Men’s Rights Redditor: “The cougar phenomenon is perverse. Yet we criminalize sex with fertile women who haven’t passed some arbitrary age limit.”

Fresh from the Men’s Rights subreddit,  some thoughts from some dude called atiwywr on cougars, age of consent laws, and Justin Beiber.

So “cougars” are perverse, but pedophilia – sorry, ephebophilia — is natural and good?

The age of consent in most American states is 16.

Complaining that men can’t legally have sex with girls – sorry, “fertile women” – aged 15 and younger: Men’s Rights activism at its finest!

About these ads

Posted on July 25, 2012, in I'm totally being sarcastic, irony alert, men who should not ever be with women ever, MRA, oppressed men, pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles, reddit, sex. Bookmark the permalink. 359 Comments.

  1. @Cassandra

    My computer folders are pretty organized, but I shove all the hot guys into one, I will organize it soon…and before MRAs yell at me for being a hypocrite, I don’t care if men collect pictures of hot women. There’s a difference between keeping it to yourself and seeing sexualized women everywhere in the media.

    @Dracula

    Yeah that’s true, I popped in at the wrong time :P
    His whole spiel reminds me of this http://xkcd.com/610/

  2. Actually, women are programmed to find men with good genes. The unwritten rules of the mating game predate the invention of money, property, and civilization. You should watch The Red Shoe Diaries sometime.

    What an empty answer; you could literally take anything and claim that this proves your point.

    btw, you do realize that your mechanistic view doesn’t actually require biological determinism, right? I mean fuck, you’re laying out social rules as a form of control, which isn’t inaccurate, but how do you not get that it affects people’s desires far more than genes do? XD

  3. The other thing wrong with Nomless’ “it’s about good genes” argument is that “good” in a genetic context is pretty straightforward, “does it kill the organism before reproduction”? If doesn’t, it’s neutral, and neutral is about as good as it gets.

    I will, again,use an example from some evolutionary biologists (I know it a radical idea, citing people who work in a field, but sometimes you just have to do something unusual). Down in Galapagos there has been an almost 40 year study of every finch on Daphne Major.

    One of them, in the 80s, was really good at getting mate. The female finches all thought he had good genes. They were wrong. For whatever reason none of his offspring ever managed to get a mate of their own before they died.

    If there is a “rule” I can see about, “genes” it’s that, inside a species, variety is the name of the game, because what will work isn’t obvious to the genes (they have no mental abilities at all), and the individual has no way to know what’s going to happen as a result of mating with “x” person.

    So “good genes” is a null concept, in terms of what drives attraction, because it’s not obvious what they are until long after the mating has happened. My grandparents (all four of them) had good genes. Their kids have had lots of kids (I’m the eldest of seven; with a total gap of 31 years from me to my youngest sibling. My dad’s siblings have kids; he’s one of nine; spanning 53 years. My mother is the younger of three [one of whom died from TB, at the age of 3], her surviving brother had four kids, over a span of six years. Three of them have kids).

    That’s good genes, by the only measure which; from a biological standpoint matters.

    Type II diabetes, genetically neutral; from an evolutionary standpoint, because it doesn’t kill you before you breed. Same for most cancers, and coronary problems, arthritis, Alzheimer’s, etc.

    All the arguments about “people are attracted to ‘x,y, and z’ are stories, made to justify cultural ideas. They aren’t proven science.

  4. Yeah, nudity is not a great look for men. Notice the men in the video aren’t naked. In fact, notice those guys look like they have careers. Notice the dad-like quality of the pilot. And I’m turned on by the firefighter who saved the baby. Generally speaking, we women want our men to be protectors and providers. Fleggaard also has a commercial with sexy women. They’re all topless, and one ends up naked. Men and women obviously aren’t looking for the exact same qualities in a mate.

  5. Alcoholism in men was greater right before Prohibition than it is now. As for the male suicide rate, single men are more likely than married men to kill themselves. So what are we going to do, outlaw divorce? Would we want to go back to a time when people were stuck in bad marriages? And I’m not giving up gender equality because some men kill themselves.

  6. Ruby, you really are dumb. You don’t like to look at naked men, other women (and men!) enjoy to look at naked men, and your conclusion is that men don’t look good naked? Same thing for money. You’rea woman, not The Woman who can speak for all women.

