Be careful, gals. With warmer weather coming, don’t be tempted to wear skimpier clothes. Because female sexuality works the same as body heat on a cold winter’s day: the more skin you show, the more heat – literal and figurative – leaks out. Eventually, you will run out. And that’s bad news, possibly for you, and definitely for your future husbands. (And really, they’re the only ones who count.)
That, in any case, is the theory of one traditional-minded Men’s Rightser calling himself Alucin. In a blog post today he mused about the differences between traditional religious women and, you know, all those filthy “western” sluts wandering around exposing sexy bits like their legs and their … hair. (Not their leg hair, their head hair. We’ll get to leg hair in a minute.) Alucin writes:
Orthodox Jewish [and] Muslim women [cover] their hair and other parts when in public. The ideal is that they save their sexuality for their husband. Only their husband can see their hair, legs, cleavage, and experience their sexuality.
All well and good, Alucin says. “Western women,” by contrast,
fully display their sexuality, and tend not to value virginity or other traditional sexual morals. Then, when married, they turn into dowdy, asexual androids, gaining weight and wearing their man’s clothes. And forgetting to shave.
They give none of their sexuality to their husbands. It has already been used up. She says that she owns her sexuality, but in fact it was the zillion guys she’s been with who have owned her sexuality. Her sexuality has been farmed and mined.
A western woman’s sexuality is for everyone
but her husband.
Here’s one of those horrible hair-showing western harlots singing about hot cleavage in the summertime. (Just so you don’t get too confused by the lyrics, I’m pretty sure the song is from the point of view of a guy missing his girlfriend.)
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
The video above, which has been making the rounds of the manosphere, is one of the creepiest and most off-putting things I’ve seen since watching Dogtooth a couple of weeks ago. Actually, I take that back: Dogtooth was much less creepy and off-putting. I was so repelled by what I saw in this video that it literally took me several tries to get through the whole thing. And no, it’s not some weird misogynistic rant by the likes of Bernard Chapin. Oh, no no no. The misogynists of the world are as repelled by the video as I am, though for radically different reasons. Titled “Dear Woman,” the video was actually put together by a couple of self-described “conscious men” who think they’re doing a great favor to the women of the world.
To which I can only say: Guys, stop it, you’re not helping.
If you can stomach it, the video is worth watching in its entirety. If not, here’s what you’re missing: The video is the work of a couple of New Age gurus — Arjuna Ardagh and Gay Hendricks, Ph.D – who, with the help of a little gaggle of guys, have written a little manifesto “apologizing” to the women of the world for all the bad shit done by men to women over the centuries. Or, as they put it:
I feel deep love, great respect and a growingsense of worshipfor the gifts of the feminine. I also feel deep sorrow about the destructive actions of the unconscious masculine in the past and present. I want to apologize to you and make amends for those actions, in order to bring forth a new era of co-creation with you.
The first step in “making amends,” evidently, was to gather together a group of men – some of whom seem to have been roped into it in the middle of a garden party — and to somehow convince them to read out loud the entire text of this manifesto. (The full text is here, but it’s much creepier when it’s read out loud.)
There is something about this manifesto, and the men reading it, that is so “off” that it may well make your skin crawl, and make you wonder how many of the men in the video have dead bodies secreted away in the crawl spaces under their homes. A female friend I showed the video to could only make it through the first couple of minutes before switching it off in horror; one commenter on Metafilter reported that it “made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, and not in a good way. Eeew.”
The creepyist, skin-crawliest part of the video has to be the section in which the assembled men talk about women’s bodies:
I honor the beauty and integrity of your body. When we worship each other through our bodies with awareness and devotion, there are no boundaries to the love that we can generate. I feel sorrow that men have used your beauty as a form of commerce in prostitution and pornography. In the grip of lust we have often lacked the skills to ask gracefully for intimacy or to take ‘No’ for an answer. I take a stand against any form of enforced or soulless commercialization of woman’s beauty, andI respect that your body belongs to you.…
I honor your capacity to listen to your bodyand its needs for food, rest and playtime.
I feel confident that I speak for many when I say “ewww.” Somehow I’m reminded of Saturday Night Live’s hot-tub-loving “lovers.”
It’s worth pointing out that the written manifesto refers to men and women “nurture[ing]” one another’s body; apparently no one noticed that the dude reading this passage in the video had turned nurturing into “worship.”
