strapped down, gagged, and muzzled while females can flaunt and taunt with impunity. For many men this pretty much sums up every single day of an entire lifetime at school and at work.
And women won’t even admit that when they put on a cute outfit and leave the house that they’re doing it to torment men.
Western Women don’t just abuse their incredible sexual power, they pathologically lie about their inability to understand the effects and implications of their actions. In fact, they seem to derive a sort of sociopathic pleasure from being able to sow unpleasantness and discord without consequence – all while playing innocent. They express their contempt and hatred for men even as they troll the populace for providers. Their enormous power comes without responsibility and they love it that way.
And now these evil women have come up with an even-more-dastardly-than-usual way to torment men “[i]n the most vengeful, derisive, and mocking way they know how.” Yep, you guessed it: The SlutWalks. Large groups of women tormenting men with sexy clothes in unison!
Apparently overwhelmed by contemplation of the sheer feminine evil of the SlutWalks, Giovanni ends his post abruptly at this point.
I admit I don’t have the patience to wade through the comments. If any of you do, please post any of your findings below.
EDITED TO ADD: Ironically, Ferdinand Bardamu (the guy behind In Mala Fide) aids and abets the evil sexy-woman assault on men with his own retro porn site Retrotic. NSFW, of course. And if Dannato’s post is to believed, not safe for straight men generally.
NOTE: This post contains sarcasm.
Posted on November 28, 2011, in $MONEY$, alpha males, creepy, evil women, I'm totally being sarcastic, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, oppressed men, reactionary bullshit, sexual harassment, sluts. Bookmark the permalink. 517 Comments.
So to NWO wearing cargo pants and one of my old tee shirts is sexual? Wait. I wear cargo pants and my tee shirts!
I’m very very very confused now. Does NWO want to date me? Or do my shirts magically become sexual when a woman wears them?
“..and all women dress and act sexually virtually all the time.”
Wait. Cargo pants and my tee shirts are sexual now? But *I* wear my tee shirts and cargo pants?
Does NWO want to date me? I’m so very confused.
Gah. Sorry. Browser glitch.
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned before, but does anyone else think NWO is a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
@random6x7
Wouldn’t it be kinda hard for a female in the animal world to mate with a male of the same species if he had a mushy dick?
I’ll be sure ta put this in the book-o-larnin. Feminist research suggests, nature got it wrong. Males in the animal kingdom act sexually and patiently waits for female to rear into their erection. This is all good stuff.
Keep up the fine denial, I’m outta here.
I thought you were going, NWO?
Off to plot the inevitable downfall of Manboobz or some such.
Maybe he thinks we’ll all just die out because we’re not actually flaunting ourselves at him and we need to do this for our genes to survive or something. Then we’ll be sorry!
@NWO
Ah yes, the good ol’ “women don’t care what men look like” screed. Tell that to the guy I’m currently crushing on. I know nothing about him except for that I see him at his workplace often (and it ain’t a high status job either) it’s purely a physical attraction. How dare he exist looking all sexy and not dating me!!!
Also you may not see many Playgirl magazines on the news-stands, but you also haven’t seen the plethora of tumblr accounts dedicated to male actors and the fandoms they are a part of. Post after post of these guys with women commenting about how gorgeous they are. You really don’t have a clue NWO. And you still didn’t answer my question about why men can control themselves around a beach or a pool.
“If a female of any species, can’t excite the male of that species to mate, her genes die. Biology 101.”
Does the Big Book O’ Learnin have a section on Biology yet?
“If a female of any species, can’t excite the male of that species to mate, her genes die. Biology 101.”
Assuming a normal complement of chromosomes in her egg, a female can only pass on half of her genes to any one child. However, a woman need not reproduce herself to increase her biological fitness: kin selection can ensure a woman passes on her genes by promoting the children of her siblings – siblings share a mix of genes from their parents. You fail Biology 101.
okay, okay, since the conversation is drifting into one of my fav topics, pr0n….
this I’ll ask–since allot of Hustler type porno has plenty of buffed out guys with throbbing cocks–does that mean that the supposedly straight men proudly, even if covertly fapping (that’s the trendy term I’ve learned for masturbating in the manosphere) to said porn are secretly harboring bisexual desires?
@NWO
“Wouldn’t it be kinda hard for a female in the animal world to mate with a male of the same species if he had a mushy dick?”
Not all animals require a penis and a vagina. Fish fertilize the egg outside of the female’s body.
NWO: I thought we went over biology 101?
Perhaps I was a bit too long-winded.
No, just wrong.
Poor women! Dressing is their only way to excite a male of their species to mate. THEY HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS! (Because men aren’t attracted to actions. Except actions of trains. Trust me, I’m an engineer, but not the kind that drives trains.)