  7. Whenever Ruby talks about “women” or “woman,” I’m just gonna mentally replace those with “traditional women” or “traditional woman.” At least then I can pretend she’s talking about only a certain stereotype rather than lumping all women everywhere together. It’s a bit easier on the brain.

  8. Just a little TMI, but I’m still watching True Blood and Eric really looks much better as he’s taking off his clothes. Oh my.

  9. @ M. sansnom- It’s a hell of a leap to go from ‘we can see how this social construct can be beneficial to the human species- neat!’ to ‘Since I can ceatively describe this behavior as beneficial to the human species it must be written into our DNA. I have exactly zero hard evidence to prove this is a biological reality, there are dozens of alternative theories that explain the existance of social phenomina better, and there are countless examples of humans engaging in social activities that are actually counter to their survival as a species, to the point where entire civilizations have died out. But this isn’t going to stop me from treating this as hard scientific fact.’

  10. Ha!

    Just found and watchted Ruby’s video about sexy men. First off, there’s plenty of naked men in there, just as naked as women wearing bikinies or skimpy clothing. They aren’t gonna have full-frontal nudity in there in a commercial (I think its a commercial?)

    Second… Aren’t the men taking the piss in that commercial? I mean, everything is just so over the top in stereotypical male hawtness (and sensitivity, gotta show that men are sensitive by having them hold babies or ruffle children’s hair, or shed a single tear while plaing a piano). One guy’s standing in the middle of a fire for crissakes. And when they start singing together in a blimp? That was just goofy.

    In my opinion, the coolest one was probably the one with the falcon. But maybe I just think that falcons and awesome scenic landscapes are cool.

  11. *sigh* typos… I don’t even car eanymore. Goddes Tpyo, take my sacrifice!

  12. >>>Dude, Hobbes was wrong.

    He was *extremely* wrong. There is no evidence at all, for instance, that the hunter-gatherer life was ‘short and brutish’. That belief comes from unfounded backward extrapolations and from observing agricultural societies that collapsed.

    The current understanding of life expectancy is that it was mostly constant in the West from the days of hunter-gatherer societies but took a huge dip during the Dark Ages (right after the collapse of the Roman empire), slowly went back up over time and stagnated until the rise of modern medicine and the germ theory of illness. Of course, to the ignorant it seems like life expectancy has mostly risen non-stop (with some long plateaus) since the Dark Ages, so they just assume whatever came before the Dark Ages was even worse.

    There were, of course, short spikes in life expectancy early on when societies each came up with agriculture (because it created food surpluses in the immediate) but those went back down again quickly as population density rose to the level possible with surplus creation and job specialization. And obviously when agricultural civilization fails there’s a really radical down spike of life expectancy until population comes back to a sustainable level under hunting-gathering.

    It’s similar to the way Adam Smith wrongly extrapolated backwards to assume prior societies before the rise of coinage worked by barter. The economists assume barter -> coinage/markets -> credit, but in truth (as David Graeber shows in Debt: The First 5000 Years) the development was credit -> coinage/markets -> barter (barter only happens in societies that have *already* developed markets, but where the economy has broken down or coinage is unavailable or rare due to a collapse of central authority/the state). Societies before the invention of coinage worked on “Hey I need eggs.”, “Here, take them, you owe me. I might need shoes later.”, which makes sense to anyone who doesn’t assume past societies were dumber than present ones (or who doesn’t assume something dumb like the idea that economy/the market exists as its own free entity independent of the state or political organizations’ regulations). Coinage was only invented once it became necessary to trade with strangers (that is, outside of one’s own society).

    Also, anyone who is a liberal or, in fact, supports a republican/representative democratic form of government should steer clear of Hobbes entirely. His Leviathan is about the need for a dictator or absolutely powerful monarch, it is antithetical to liberal government.

  13. I’ve pretty much figured Ruby out. In the skeptic movement, it’s kinda common to hear people say stuff like “I’m a skeptic, but I still be blieve in (aliens, psychics, etc.)” The response is “you may be a skeptic in some things, but on this issue you aren’t being skeptical.”