As one commenter on Metafilter put it:
“We worship women” sounds like something Buffalo Bill would have said if he had a PR agent. My guess is that they’re sickos who seem really earnest at first but it turns out that they’re actually trying to collect used tampons for onanistic purposes or something.
So what is it, aside from all this worshiping, that makes the video so creepy? Part of the problem is that these “conscious men” are, in their own way, as patronizing and sexist as any manosphere dudes “mansplaining” about how all women only want to fuck alpha guys. Women, in their view, are inherently peaceful earth-mother types. “I commit now to … honoring the spirituality of the divine feminine,” the guys tell us. “Ihonor your deep connection to the earth.”
The manifesto is overflowing with this kind of shit. No matter how “New Age” these guys think they are, these are some truly ancient, and quite thoroughly retrograde, notions.
But that’s just what makes them wrong and misguided. What is it that causes viewers to pick up that whole serial-killer vibe?
I think the answer to this can be found in a book called The Gif tof Fear by security expert Gavin de Becker. The book attempts to explain why our intuitions about creepy people are so often correct. There’s a good reason you feel uneasy around certain people; that’s your unconscious picking up on real, if hard to pin down, signals of danger.
De Becker also lays out some of the techniques predators use in an attempt to allay the suspicions of those they’re trying to victimize. One of the sneakiest? The unsolicited promise, which often means the very opposite of what is said. When someone tells you, out of the blue, that they “aren’t going to hurt you,” it’s often a very good sign that that’s exactly what they’re going to do. When someone feels the need to tell you, apropos of nothing, that he “honor[s] the beauty and integrity of your body” and “respect[s] that your body belongs to you,” you may well want to run screaming.
Even more than the unsolicited promises, I think it’s the unsolicited apologies in the Dear Woman video – so similar in intent to unsolicited promises — are a large part of what is setting off alarm bells in so many viewers. When a young guy in the video takes personal responsibility “for dragging you into … wars, and for the rape, murder, broken hearts and damaged families that resulted from them,” that’s just plain … weird, given that (unless he’s some young despot I’ve never heard of) he’s not actually responsible for any of this.
The “unsolicited promise” is similar to what de Becker calls “loan sharking” – offering unsolicited “help” in order to make victims feel obligated in some way to their unwanted helpers. In the manifesto/video, this “help” is abstract, but the strategy seems to be the same:
From this day, moving forward, I vow to treat your heart as the sacred temple it is, and I commit to honoring the feminine in you and me and in my relationship to all life.
Uh, who the fuck asked you to treat anyone’s heart as a “sacred temple?”
The manifesto/video is also filled with examples of “forced teaming,” another strategy favored by predators who want to convince their victims that they are in fact working together to do the very same thing:
I know that by leaving the past behind and joining hands in the present, we can create a synergy of our strengths. Together, there is nothing we cannot do.
But there’s something else about the video that adds to the sense that something is not right here: no matter how earnest all the men in the video are trying to sound, none of them (except perhaps the two ringleaders) seem to really believe the ridiculous things they’re saying. Instead, they seem to be, with varying degrees of insincerity, mouthing a series of essentially meaningless New Age platitudes – in short, simply saying what they think women want to hear.
No one is buying this bullshit, guys. Give it up.
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
So the other day we were talking here about how to have the hot sexes with someone who wants to have the hot sexes with you also. Lots of good advice in that thread, but none of it is very useful to guys sitting around at home with no one but Pamela Handerson willing to climb into bed with them. So how exactly does one find a special someone to have the sexes with – especially if you’re one of those horny, socially awkward guys who tends to get labeled a “creep?
Well, wonder no more, because two of my favorite bloggers have some advice for you:
In a post on the Good Men Project Magazine, Clarisse Thorn sifts through the sexist garbage that permeates virtually all Pick-Up Artist (PUA) websites in search of some decent, ethical advice that can help socially awkward guys connect with women. As she puts it:
the current pickup artist subculture has a monopoly on effective advice for how to break down social interactions and talk to women. Not all of it works, but enough of it works that it draws guys in. As a pickup artist instructor once told me, “When I first found the community I was horrified by how sleazy and gross it is, but I had never had a girlfriend, and I told myself, ‘Dude, if you don’t learn this stuff you’re gonna die alone.’”