Nature didn’t get it wrong, dude, you did. Charles fucking Darwin talked about sexual selection, particularly in relationship to birds. Unless you think biology has been corrupted with feminism since 1859…?
Oooh, Xanthe, are you a biologist? What do you think of group selection?
Let me google that for you. Oh wait, yes.
@Stoner
Feminist Critics is alright. I haven’t read that much of it but any blog that attempts to intelligently critique aspects of feminism without falling into the manosphere habit of claiming that all feminism is a massive conspiracy to enslave all men is worth my time to check out at least.
Snowy, that is the second time someone has called me MRAL here, first time i thought it was an IT networking term.
What does this even mean?
The closest I’ve got is “rape is natural because you can’t expect a woman to put herself on your dick.” I’m open to alternate explanations.
Please.
oh and interesting coincidence, I saw a post by MRAL at Feminist Critics here:
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2011/10/29/misandric-music-video-roundup-noh/
Hahahaha VoiP! I didn’t want to mention slash fics, it would probably make his brain explode XD
Sorry random6x7, I’m a mathematician first and foremost, so I’m relatively weaker in the practical sciences, but I can sniff bullshit pretty well, and you’re quite right: Darwin suggested kin selection as an evolutionary strategy back in the Origin of Species in 1859. I’m not well-informed enough to know which side of the group selection controversy has the rights of it! (Say, latter-day advocates of either side such as E.O. Wilson (pro), Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins (anti).)
Thanks, anyway. I should not be lazy and actually read some articles anyway, but it’s for a side point in a paper. I don’t want to waste a lot of time on it, but I’m fond of it.
How fascinating, I wonder why that could be.
Fact for the book o’ larnin':
Humans devolve to lesser animals when they’re horny (and re-evolve when they are finished). This process is accelerated in women because their entire sexuality consists in the visibility of skin.
This one should really be appended to On the Origin of Species, I’m sure Darwin just forgot to put that one in.
I don’t know Snowy, enlighten me….
BTW, his comments on Feminist Critics seemed quite reasonable, even if contrarian to that of the original author’s post….
Also notice that Owly is implying that famous male authors, musicians, poets, scholars, etcetera are all devolved being because they have put so much into their action-sexuality that they cannot possibly go back.
Shh! Nobody tell him about peacocks!
Or seahorses.
Seraph: Or Bower Birds, or Birds of Paradise, or Magpies.
Or sea slugs.
Or 16th century men.
Or Guidos.
It’s funny. I don’t consider women dressing in a sexy manner to be assault. Rather, I consider it to be– what’s the word?–oh yeah, AWESOME. Since I want women to continue dressing sexy, I tend to avoid shaming them for dressing in that manner. Mind, I don’t expect it, since no other person exists solely to gratify my desires, but it certainly is a nice bonus.
Seriously, Slavey, what the fuck is your problem? If you don’t like looking at sexily dressed women, then don’t look at them. Don’t ruin it for the rest of us.
Thanks Captain!
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned before, but does anyone else think NWO is a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
I know I’ve said as much several times. He lacks the reasoning skills to understand how flawed his reasoning is. You can’t really argue with him. It’s like trying to play a game of chess with a guy who keeps throwing the pieces on the board and yelling “Yahtzee!”
He definitely wants to look at them, and also fuck them. But they don’t want to fuck a 50-something milk machine technician. But then again, clearly from the way women dress (showing ankles), they want to have little milk machine-operating babies. What’s with the mixed messages? This is what keeps NWO awake at night.
Remember, Owly pretty much told me I was asking for it when I was propositioned while wearing a shapeless parka and a balaclava. So his definition of “slutty” is “female in public”. He’s just a stone cold old-fashioned misogynist.
At least the conspiracy theories add entertainment value. XD
@captainbathrobe:
NWO’s problem is that he finds women (and girls… -_-) sexy. Obviously there could be nothing wrong with him, so there must be some giant conspiracy against him to play with his hormones. In other words, every woman on earth is always acting sexy all the time in any clothing whatsoever.
Also, going by his use of the word, “fact” is defined as “shit I make up.”
@OP
There… is so much wrong with this guy. Not only is he perpetuating the stereotype of men being slavering beasts hypnotized by their hormones, he’s also making a horrid analogy to nature.
In the animal kingdom, some animals will put themselves on display to try to court other animals, some sort of mating ritual. This guy is essentially saying that when women try to look good, they are performing the mating ritual for humans. I mean, you can see the steps in logic right there: people dress up when they are looking for a date, therefore all women who look nice or sexy walking down the street must be looking for a date. It’s just… a really messed up way of thinking.
First off, sexiness is in the eye of the beholder. Second, people dress up/look good even when they aren’t dating. It’s not like you don’t shower and dress in month-old laundry at all times you aren’t looking for someone. But since these guys don’t think of women as people, all they see is “pretty lady, she must be seducing everyone!”