    Ruby’s like that. She may hold a couple feminist or socially liberal views, and she uses those to cover when she holds really terrible views. These labels really are only meant to apply to particular beliefs, labling yourself as something is meant to show that you generally adhere to the principles of that label.

    In simpler terms, Ruby, you may be socially liberal on some things, but in this case you’re being backwards as fuck. (Oh yeah, and still shame on you for thinking rape is hilarious. “Support” isn’t just about actively promoting it, it’s also about tacitly ignoring things or not finding things to be a problem when they happen, like the myriad of people who think rape of non-prisoners isn’t that big of a deal.)

  14. What amuses me about follies like, “men don’t look good naked” is that until very recently the reverse was the considered opinion. Greek art… all about the naked men.

    Romans… lots of naked men. Michaelangelo… his naked women were (until he was in his sixties) naked men with no dicks and odd lumps where breasts ought to be.

    But the ev-psychers, and other idiots, will say, “men are not as attractive as women, it’s a biological fact that women needed to be attractive to men, or the species would die out.”

    Never mind that in most of the animal kingdom the males have to be the flashy pretty ones. Lions? flash.

    Stallions… flash.

    BIrds of Paradise… Über Flash.

    Gorillas? Flash.

    Baboons? Flash.

    But Humans… nope, we are the reverse of that because we’re special.

    Never mind that, well into the 19th century, men were the flashy dressers. So we could argue that men do need to be attractive, and the clothes being flashy are to make up for the lack of being naked; so that women could see who the good lookers are; and other men would know who the competition to beat was.

    It’s as reasonable as any other just so story, and has some wider cross-cultural evidence than most Ev-psych.

    And now I am off to work… where I’ll be in a kilt, so the ladies (and I am sure) some of the laddies, can have something nicer to look at than my legs all hidden with trousers.
    :)

  15. I wonder if Ruby is actually trying to fail at being everything she labels herself as, or if it just comes naturally.

  16. Ruby if you get anything out of this thread, take a look at the link that darksidecat posted. That should clarify the Muslim thing for you. I’m sure you’ve heard “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” If you’re skimming the surface of culture, you can come away with “Muslim countries do this.” but there is more to it than that.

    Also, can you please concede that it’s not FUNNY when “evil” people get raped? I mean at least take a different angle of justification than that one, it disrespects the serious nature of their original crimes. I keep saying this and went into detail in another post, but I’m sure you have a hard time reading all these posts and things get lost. I don’t want to reiterate my argument again, but being charitable to your POV at the very least you need to admit it’s not FUNNY and change your reaction to that. So that’s my two cents on what you should be taking away from all this.

  17. Shorter Ruby: “How is road formed?”

    Her not knowing about roads being built/run by the government may be the funniest shit to come out of her yet. I actually LOLd.

    The rest is just her garden-variety hatefulness and stupidity.

  18. DOH! I was going to mention the road thing, I actually did laugh out loud at that. Ruby, where do roads come from, how did they get there? How do they work? There is a separate issue in that libertarians do argue that roads can be handled just fine and dandy by private interests. That stupid hurts.

  19. Yeah, yeah, anyone who doesn’t conform to leftist beliefs are idiots. I get it. For all the Left’s talk of tollerance, many of them aren’t tollerant when in comes to opposing opinions. I’m sorry the idea of women wanting men to be providers and protectors is so offensive to leftist feminists. I think I’ll go back to ignoring you.

  20. FUCKING ROADS, HOW DO THEY WORK?!

  21. Ruby, how do gay couple works. Lesbians can’t protect nor provide for each other and only gay men can provide and protect each others? gee, i wanna be a gay man now. And you still haven’t answered any question.

  22. Yeah, yeah, anyone who doesn’t conform to leftist beliefs are idiots. I get it.

    You really have no idea how childish you look, do you? No counterpoint, no argument, just “Waaah!!! You all haaaate meeee!” Pathetic.

    Whenever Ruby talks about “women” or “woman,” I’m just gonna mentally replace those with “traditional women” or “traditional woman.” At least then I can pretend she’s talking about only a certain stereotype rather than lumping all women everywhere together. It’s a bit easier on the brain.

    Alternatively, you could just replace “women” or “woman” with “Ruby”. I think that cuts right to the heart of the matter.