I wouldn’t go so far as saying that PUAs have a “monopoly” on good advice, but there are aspects of the basic PUA approach that do make sense, and do work. To oversimplify a bit, the PUA approach encourages men to do something that women have been doing for centuries if not millennia: playing hard to get. Yep, guys who don’t come across as desperate and clingy tend to do better with the ladies than guys who do. That one basic insight is worth a lot more than an e-book-full of idiotic “openers,” not to mention the sleazy sort of date-rapey shit that self-described PUAs like the gun-happy Gunwitchpreach.
In any case, after offering a critique of some of the most obvious issues she has with PUAs, Clarisse links to a bunch of sites that she thinks can be genuinely helpful to awkward guys. Check it out.
Meanwhile, also on the Good Men Project, Amanda Marcotte – who is far less forgiving of PUAs than Clarisse — offers some specific advice for “self-described “nice guys” who claim they want non-sexist dating advice that works, but are forced to look to PUAs because there is no one else speaking to them. ”
Her first tip is golden: Dudes, if you want to score with a hot slut, stop thinking of women who enjoy sex as sluts. Or, as she puts it:
Be generous about women’s motivations.
PUA communities spend a lot of time disparaging women with words like “shallow,” “gold-digger,” and “childish,” for having what they deem to be incorrect desires. But often, women’s choices make much more sense if you assume women date for fun and companionship, just as men do. If you don’t judge men for wanting sexiness, fun, and ego-boosting from women, then don’t judge women for wanting the same.
On a completely unrelated topic: Are any of you having trouble posting comments here? If so, check your settings and make sure you’re allowing cookies from Blogger. If that doesn’t work, and you still have problems, send me an email. (See my profile for an email link.) Thanks!
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
Once upon a time one of the guysover at NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum set up a little poll asking his fellow “nice guys” whether or not they actually consider themselves to be misogynists; it’s been up there for years, and the site’s resident MGTOWers have been adding votes and comments all along.The wording of the poll is sufficiently, ah, flexible enough to give respondents a lot of ways to wiggle out of saying explicitly that they really were misogynists:
*I despise the entire female sex. Period.
* I hate only “western” women.
* I only hate feminists and women who take advantage of sexism.
* I just blame feminists.
* I don’t hate women; I just don’t like being around them.
* I have no animosity towards women of any group. I’m only here to learn more about MRAs.
Still, given the amount of angry and explicit and completely straightforward misogyny you can find in the forms there, which after all are an outgrowth of a site devoted to the notion that “American women suck,” I’m a little bit surprised by how many of the regulars claim not to hate women – as you can see from the graphic above, the most popular answer is the one about “feminists and women who take advantage of sexism,” whatever that means.
Conveniently, though, many of those who voted in the poll also posted comments explaining their, er, reasoning. And it’s pretty clear that they have a radically different definition of hate than, you know, the dictionary, and/or what everyone else in the world means when they use the word hate.
Here are some of the comments from guys there who say that they aren’t misogynist. Again, just to make myself clear: these are entirely NON-HATEFUL comments from those who say they DON’T hate women.
Let’s start with the completely non-hateful non-hater who calls himself Alpha:
I’m not one who hates … I find that I don’t enjoy the company of women very much, as they tend to talk about things I really don’t give a crap about. Besides, they really wouldn’t like to hear what comes out of my mouth since, if I were to really say what I thought around them without restraint, they would go into knee-jerk, defensive mode. They’ve been so conditioned to fight and argue with what is simply, to me, a male point of view on things. It’s like being around children. ..
I will say this, I love ladies, the female equivalent of a gentleman, a gentlewoman. Unfortunately, that’s a rare breed these days. What we have are a bunch of emotionally immature, emotionally unrestrained, emotionally violent, toxic, unappreciative, self-centered, self-absorbed, self-serving, unempathetic, exploitive, arrested adolescents with vaginas, bad attitudes, and an incredible amount of contempt.
Now, I don’t mind holding my tongue around ladies. But the moment women declared themselves equal to men, they opened the door to being talked to as men.
I voted: “I don’t hate women; I just don’t like being around them.”
Mostly because they have nothing to offer other than whining usually. …
When women talk they make me “ZZZ”.