Bleargh… It’s difficult to figure out where to start when there is so much wrong.
@ captainbathrobe
“I know I’ve said as much several times. He lacks the reasoning skills to understand how flawed his reasoning is. You can’t really argue with him. It’s like trying to play a game of chess with a guy who keeps throwing the pieces on the board and yelling “Yahtzee!””
Yeah, but it’s really fascinating to watch. Especially when he latches on to a new concept and won’t let it go. It’s like someone programmed Cleverbot to troll blogs.
I guess Slavey and Dannato are taking the MRAL position that if they are aroused when they see a woman, it is something she is doing to them, and indeed, by being arousing at them and not having sex with them, she is doing something hostile to them.
This is really the core of all misogyny: just not being able to accept that women exist independently of men’s thoughts and feelings about them. I keep hoping MRAL will eventually talk to some flesh-and-blood women and realize they’re just people with lives, but NWO is probably too far gone.
NWO, no matter how many times you beg me to post the Book, I will do it on my own time, when I deem it necessary.
Yeah, I get that he considers any woman who gives him wood but refuses to sleep with him to be TEASING him. I can’t imagine what it’s like to walk around with that much resentment.
Oi… Can you imagine if NWO eventually decided to pursue what is rightfully his?
“Excuse me, ma’am? Yes, hi, my name is NWO. I saw you walking down the street over there, and as you may be able to tell I now have a boner. As per the law of nature, I must demand that you have sex with me now. Wait… where are you going?”
And thus a creep was born.
Well, Ostropoler, it’s true that PUA would make me a rapist if I followed its dogma ad absurdam, the same way Jabotinsky’s dogma would make me a fascist if I felt it could be implemented without classical liberalism and the recognition that Jabo never governed. You, however, are a fictional character, and a deceased jester. Which of us is the wiser? Probably Tevye.
@Pyena,
Yeah, the whole “zero sum game” fixation was worth a chuckle. By golly, words mean what I want them to mean! If I want to call an apple a “crankshaft,” then that’s just what I’ll do, and it’s your own fault if you don’t understand what I’m saying! Dictionaries are for pansies!
A sad, strange little man, he is.
And thus a creep was born.
Tut tut, Kirby! Such shaming language! Remember, only sluts deserve to be shamed. The hapless victims of their evil boner induction rays are to be pitied, I tell you, pitied!
@captainbathrobe
Oh, and when he takes one thing someone said and blows it out of proportion beyond all logic. I always get a kick out of that!
Well, good night for now.
NWOslave, could you please tell me what led you to the conclusion, “Womens sexuality is her body. Mens sexuality are their actions. Men are atrracted to a womans body. Women are attracted to a mans actions/talent/wealth/power.[sic]“? You have made this assertion several times, but have not provided the steps you took to take it form hypothesis to theory.
Wait… So if men are all about skin and not actions, why does my husband more or less leave me alone when I’m watching tv in my undies, but always want sex when I’m dressed and doing something domestic?
Do I need to get all my female blogging buddies to do Lust Week again just to get NWO to shut up about how women’s sexuality has nothing to do with looking at men, and men’s has nothing to do with being looked at?
If we’re posting lust objects, the tall one in the jeans with the red shirt hanging open here is my personal favorite. I could sit and stare at his chest and stomach all day…
Also, on the idea that men don’t display sexuality by inviting women to look at them, I really should dig up the pics of the same guy when he was wearing leather pants that were so low-rise that you could see a glimpse of pubic hair (on stage). Or the video of him turning his back to the audience, bending over, and smacking his own ass. But no, men don’t try to attract women by displaying their bodies, and women don’t respond to men’s bodies in a sexual way at all.
HOTNESS!
JET LI!
ALEXANDER SKARSGARD!
THE FIFTH DOCTOR!
JACK FUCKING HARKNESSSSSSS!
TAYE DIGGS
-Holly, they know they’re “unmixed whites” because of knowing! KNOWING!
the fifth doctor was replaced by Jack Fucking Harkness because Jack Fucking Harkness said so.
NWO said:
“Women can’t control themselves in the least. From the time they hit puberty thru their entire lives, they dress and act like an animal in heat with the express intention of sexually exciting all men within eyeshot.
Are there young boys around entering puberty who have no understanding of what’s happening? They don’t care. If they did they’d show the slightest bit of restaint and understanding. Worse, they encourage young girls to imitate their behavior as well.
Do they know their actions of teasing and denial is cruel and degrading? Of course. They enjoy taunting men with sex and then calling men animals as they themselves behave like the cruelest of animals.