  23. I’m not sure why Ruby keep talking about the left, like that’s the subject. I can respect someone that vote differently than me, but hardly someone who think women are programmed to seek men of means and never someone who think rape can be funny. That’s really basic stuff.

  24. Ruby:

    I’m sorry the idea of women wanting men to be providers and protectors is so offensive to leftist feminists. I think I’ll go back to ignoring you.

    What’s offensive is that you say that all women are like that, even after several people have told you that they’re not. You’re dismissing other people’s experiences because of your dogmatic beliefs.

  25. I’m not sure why Ruby keep talking about the left, like that’s the subject.

    Cheap dodge.

  26. Generally speaking, we women want our men to be protectors and providers.

    For all the Left’s talk of tollerance[sic], many of them aren’t tollerant[sic again] when in comes to opposing opinions. I’m sorry the idea of women wanting men to be providers and protectors is so offensive to leftist feminists.

    Fuck that noise. When you start opining on how entire sections of the population act, you are no longer expressing an opinion. You are making a factual claim. A factual claim that is wrong. This shit annoys the hell out of me.

    Furthermore, tolerance has nothing to do with not criticizing things. As I recall, tolerance was actually a rather shitty word for not being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. No, you don’t “tolerate” those who are different than you, as if they’ll go away soon and not bother you any more; that’s basically a privilaged group’s mentality of dealing with all those dirty outsiders.

    And how exactly can you criticize The Left™ while in the same breath declaring yourself a social liberal and a feminist? I understand these aren’t contradictory… but they’re only non-contradictory in the sense that Sarah Palin is a feminst.

  27. Please, Ruby, ignore us. Ignore us so hard you never come back.

  28. Ruby, if women don’t like looking at naked men, how do you explain the fact that human penises are much larger, relative to body size, than the penises of other great apes?

  29. CassandraSays

    “Never mind that in most of the animal kingdom the males have to be the flashy pretty ones. Lions? flash.”

    And honestly, looking at humans, the men I’ve encountered who really get laid a whole lot more than average? Flash. Lots and lots of flash. To be fair, in some cases “fame” too, but even in situations where there are a bunch of famous guys around, which of them get the most attention from women, and get laid the most? The ones with lots and lots of flash.

    Also Ruby, sweetie, your ideas aren’t “offensive”, just stupid and simplistic. So far the only offensive thing you’ve said was the “prison rape is hilarious” thing, which is why people keep bringing it up.

  30. CassandraSays

    Addendum, before our resident PUA chimes in with “see, it works! go buy your ridiculous hat today!” – this only works if you’re at least somewhat good looking to start with, and it’s the combination of good looking + flashy that really works. And it takes a certain personality to pull it off.

  31. Argenti Aertheri

    Cassandra — and flash requires a certain amount of tact/taste — I’m still going “why is there a bird on your head?” at Depp as Tonto. Not even Depp can pull that off.

    Plus, what sort of flash is attractive will vary by culture, and sub/counter culture — I was a theatre geek back in HS, your varsity jacket is not effective flash >.<

  32. Argenti Aertheri

    *dunce*

    “And it takes a certain personality to pull it off.”

    Yeah, that’d be called “confidence” which works well without ridiculous hats.

    I am curious Ruby’s thoughts on people’s preferences though, I’m still waiting for an answer how it is artists get dates.

  33. I am curious Ruby’s thoughts on people’s preferences though, I’m still waiting for an answer how it is artists get dates.

    Isn’t it obvious? They paint women pictures of bowls of fruit, thus fooling the primal instinct of women to search for providers!!

  34. CassandraSays

    @ Argenti

    Oh yeah, taste too, if you want the effect to be “flashy” rather than “clownish”. There’s one unfortunate music video that I remember where everyone seemed to be competing to be the flashiest one of all, and for some reason one of the guitar players decided that the way to win this war was to wear a large dead rodent on his head. Oh honey, no.

    The thing with Ruby is that she doesn’t seem to recognize the fact that preferences exist. I’m not entirely sure that she’s noticed that subcultures exist, actually.