Tiny kitties are honest about their hatreds.
In a followup comment Zaku offered this, well, revealing take on sex with women:
Maybe it’s because I’ve only done american chicks but to be blunt having sex with a woman is like humping a moist pillow: It doesn’t join in and you can hardly tell the difference.
There is something I would dearly like to tell young Zaku at this point but I really can’t think of a delicate way to put it. Hmm. I’ll do it the Dear Abby way.
CONFIDENTIAL TO Z— on N—G—‘sM—- F—- : You may be doing it wrong.
Our friend MarkyMark popped in to offer his two cents:
I don’t hate women, but, after working with a bunch of them and seeing their true colors, I don’t care to be around them. I don’t hate sewers, either; I just don’t care to spend time in them..
Now if this were anyone but our friend MarkyMark making this comment, I would assume he was making a little joke here. But as far as I have been able to determine, MarkyMark does not actually have a sense of humor. This is, after all, a guy who once devoted a blog post to rebutting, point by point, an article in The Onion. Joke or no, I think we can all agree it’s 1) not actually, you know, funny and 2) kind of a douchey thing to say.
I can’t stand to be around them for too long. It’s not hatred. I just can’t stand stupid people. Male, or female. And there is no question most American females are dripping with delusions, which in my book makes them stupid. And I’m at a point where women have nothing I really need. So it’s a complete waste of my time to even talk to one
i merely hate feminists, those women who latch onto sexism and how it has infected most of society. I aim for the cancer at the heart of the problem, they are the ones that need to be hanged.
I guess technically, that’s not misogyny. But I don’t think I’ll be inviting this guy over for dinner any time soon.
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
Soon you too will be able to snub women LIKE A BOSS
You may remember our friend Christopher in Oregon, a proud woman-hating virgin (from Oregon, presumably) with some interesting theories on what women think about while having sex. He’s back with some thoughts on how to live the good life, MGTOW-style. Truly an inspirational post, offering words of encouragement for all those young MGTOWers out there who still can’t help getting boners whenever they stop thinking about how much they hate women long enough to start picturing these same women naked. (Ah, the MGTOW Paradox in action again!) CinO, as I’ll call him for short, tells these poor young men to hang in there – because eventually these dastardly boners will cease.
Women, even the truly attractive ones, somehow just aren’t that attractive once your sex drive starts to disappear. The fog lifts, and you start noticing the annoying and down-right rotten things about women that you never noticed when you were blinded by your sex drive.
You start seeing the physical imperfections that even the prettiest women have. The blemishes. The overuse of cosmetics. Things caught in their teeth. Plaque build-up. Hair on the lip. Less than perfect hair dye. Bad hair cut. Bushy eye brows. Bad breath. The stupid laugh that grates on your nerves. Her lack of knowledge in current affairs. Shit. The list grows ever longer as you grow older, and your patience grows shorter.
Women simply start to annoy by their mere presence after a point in life.
For MGTOWers, CinO explains, life really does begin at forty:
When you hit forty, the situation becomes laughable. If you listen to nothing else I say, boys, trust me on this one:
The satisfaction you get from snubbing or cancelling out on a date at the last minute with a 35+ attractive woman makes the misery you suffered at the hands of women all worth while.
Granted; I never really suffered, as I avoided them, but what the heck, I might as well enjoy it as long as it’s being throw in my face.
Yeah, there’s nothing quite so satisfying as getting back at women for causing suffering that didn’t happen by being really rude to an individual woman who had nothing to do with the original suffering (which never happened)! (Also, I’m guessing this aborted date is fictional as well.) That’ll show ‘em!
Today, CinO, is free, white (I think), and fortysomething, and living an enviable life riding motorcycles, watching ancient Nazi-based sitcoms, and posting endlessly online about how vile and horrible women are:
I took the last few days off work, and rode my Harley Beasties around. Just because I bloody-well wanted to. Today, I rode all around the snow covered mountains surrounding Mt. St. Helens. An absolute blast. … It sure beat the hell out of spending the day perusing the aisles of K-Mart with a fat bitch of a wife.
I came home, watched movies, a few episodes of Hogan’s Heroes, and it’s off to bed.