They enjoy acting like animals while demanding men behave. They seem to be in their glory when they can excite as many men as possible, but woe to any man who dares touch the sacred chalice he’s been taunted and teased with.
Their animalistic actions of teasing, taunting and denial over and over again brings a perverse pleasure. Young boys, socially awkward men, lonely men; It’s like a game of how many sexually frustrated men you can leave in your wake.
With their animalistic behavior they’ll cause every type of sexual dysfunction possible. All the while screaming behave while laughing at the sexual dysfunction they’ve caused. By the boatload they’ll become the majority coucilors and therapists of every kind to council men on their poor behavior; A final insult.
These same women will scold a child for teasing a dog while she commits and encourages all women to commit the vilest act of taunting and degradation. Truely, modern day women treat a dumb beast with far more love, tenderness and compassion they afford to any man.”
*Eyeroll*
Hey, people, he’s frothing at the mouth again. Who’s turn was it bring the valium?
HUMANS!? HUMANS!?
Have you not been listening to the MRAs Zhinxy?
Women ain’t attracted to no stinkin’ humans!
Now THAT’S a FUCK ALPHA.
Aw damn, he can bring me a dead caribou any day.
Holly, we can see that you have knees, therefore clearly you are displaying your animal sexuality. Shame on you, you hussy.
Right now I am wearing jeans and a long sleeved crew-neck sweater (because it is cold). Am I displaying my animal sexuality? I mean, no one else is here, and even if they were the only skin they’d see is my face and my hands. Should I wear gloves and a veil just in case a random dude happens to look in the window?
I am wearing flannel pyjamas. They have long sleeves and button up and are plaid and unisex. I probably am still a slut because they remind of the boudoir.
I’m wearing cords and a T-shirt. I really need to expand my wardrobe. Makeover time?
Also, since I supposed NWO will come back with “power! status! talent!” in response to my particular lust object…I work with musicians all the time. The novelty has long since worn off. Notice that I’m not expressing any desire to pet the abs of anyone else who you can see in that video (not even the lead guitar player – far more high status than a bassist, you know). The rest of those particular alpha males get a “meh” from me, but Mr Perfect Body with the cheeky grin…he could be making my coffee at Starbucks I’d still be happy to sit and look at him all day.
NWO said:
“One question before I go.
Since it is a biological fact. Women dressing and acting sexually is merely devolving down to an animalistic state to signify readiness for mating.
Can women control their sexuality?”
For a start, the majority of women you’ll meet on the street aren’t even thinking about sex. They’re more interested in buying groceries or getting to the bank before it shuts, or buying a really good book.
Second, why the hell, even if they were looking for sex, is that “devolving into an animalistic state”? Sex us a perfectly normal part of being human, as well as being an animal (and what the hell is so bad about animals anyway). It really looks like you not only hate women, you’re not that keen about sex either.
We seem to be able to control our sexuality a lot better than men do, if all it takes is the sight of a pretty woman, attractively dressed to turn them all into drooling zombies or potential rapists. Not that I believe for a moment that a pretty woman, attractively dressed has that effect on men anyway.
I’m wearing sweatpants and a hoodie. But also nailpolish. Such slutty fingers I have!
Weird. I’m wearing a micro-mini skirt and a see-thru top, as usual. I assumed everyone was.
I’m very bad – I often roam around the house naked, which can be inconvenient for sudden clothing kerfluffles when someone knocks at the door! But today I’m just in a fitted T and knickers (and someone else can answer the door, so I’m not going any further than that).
Alpha wolf: Bow chicka bow wow.
David: But are you wearing panties? I suspect not. #NotThatTheresAnythingWrongWithThat
zhinxy said JACK_FUCKING_HARKNESS.
This is redundant, the presence of Jack Harkness already implies fucking :)
Jack who?
Also, my see-through micro-mini is in the wash. Am I only displaying animal sexuality on days when I’ve recently done laundry?
Cassandra, awesome pansexual character in Doctor Who/Torchwood played by the flamboyantly gay John Barrowman. XD
Ah. I’m a bad Brit, don’t like Doctor Who at all. I was never able to get past the fact that everything seemed to be made out of craft paper and old egg cartons during early seasons.
Barrowman is not my type at all (women! they’re not all attracted to the same man, who is either Brad Pitt or Jude Law depending on who you ask!), but I’ve seen him interviewed and he did seem to be rather charming.
I think I’d lean towards Jude Law as being my type, well before either John Barrowman or Brad Pitt, but I’m a Doctor Who tragic and an Aussie, and the cardboard scenery is very much a thing of the past since 2005. Anyway, Jack Harkness is comfortably bisexual/trisexual as far as Homo sapiens is concerned (and equally open-minded when it comes to intelligent extra-terrestrials), which is a bit of a change from the old series and the largely asexual characterisation of people and Time Lords alike.