  35. Argenti Aertheri

    Shadow — I’m literally lol’ing at that — I hate painting fruit, and it wouldn’t fool anyone into thinking there was actual fruit (though there was a photo-realist in training in my painting class…)

  36. Ruby, I’m just going to repost my comment from last night, explaining why your worldview is so very, very wrong (ps, Quackers, sorry, I got tired and went to bed!):

    Ruby. Women are not “programmed” to find men of means. Women aren’t “programmed” to do jack shit, because we are humans and not computers, but we are especially not “programmed” to do that, because you are assuming things that are very, very wrong.

    Amazingly enough, the Pleistocene, and hunter-gatherer lives in general, do not much resemble 1950′s middle America. Humans don’t actually usually live in nuclear families; this is a very recent development. Humans usually live in extended kin networks or with friends and family – there’s a recent article that says that most modern hunter-gatherer couples are considered to be related to about half of the other people in their band. They didn’t say who made up the rest, but I’m guessing it was just people they knew and got along with reasonably well.

    People in these larger groupings tend to take care of each other, including sharing out food and other resources. A mother does often get food from her husband, but she can expect to get help from grandma and auntie and her best bud, too, if she needs it. Really, if we’re going by brute economics here, women, if they hang out with a few other women, don’t need men at all. So, no, women aren’t evolutionarily programmed to want the rich guy, because their baby-daddy is not the only adult they can count on. People in small-scale societies do tend to want the hardest workers for their spouse, but that’s true of men and women.

  37. “Ruby, if women don’t like looking at naked men, how do you explain the fact that human penises are much larger, relative to body size, than the penises of other great apes?”

    Hah, I knew it. All that feminist rebuttal about human women not caring about the size of male genitalia (i.e. size doesn’t really matter) , was all just pure denial…

  38. Monsieur sans Nom

    What amuses me about follies like, “men don’t look good naked” is that until very recently the reverse was the considered opinion. Greek art… all about the naked men.

    Much of that had to do with the acceptance and pervasiveness of homosexuality in ancient greek culture. And before you pull a strawman and accuse me of being homophobic, such a fact is not a bad thing at all. However, most naked men look nothing like those men depicted in ancient greek and roman statues.

    The female form overall, is much more aesthetic than the male form. Even straight women with no desire to sleep with other women(evar) can appreciate it. Women are the prettier sex. If you don’t like that, then maybe you can be born a bird in your next life.

  39. Argenti Aertheri

    Oi, ABNOY, try to keep up — stating the biological fact that among primates, human males have the largest dicks does not mean human females only like men with big dicks. (We also have the biggest brains, skeletons that handle bipedal walking, etc)

  40. “However, most naked men look nothing like those men depicted in ancient greek and roman statues. ”

    And most women look nothing like women in magazines, movies and porn. Hell, even most conventional very beautiful women don’t look like their pictures once you remove the make-up, the lighting and the photoshoping. So what?

    And why should we take the opinion of a straight guy over those of people with pants feeling for men on the matter of the sexyness of naked ùen? Mansplaining at its best.

    For the record, the discussion wasn’t even “who’s the prettiest naked” but “do men look good naked”.

  41. “pervasiveness of homosexuality”

    If you don’t want to look homophobic, may I ask why you would use the word ‘pervasiveness’?

  42. And speaking of gay men, are you really sure every man would agree with “Women are the prettier sex”?

  43. Tulgey Logger

    OmNom:

    Much of that had to do with the acceptance and pervasiveness of homosexuality in ancient greek culture.

    So sixteenth century Italy was all about man-on-man action?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)

    ABNOY:

    Hah, I knew it. All that feminist rebuttal about human women not caring about the size of male genitalia (i.e. size doesn’t really matter) , was all just pure denial…

    Big Penises: Not Really That Great After All And I’m Totally Not Lying by The Dworks, No Seriously Press, 2013.

    Leum:

    Ruby, if women don’t like looking at naked men, how do you explain the fact that human penises are much larger, relative to body size, than the penises of other great apes?

    I was going to comment on the correlation of sexual strategies to testis size in chimpanzees vs gorillas on the assumption that penis size would be linked, but according to this they don’t seem to be:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/06/women-penis-size

    “Evolutionary psychology” in the header puts my hackles up, but the article seems to be mostly OK.

  44. So basically Nomlette, your argument is that even though the ancient Greeks did in fact hold up the nude male form as their aesthetic ideal, they were wrong because teh gay.

    I dunno if that’s homophobic as such, but it is ridiculously heterocentric, as well as being painfully stupid.