Oh, wait, there is still one tiny little trouble in paradise:
Tomorrow, I stop by the doctor because I’ve been riding my bikes so much, it’s re-activated a long dormant ‘roid. Hope he can cure it. lol. Ah, the penalties of being a care-free bachelor. Oops. I meant joys.
Guys never ever creepily obsess over women like this.
Dating guru RooshV — whose name conveniently rhymes with “douchey” — is convinced that, when it comes to women, smartness is inversely correlated with hotness. As he puts it in a post today, committing at least one logical fallacy in the process:
Femininity is a quality that pleases men. Therefore from the chart we can deduce that educated women decrease a man’s happiness. … Anything beyond a bachelors at a public university is a near guarantee she’ll possess a large basket of masculine traits that will prevent boners.
The “chart” in question is one that RooshV made up himself, and which contrasts the purported sexiness of less-educated women with the purported unsexiness of more educated women. As he explains:
A good test to see if a girl is over-educated is to add the word “sexy” before her job title. If the resulting phrase ignites arousing images in your head, then she’ll most likely have what it takes to satisfy you.
There are more than a few problems with RooshV’s little list, not the least of which is that plenty of dudes do in fact get boners thinking of “sexy” female IT specialists, lawyers, financial analysts and other smart women. (I’m kind of partial to sexy professors, myself.) And if you don’t want to take my word for it — and MRAs never do — I invite you to investigate the vast amount of porn involving “nerdy girls” or simply girls with glasses (NSFW link).
Also, if you’re going to base your notions of male and female sexuality on which job titles sound like the best sexy Halloween costume, how can you leave out such classics as “sexy nurse” (a job that actually does require specialized education) or “sexy kitty” (which requires whiskers and little cat ears)? And should we conclude from the perpetual popularity of the latter as a Halloween costume that furry women with tails who shit in a box are sexier than the furless standard models?
Also, if you’re a guy who fetishizes less-educated women, and refuses to date women as educated or as well-paid as you are, you pretty much lose the right to criticize women for wanting you to pick up the check for dinner.
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
As long as we’re talking sexbots, I thought I’d give you all a peek at two of the most advanced models available for purchase or (eww!) rent — not ten or twenty years from now, but today! Assuming the company that built them is still in business.
Um, before you get your hopes up too high, fellas — and ladies, as there is also a male version — I should warn you that, as sexy as these bots are, they are still a little ways away from complete perfection. In fact, it is possible that viewing one of the videos of these bots in action — or even seeing one of the animated gifs based on the videos — much just possibly scar you for life. Granted, I couldn’t get the videos to work, but, trust me, even the animated gifs will haunt your dreams forever.
With that out of the way, I invite you to read what the always entertaining and informative Scary Sextoy Friday blog has to say about Susie Software and Harry Harddrive (that’s really what they’re called), as well as to see the aforementioned gifs. You can learn more about the pair and their creator in this story on Nerve. Or in this story from the always tasteful and reliable Sun.
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
Women’s magazines can be terrifyingly good at reinforcing every bad thing women in this culture feel about themselves. Take, for example, this awful blog post over on Marie Claire, written by a dude, on “why men prefer innocent girls to bad girls.” It’s filled with statements like this, on why guys (supposedly) prefer virgins or near-virgins to more sexually experienced women — aka “bad girls”:
Guys just want to be the leader of that journey instead of the followers. I guess it’s like white fresh snow versus the snow that’s turning black on the side of the road … under the haze of car exhaust. The fresh snow is more of a palette for adventure.
Yep, that’s right. He’s comparing post-virginal women — that is, most adult women — to DIRTY, SOOTY, PROBABLY PISSED-ON, SNOW.
Actually, don’t click on his article. Not yet anyway. Click here instead, to see Captain Awkward’s masterful and often quite hilarious takedown of Rich and his paean to not-very-experienced, not-too-confident women.
Today, on the blog Objectify Chicks — devoted to women, not bird children — the would-be “relationship expert” behind the site attempts to explain why so many men of his ilk prefer Asian women. Naturally, he spews forth an assortment of stereotypes which manage to be insulting towards American and Asian women at the same time.
American women, he writes, echoing a widespread sentiment amongst manosphere men,
are worthless. They are fat, ignorant, self-absorbed, and sexually unskilled. They are so stonehearted that they have been murdering their unborn at the rate of 4,000 innocents a day for 30 years. They are psychologically unstable, romantically unreliable, and more prone than not to use the legal system as a weapon to merely get their way. American women are brash, obnoxious, loud, and irrational – and that is on their very best days.