  45. Monsieur sans Nom

    Amazingly enough, the Pleistocene, and hunter-gatherer lives in general, do not much resemble 1950′s middle America. Humans don’t actually usually live in nuclear families; this is a very recent development. Humans usually live in extended kin networks or with friends and family – there’s a recent article that says that most modern hunter-gatherer couples are considered to be related to about half of the other people in their band. They didn’t say who made up the rest, but I’m guessing it was just people they knew and got along with reasonably well.

    Even so, the legacy of our hunter-gatherer past has persisted into modern times. Athletic ability is sexually attractive to women, as it has been since humans first evolved as a distinct species. There are all-star international athletes who have thousands(even millions) of women all over the world in MANY different cultures who throw themselves at these men. Many of these guys have more sexual partners in 1 year than the average man will have in his entire freakin life.

    However, there are other genetically based traits that women find attractive: Like social skills and musical talent(among other things). Social skills do indeed have a genetic basis. Yes they are learned, but not everybody can get good at them and like mathematical proficiency, it is an ability that is not distributed equally.

  46. Monsieur sans Nom

    So basically Nomlette, your argument is that even though the ancient Greeks did in fact hold up the nude male form as their aesthetic ideal, they were wrong because teh gay.

    I dunno if that’s homophobic as such, but it is ridiculously heterocentric, as well as being painfully stupid.

    I love it how you pull out strawmen against anyone and everyone who doesn’t conform to the dominant paradigm of this blog. It really makes you look witty, “edgy”, and *intelligent*. I hope you understand the concept(SARACSM).

  47. You can stamp your feet about strawmen all you want, dude. It still won’t change the fact that your entire argument hinges on the assumption that the opinions of anyone other than heterosexual men don’t count.

  48. Monsieur sans Nom

    No, it doesn’t. It hinges on the fact that beauty and sexuality actually can be mutually exclusive. Even when it comes to people.

  49. Except you directly contradicted that point when you attributed the aesthetic ideal in Greek art to the prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Greek culture.

    And all this has shit to do with whether or not women find men physically attractive anyway.

  50. CassandraSays

    Indeed this has nothing to do with the original question of how women perceive men in terms of looks, but you see, Om Nom has nothing to say about that other than “but for me…”. So apparently we’re not going to talk about that any more, since it’s an argument he can’t win.

  51. Nomless: Much of that had to do with the acceptance and pervasiveness of homosexuality in ancient greek culture. And before you pull a strawman and accuse me of being homophobic, such a fact is not a bad thing at all. However, most naked men look nothing like those men depicted in ancient greek and roman statues.

    The first is a misunderstanding of how sexuality was seen in Classical Greece/Rome. It was different from the present, and the ideals of beauty weren’t really related to it.

    The second… your homophobia, or lack thereof, is immaterial to the first.

    The third, also irrelevant. Most naked women look nothing like the abstractions, and selections we have in present art.

    What the “women are prettier” crowd are using as their examples are the Heidi Klums, the Kristina Hendricks, the Kate Bassingers, the Marylin Monroes, the Georgina Cavendishes of the world.

    These are the people who discount the art of Rubens, who dismiss the Camryn Manheims and the Cass Elliots of the world and say Scarlett Johanssen needs to lose weight.

    The sorts who say that women who aren’t slim, and young, and lacking in blemishes, cellulite and who fail to have perfect hair, are “ugly” and not fit to fuck.

    Which is, from the evidence, patently untrue.

    It’s got nothing to do with you being homophobic, or not, it’s that you hate women (and spare us the plaintive cries that you don’t. If you didn’t you wouldn’t be spouting the drivel which is your stock in trade, and pretending that women don’t like the way men look).

  52. Nomless: No, it doesn’t. It hinges on the fact that beauty and sexuality actually can be mutually exclusive. Even when it comes to people.

    So the Greek Ideal had nothing to do with the, “prevalence of homosexuality” in Ancient Greece.

  53. One of the interesting things about wearing kilts is that I get comments. I get comments from men, and comments from women.

    The men seem to be impressed (in New York, in the SF Bay Area the are more common, and the comments from men are different; more akin to those of women; and about as frequent†) that I am wearing one, and that it looks comfy.

    The women seem to be more appreciative of the look in general; and there is some sense of approbation of me. It’s not the same as being catcalled; I don’t think, but there does seem to be an element of, “that’s hot”. I don’t know if they are abstracting some platonic ideal of “man” into the reaction, of if they like my type.

    One of the most pleasant was a woman who called out, “I like your kilt”, and when I said, “Thank you,” added, “Up with kilts,”. She was in her late 60′s early 70s. I saw her, and her companion (a slightly younger woman) eating at the restaurant near the shop I was going to.

    † The inference I take from that is men, as a rule, are more prone to thinking they can get away with making an observation. I also think part of it is that they figure any male self-confident enough to wear a kilt is going to be able to take them making a comment.

    But that’s my take on it. I don’t know that they share the same sentiments.

  54. Heh, so any man who has an opinion of his own that is not 100% word for word with your Rad Fem ideology automatically neccessarily hates women? Is that the high concept/core premise of your gender politics?

  55. The kilt thing ties in to my observations about flashiness earlier. We’re more likely to be attracted to people if we notice that they exist (all of us, nothing gendered about it). Since kilts are relatively unusual, they draw the eye. Of course that doesn’t guarantee a positive reaction, because tastes vary, but it does mean the man who’s wearing a kilt is more likely to be noticed, including by the women who happen to appreciate his particular type.

  56. Argenti Aertheri

    It’s got nothing to do with you being homophobic, or not, it’s that you hate women (and spare us the plaintive cries that you don’t. If you didn’t you wouldn’t be spouting the drivel which is your stock in trade, and pretending that women don’t like the way men look).

    Oh, he’s got no excuse.

    And I’d put “I like your X” in a different category than “Hey baby!” and similar catcalling BS (YMMV, etc).

  57. Argenti: Well yes, Nomless, like ABNOY, isn’t commenting in a vacuum (and yes, ABNOY, I am saying that based on the totality of your words I think you hate women. You may want to fuck them, but that doesn’t mean you like them).

    I put “I like your X,” in a different category too, but the, “Up with kilts,” is a bit of a different thing, as it has a bit of a sexual connotation. I’m not getting catcalled, but I do get looks, and I’ve been laughed at (always by young men in groups. I get to have the different experience of being able to turn and counter them, because they are trying to prove how manly they are, compared to me. If I tell them to laugh, and get it out of their system, I am both deflecting the point of the exercise, and counter-mocking them [in ways they don't quite understand are happening].

    That’s an option not really afforded women who are having their clothing/bodies mocked. Challenging the men who do it isn’t an actual counter, because they don’t see the women as being legitimate beings in their own right, and so they don’t have to react as if they were when their assholishness is called out.

    I think that’s what frustrates a lot of the misogynists who come here. They sort of expect to get the same sort of reaction they would get to street harassment, and when they don’t it throws them off their game. The meltdowns are them trying to get the reactions they expect.

    I have suspicions it also explains the cyclical nature of the regularly trollish.

  58. Monsieur sans Nom

    What the “women are prettier” crowd are using as their examples are the Heidi Klums, the Kristina Hendricks, the Kate Bassingers, the Marylin Monroes, the Georgina Cavendishes of the world.

    These are the people who discount the art of Rubens, who dismiss the Camryn Manheims and the Cass Elliots of the world and say Scarlett Johanssen needs to lose weight.

    The sorts who say that women who aren’t slim, and young, and lacking in blemishes, cellulite and who fail to have perfect hair, are “ugly” and not fit to fuck.

    Which is, from the evidence, patently untrue.

    See, there you go making assumptions about what men(me in particular) find attractive. I made no references to those models you speak of. I DON’T LIKE SKINNY CHICKS! Cellulite is unattractive but I like voluptuous women with ginormous behinds and bulging thighs but who aren’t morbidly obese. Unfortunately, too many western women think those beanpoles models in magazines are what most guys find attractive, nothing could be further from the truth. Women do not have to perfect to be attractive. Their bodies are much rounder than men’s bodies, which is a big reason why they are better looking overall. 99%(at least) of people on this Earth find male birds to be much prettier than female birds because their plumage is much more vividly colored and more decorative. In birds, the males are the sex that is attractive. But humans, it is the female sex that more attractive.