Asian women, by contrast,
are (largely) diminutive, petite, and feminine. They are quiet and submissive, and have genuine values. … They are devoted to their family, and recognize that sexual skill is a necessary part of being a woman. They recognize that their primary loyalty is to their husband and do not have the “party” attitude of young American women. They are clean, manageable, marriageable, and sane.
Mr. Chick Objectifier shows how much he values these women with values by illustrating his post with a picture of a young, attractive Asian women, with the following caption: “Hello There …. You must be the birthday boy!!! I am your gift!!! I am here to love you long time!”
Clearly, Mr. Objectifier suggests, the best way to knock those smug American women down a peg or two is to import as many of these Asian “gifts” to the US as possible. Alas, evil feminists — sorry, “femtards” — have put a some barriers in the way, in the name of protecting women and girls from “human trafficking.” Mr. Chick Objectifier objects, arguing that
the femtard interest in Western men’s attraction to foreign women has nothing to do with their purported concern for “human trafficking.” Femtard attempts to criminalize foreign matchmaking services and the ease with which foreign wives can obtain visas is rather an attempt to squelch competition from real women (which Western, femtard women are NOT) so that Western men are forced to settle for the screeching, obnoxious, and fat-laden banshees of the femtard left.
That’s right: In his mind Asian women are basically sexual strikebreakers, and feminists want to keep them out of the US so they can have … bitter, woman-hating dudes like the Chick Objectifier all to themselves?
I was following his logic up to this point, but then my head exploded.
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
A couple of interesting posts on topics near and dear to readers here:
Amanda Marcotte takes on “Nice Guys,” and the oft-repeated notion that women seek out abusers and assholes to date:
My counter-theory is that Nice Guys® group together traits like confidence with aggression, so they can convince themselves that confident men are always assholes, and thus that they’re being unfairly deprived of pussy by women who are sick fucks that enjoy being abused. Are some confident men abusive assholes? Absolutely; look at Charlie Sheen. But are all confident men? … [W]hat I can say is I’ve known many men who are great husbands/boyfriends and are also confident … Some shy men are also very nice people, just shy. But many shy men are inconsiderate fuckwits or even wife-beaters. I just don’t think there’s a strong correlation between “alpha”-ness and basic human decency.
And a couple of posts on some new research on gender and casual sex that challenges a lot of manosphere myths about women and hypergamy, suggesting that: 1) women, in general, are as interested in casual sex as men, so long as they feel they will be safe and 2) women, in general, aren’t so addled by their alleged hypergamous proclivities that they actually find Donald Trump to be attractive. In fact, the study suggests, women considering casual sex are driven by a desire for, er, hot sex with a dude who won’t kill them and who they think will be good in bed, not by a desire to get their claws into some random rich dude. Or, as the paper itself puts it:
Sexual strategies theory clearly predicts that higher status proposers should be accepted by women more readily than low-status proposers. The fact that status did not predict women’s acceptance of casual sex offers is therefore a problem for SST. Neither status, nor tendency for gift giving, nor perceived faithfulness of the proposer (nor, more precisely, the interaction of any of these variables with gender) predicted whether a participant would agree to the sexual offer, contradicting SST.
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
This blog deals with some pretty extreme expressions of misogyny. It's not a safe space. You may run across upsetting and possibly triggering things in the posts and in the comments as well.
About We Hunted the Mammoth
" ... a delirious and incisive page against misogyny." -- El Pais, via Google translate
WHTM, written and edited by David Futrelle, tracks and mocks the New Misogyny online, focusing especially on Men's Rights, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), and Pickup Artist (PUA) sites.
Contact me by clicking my head, above, or at futrelle [at] WeHuntedTheMammoth.com
Click here to donate to We Hunted the Mammoth. You don't need a Pay Pal account. The Pay Pal page will say you're donating to Man Boobz; that's just the old name of the blog,
Search the blog
Confused Cats!
Click the kitty to check out my smash hit Tumblr blog!
WHTM on YouTube!
Click the pic to see our YouTube videos!
Contact the Mods!
Click the cat heads or email whtmmods at hotmail dot com