  59. To sum up, MSN finds women attractive, MSN acknowledges no opinion other than his own, therefore women are objectively attractive and men are objectively unattractive.

  60. @Dracula

    If only all those straight women and gay men would go away and stop ruining his worldview.

  61. Also, history didn’t happen, because there was NO TIME EVER ANYWHERE when general opinion held that the male form was more perfect and attractive.

    ANCIENT GREECE: didn’t happen.

  62. Also hilarious, “cellulite is unattractive.” Virtually all women have at least some cellulite.

    So the abridged MSN is “women are more attractive than men, except for one genetic feature in fat storage that occurs in 90% of women, and like 99% of food-secure women. Those 90% aren’t actually more attractive. My evolutionary model doesn’t apply to them.”

    Biology TRUFAX.

  63. Monsieur sans Nom

    Also, history didn’t happen, because there was NO TIME EVER ANYWHERE when general opinion held that the male form was more perfect and attractive.

    ANCIENT GREECE: didn’t happen.

    What makes you so certain about the MOTIVES behind ancient greek artists and artisans for making sculptures idealizing the male form? With regards to the ancient Romans, I would argue it probably had more to do with their patriarchal worldview that men, not women, should represent humanity as a whole(the Romans were a staunchly patriarchal society). What makes you think that such a motive does not apply to the ancient greeks?

  64. What makes you think that such a motive does not apply to the ancient greeks?

    I could ask you the same thing. Are you recanting your previous claim, or just hoping no one will notice that you’re contradicting yourself?

  65. Haha they didn’t just glorify men as the image of society, they also glorified individual men’s bodies. There is a reason that we have like three hundred 3D representations of Julius Caesar’s abs and only a single 2D representation of Cleopatra’s face.

    Plato and Aristotled flatly said that men were more perfect in form than women.

    Also, have you ever heard or read the summary of any premodern European opera? Pretty much every opera can be summarized as “ladies go crazy for the sharp-dressed man.”

  66. Plato and Aristotled flatly said that men were more perfect in form than women.

    yeah, i love how the premise of omnom’s argument is that we can’t possibly know what those guys were thinking, as if they never wrote that shit down

    you think the pretend internet philosopher would be more aware of that

  67. “What makes you so certain about the MOTIVES behind ancient greek artists and artisans for making sculptures idealizing the male form? ”

    And what if it is? You really think today’s beauty ideals came out of a vacuum and are logic-based? People are influenced by society in their tastes, duh.

  68. Nomless: There you go assuming that I said all such are the same, and therefore you are.

    “What the “women are prettier crowd” are doing describes a group. When they say, “men are uglier than women” they are not saying they like women to look at more than they like men, they are saying (as you do) that women are, “objectively” prettier.

    Which means the unspoken archtypes they are using are the famous ones. The one’s we are all told are “beautiful”.

    Which leads to those very tropes I referred to above.

    Ugh: Not just Ancient Greece, Elizabethan England, Sun King France; aspects of Napoleonic France and Regency England. Renaissance Italy.

    None of those happened.

    Because, “women are more attractive” in humans.

    Me, I figure that, as rational beings humans are going to be more towards both sexes being attractive.

    Nomless: What makes you so certain about the MOTIVES behind ancient greek artists and artisans for making sculptures idealizing the male form?

    The things they wrote about the perfection of the human form; and it’s ideal state being male.

  69. Argenti Aertheri

    pecunium — “I put “I like your X,” in a different category too, but the, “Up with kilts,” is a bit of a different thing, as it has a bit of a sexual connotation.” — fair enough, I’d been thinking of “up with kilts” in the generic “up with [thing]” sense, but I guess in the world of up-skirt-photos…yeah, kilts aren’t really [generic thing]

    As for the counter-mocking — XD excellent

    “I have suspicions it also explains the cyclical nature of the regularly trollish.” — quite possibly…they’re used to women ignoring them because that’s safer than pissing them off, but this is the internet, what’re they going to do, resort to name calling?

  70. re, “up with kilts”, I think it’s a statement of desiring to have the kilt lifted, since the standard understanding of kilts is that they are worn, “regimental”.

    It was, contextually, a bit past flirtatious, and into salacious.

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 6,363 other followers

%d bloggers like this: