About these ads

WTF is a MGTOW? A Glossary

On this blog, MRA does not mean Magnetic Resonance Angiography

For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.

First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:

MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.

Ok, so what do those terms mean?

MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether.  I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.

Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:

Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).

Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.

Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.

The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.

NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.

PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”

Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.

About these ads
  1. I can do it too!

    A human being should have their dearest, most heartfelt beliefs completely unraveled at least once in their life, and come out the better for it. And… well, no. That’s about all I got.

  2. LBT: There is lot’s I’ve not done. It’s just that some of it is trite/obvious (I’ve not shot myself).

    Some of it is that the broad strokes of things (what Heinlien was talking about), is the sort of thing I’ve done. So I am not a world class athlete, but I’ve engaged in serious competition (e.g. I tried out for the US Olympic Air Rifle Team, in 1984. I didn’t have more than the slightest chance of making the cut, but I had the chance to try out; and the slightest chance of having a career day, so I took a swing for the fences).

    I read a lot. I try things. I’ve not got the discipline/intensity, to make one thing the focus of my being, so I get decent at a lot of things, and pretty good at some others.

    What I’ve managed to master is learning things.

    That, and making very accurate holes in things, sometimes at great distance.

  3. A mangina is a man who ingratiates himself with women by spouting feminist beliefs, or a man who puts women on a pedestal, deserved or not, not someone who simply disagrees with MRAs.
    Careful Boobz….look what happened to Hugo Schwyzer, and he was involved with the feminists a lot longer than you, and actually teaching ‘gender studies’, and he was considered attractive to a lot of them…he had all those advantages and they still tore him apart. What could they do to you?

    Women eventually reject sad ingratiating ass-kissers. Your time will come.

  4. Actually, use of the term “mangina” is rather pathetic attempt to shame and bully men out of supporting feminism. It’s juvenile and sad.

    And come on, now. Using Hugo fucking Schwyer to drive a wedge between the commenters here? You really don’t know your audience.

  5. *Schwyzer

  6. CassandraSays

    Nah, women reject attempted murderers. Can’t think why that put so many people off Hugo – I guess we’re just picky that way

  7. Oh Crella, can’t you read what you write?

    What is it that defines, “ingratiates”? I don’t hold feminist beliefs to ingratiate myself with women. I have them because I believe them?

    What is it to, “put women on a pedestal”?

    Schwyzer was (is) castigated because he confessed to abusing women. He was (IMO) tolerated far longer than he ought have been; because his descriptions of his actions were, at best, problematic.

    If I were to do what he did, I’d deserve what he got. More than he got, actually. I think he was treated fairly lightly. He confessed to trying to kill someone.

    The use of “mangina” is actually an attempt at shaming language. It fails because it rests on false premises.

    1: That calling people names is actually going to make them feel bad.

    1a: That “mangina” is such a name.

    2: That all men fear the idea of being called effeminate.

    3: That men who are in favor of treating women as equals actuall care (on a personal level) what the douchenozzles of the world; who don’t think women are actually people, think of them.

  8. Crumbelievable

    “Mangina” Haha, get it?!

    Man + vagina = inferior man!

    Real men have masssive cocks and big hairy ballsacks, right?

  9. Thank you for the glossary; it definitely makes navigating this acronym-riddled environment easier. It might be worth adding the Nice Guy phenomenon to the Incel definition. I’m referring to the men who insist on telling people that they are Nice Guys and lament long and loudly about how women won’t date them.

    The last bit of the PUA definition (emphasis mine), seems a bit problematic.

    PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old female ploy of “playing hard to get.”

    Is the phrase “female ploy” used jokingly or seriously? Clarify, please?

    Thanks.

  10. What a sad little blog.

  11. Not as sad as trolling a faq page, Colin.

  12. As a male feminist I don’t feel particularly hated by men or women for me being a feminist. People have weird hangups about feminists but most people don’t tend to hate them. I have notice feminists who are women get the worst end of the stick especially with the stereotypes about what it means to be a feminist.

  13. Tulgey Logger

    I don’t get it. It’s saying women laugh at the “male” part and men laugh at the “feminist” part? Because I don’t see how it works at all the other way around, and it doesn’t work front-ways, so…

    Yeah, no, it’s just dumb.

  14. I do not know the labels, but I do know that I missed the bus, early on, no female friends, no dates, just understanding that I was looking at a life without women. That is just the way it worked out. Probably better for everybody even though I did grow up believing that I could be a good husband and a good father.

  15. You do know that you can still try to get to know women, right? It’s not a bus that only comes once. Find the right route. Pick a stop. Get on the bus. See what happens.

  16. Feminism – means an idea of what the state goverment should look like – Women means female human persons – Women (as well as men) are individuals and thus can be either for the feminist idea of goverment or for any other idea of goverment. Any opinion regarding goverment has zero to do with women. Women compared to equal numbers of men are clearly not even interested in the subject of politics. In voting numbers women could elect whichever american president they want since years back.

    PUA – Your descripition is not correct at all. To put it in simple easy-for-all terms PUA is the male equivalent of female lifestyle-magazines like Cosmopolitan and Plaza telling women how they can be hotter by giving false first impression and also telling women they have the right to increase sexual desirability by these tips. PUA does the exact same things however while male primary sex drive means looks indicating health female primary sex drive means behavior indicating social status. And no this does not mean “playing hard to get” It means not needing other peoples permission, having fun and giving value.

  17. “PUA does the exact same things however while male primary sex drive means looks indicating health female primary sex drive means behavior indicating social status. And no this does not mean “playing hard to get” It means not needing other peoples permission, having fun and giving value.”

    And this is what is wrong with the PUA attitude – that it doesn’t matter what men look like. This is evolutionary psychology propaganda. Good looking men don’t have to be PUAs because women will approach them. Being good looking is a passive way to attract sexual attention and that’s why PUAs will have none of it – because it’s not manly to sit there and be good looking – you’re supposed to do something.

    The core of the PUA belief-system is that men don’t have to please women in order to get women. They believe that men have to “game” women in order to get women. Because pleasing women is only giving women what they want, while gaming women is only giving men what they want. Giving women what they want makes a man weak. A real man tells women what they really want – which of course is to be gamed.

    I’m just glad that PUAs for the most part are not going to reproduce.

  18. Nancy:

    “And this is what is wrong with the PUA attitude – that it doesn’t matter what men look like. This is evolutionary psychology propaganda.”

    Hoppsan!
    Both those claims are wrong. You are confusing the method part (PUA) with the science part (EP) Since PUA is not a science you can say whatever you want as long as it produces results. This includes saying “looks doesnt matter” – however looks and style are clearly a part of it and what doesnt matter is what you could do nothing about. For instance a short guy is told height doent matter – why? Cause it makes him more confident.
    Girls do not care whether its true or not. its the confidence itself they want.

    Claiming EP say it doesnt matter what the man looks like is like claiming Womens magazines say hot women might as well dance and sound like chickens – What they actually say is when everything else is normal – a guy would gain more from power than from looks and a girl would gain more from looks than from power. Statistics show social advantage for powerful men – but not for powerful women.

    “Good looking men don’t have to be PUAs because women will approach them”

    You seem to assume I think women approaching me is something of special value. All it means being approached by her first is me not having to be the one who start the conversation! I still have to turn her on and I am still the one responsible for her feelings of comfort. PUA is the art of seduction – not the art of approaching and talking to people..

    “Being good looking is a passive way to attract sexual attention and that’s why PUAs will have none of it – because it’s not manly to sit there and be good looking – you’re supposed to do something.”

    Not at all. Being good looking is a way to attract social attention. The way to attract sexual attention is “being hot” (see writer Ariel Levy) When women wanna be hot they increase make-up and decreas amount of clothing. When guys wanna be hot they act more aggressive. Typical example: Rock stars… Where do you see successful female rock bands? Female Maiden? Female Metallica?

    “The core of the PUA belief-system is that men don’t have to please women in order to get women.”

    PUA does not have any belief systell. It doesnt matter why other people think stunning women want to make-out (Nor does it to most women matter why guys like a push-up bra). Just that they are doing it prove the point.

    “They believe that men have to “game” women in order to get women.”

    As told, it is the male counterpart to womens magazines. Saying PUA believe men have to “game” women is like attacking womens magazines for having ads about make-up, hair-extensions, wonderbras or whatever with the claim the corporations involved believe women have to “game” men with darker eyes, red lips, bigger chest etc.

    “Because pleasing women is only giving women what they want, while gaming women is only giving men what they want.”

    Not at all! Women are 100% free to have sex with whatever guy they find most pleasing. Whatever women find pleasing is what a PUA would need to do. Whichever guy she had sex with should be the one she thought was most pleasing.

    “Giving women what they want makes a man weak. A real man tells women what they really want – which of course is to be gamed.”

    Actually , giving women what they want makes women wanna have sex. Having sex without giving women what they want is impossible.

  19. Howard Bannister

    Actually , giving women what they want makes women wanna have sex. Having sex without giving women what they want is impossible.

    …um, yeah, it’s totally impossible for gay men to have sex without first calling up the central office of women and making a sacrifice to the altar of ‘what women want.’ After that, they’re home free.

  20. As told, it is the male counterpart to womens magazines. Saying PUA believe men have to “game” women is like attacking womens magazines for having ads about make-up, hair-extensions, wonderbras or whatever with the claim the corporations involved believe women have to “game” men with darker eyes, red lips, bigger chest etc.

    In terms of advice, women’s magazines mostly print bullshit that’s obviously wrong on many levels. Thus I will agree that “game” is the approximate male equivalent of that.

    In terms of ads, you don’t seem to understand what advertising is all about. Advertisers don’t give a shit whether specific products actually improve women’s chances at attracting potential mates, or whether any product, pitched to ANYONE, actually does works as advertised. What they try to do, instead, is create a sense of necessity, an expectation and an illusory promise through narcissistic appeal. That’s all. Which, co
    me to think of it, is pretty much what PUA “gurus” do.

  21. Howard Bannister

    He seems not to understand that feminists specifically do attack women’s magazines for those very things all the time… it’s like he actually doesn’t know anything about feminism.

    Whoops.

  22. Aktivarum: As told, it is the male counterpart to womens magazines.

    As told by whom? I look at the women’s magazines when I’m at the store… they aren’t about how to “trick” men into going to bed with you, so you can give them a “pump and dump”. They don’t tell you to isolate men from their friends so you can work them over at your leisure.

    No, they say, “do this special something in bed so he won’t leave you”. “Ten tricks to keep your hair exciting so he won’t ogle other women”, and shit like that.

    Very different focus. Or perhaps not… they both tell women they aren’t actually important without a man.

    And the PUA gurus… they are some scary people, “Push until you get a “definite” no”. That seems to go hand in hand with your comment that it’s about not needing to get permission.

    As to the EvPsych… tell me more. Any studies to support your PUA theories? Peer reviewed, with data?

    Tell me all about it

  23. Howard:

    “…um, yeah, it’s totally impossible for gay men to have sex without first calling up the central office of women….”

    Thats funny! Since the context was PUA its already implied the sex is with women. You know that already so why do you pretend you dont?

  24. Feminism – means an idea of what the state goverment should look like

    LOL WHAT? Um, that’s hilariously wrong. Feminists have a wide range of political positions, though they do think women should have equal political rights-whatever they think those should be.

    Any opinion regarding goverment has zero to do with women.

    Are there zero women who live in your country? Zero women as residents or citizens? Zero women subjected to its laws? Even if you asininely ignore laws targeting women for discrimination, women would still be citizens and residents, therefore opinions regarding the governance of the countries where they live has quite a bit to do with them (as they are approx. half of the people).

    Women compared to equal numbers of men are clearly not even interested in the subject of politics.

    Didn’t you just say that feminism was a theory about the gov’t? Okay, you’re wrong, but you just contradicted your own definition. Also, women vote at higher rates than men, not lower ones. That sexism often denies women access to positions of political power does not prove that women aren’t interested in politics or government.

    In voting numbers women could elect whichever american president they want since years back.

    Pst pst women aren’t a hivemind. Also, NO, NOT MAJORITY RULES!!! THIS DEMOCRACY IS AWFUL!!! That each person has a vote, so groups with more numbers have more votes is sort of a feature…constitutionalism is supposed to be a check on the majority if it tries to apply unfair rules, it has had varying success.

  25. Amused:

    “In terms of advice, women’s magazines mostly print bullshit that’s obviously wrong on many levels.”

    Tell me one thing then, why do women who get very well payed for creating male attention normally do the things described? Are you telling me you have better advice? I have a friend who works as hostess (Car-shows and stuff), why dont you tell me some better ways to get lots of guys to wanna have sex then? Cause that translates to money (Giving you the choice and power) Because that is the actual purpose and – for any reason – having a different goal does not warrant as valid criticism.

    “Thus I will agree that “game” is the approximate male equivalent of that.”

    PUA is the male equivalent. “Game” Can be anything as revealed by the book-title “The inner game of tennis”

    “In terms of ads, you don’t seem to understand what advertising is all about. Advertisers don’t give a shit whether specific products actually improve women’s chances at attracting potential mates, or whether any product, pitched to ANYONE, actually does works as advertised.”

    Well, I did not discuss advertising in general and I don t agree the products arent working as advertised. I see in fact people who depend financially/personally on them using them with success. My guess would be you don t agree with the purpose of the products and then your argument here is one of ethics – not function. This fallacy is very common for PUA.

    “What they try to do, instead, is create a sense of necessity, an expectation and an illusory promise through narcissistic appeal. That’s all. Which, co
    me to think of it, is pretty much what PUA “gurus” do.”

    Actually post-Mystery-Style-era what PUA gurus do is 1) Have lessions regarding what women like and why. 2) Take students to clubs and make them do approaches , telling them how to improve what they were doing.

    The most common criticism of PUA is not of function but of ethics. Most people think of love and sex as a game of chance. Their proplem with PUA is not that PUA doesnt get more phone numbers – I guraantee you – we do! Their problem is the fact PUA didnt “happen” to get phone numbers but actually had this and purpose and acted in ways that speed up the process and give a better odds succeeding.

    It was the same thing when researchers wanted to do studies on love and romance. One senator flat out said (regarding grants) “bullshit, people dont want science about love” Well, there was an outcry about political control of science and the researchers got 80.000 dollars in the end – clearly its a difference between wanting love to be chance – and it actually being true.

  26. The most common criticism of PUA is not of function but of ethics.

    Well, it’s both. It is grossly inethical to emotionally abuse people to get them to have sex with you, but it is also generally ineffective.

    I guraantee you – we do!

    I doubt you even convince yourself of this, let alone us XD

    Actually post-Mystery-Style-era what PUA gurus do is 1) Have lessions regarding what women like and why. 2) Take students to clubs and make them do approaches , telling them how to improve what they were doing.

    Wow, that totally sailed over your head, didn’t it? She explained to you how advertising works. If you think PUAs don’t try to sell their teaching services by making you feel you need them, you either suck at the concept of advertising, or haven’t actually heard its afficionados speak. To hear them tell it, trying to have sex with women without Game is a sucker’s bet which will never happen without massive amounts of effort and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain XD

    I see in fact people who depend financially/personally on them using them with success.

    The only element to this I’ve seen be accurate is that people are fucking brutal to women who do not use sufficient product, in higher class establishments. I know programmers who are harrassed for insufficient(ly fancy) makeup.

    PUA is the male equivalent.

    Of stupid crap about sex? Agreed XD

  27. pecunium:

    “As told by whom?”

    Me in the earlier post above. (Another context-based argument btw)

    “I look at the women’s magazines when I’m at the store… they aren’t about how to “trick” men into going to bed with you, so you can give them a “pump and dump”.”

    Off course not! They are about tricking men to want to go to bed to you giving you the woman power and choice whether she want free drinks, dating or sex – putting men in the role giving women whatever she think she needs. Since 40 years back most media want to empower women. PUA off course empower men but most people simply dont like gender equality when it refers to men being the part empowered.

    “They don’t tell you to isolate men from their friends so you can work them over at your leisure.”

    Well, women do not need to isolate guys from their guy friends cause when a woman wants to sleep with a guy, HIS friends are not allowed to do 1/10 of the stupid things a woman allow from her friends when I am trying to pick her up.. I asked several women about this and they often claim they try to “protect” their friends However they dont get the fact guys with lots of gf:s are better att handling this than guys with fewer.

    “No, they say, “do this special something in bed so he won’t leave you”. “Ten tricks to keep your hair exciting so he won’t ogle other women”, and shit like that.”

    Now you are confusing relationship and courtship. Every single advice in PUA as well as womens mags are about improving chances in courtship. For relationship advice you need an advisor who is educated in psychology and knows what the persons are like.

    “Very different focus. Or perhaps not… they both tell women they aren’t actually important without a man.”

    Actually, none of them said that. They say IF you already are dating a guy and want it to be exclusive this is what you can do. The rest was your subjective opinion regarding why they would say anything at all.

    “And the PUA gurus… they are some scary people, “Push until you get a “definite” no”. That seems to go hand in hand with your comment that it’s about not needing to get permission.”

    a) When saying “untill you get no” it implies you HAVE to have her permission.
    b) The context of pushing until you get no are the kind of guys usually giving up. What kind of guys do you think the girls normally had sex with? Basically those that kept pushing and not getting no. PUA just analysed the situation and gave it a name.

    “As to the EvPsych… tell me more. Any studies to support your PUA theories? Peer reviewed, with data?”

    PUA does not have any theory – “A” stand for art..

    But yes evolutionary psychology supports a situation where females who invest more are choosier in courtship (Trivers investment theory) It also supports that women when asked which guy is hottest use information not related to looks. Resarchers proved women statistics on attraction change with information on social stats. By having 9 pictures and asking women which of 3 guys was hottest women – without knowing it – show the same guy who had 4 on looks got a 9 when the sign said he had a different social status,

    Researcher David Buss proved cross-culturally this is not just true for the western world but also true in different cultures. And then off course we have harvard professor Steven Pinker clearly peer-revewed and never without data on anything. Currently he works with showing how and why there is lesser and lesser violence in the world.

  28. Howard:

    “He seems not to understand that feminists specifically do attack women’s magazines for those very things all the time… it’s like he actually doesn’t know anything about feminism.”

    Actually I never said feminists do not attack womens magazines. I said they do not attack womens magazines because the mags give women more power over men by trickery (game). Also the attacks are based on the straw man fallacy. Neither PUA nor Womens Mags tell what you should do. They both tell you HOW you do things if you want to.

    Free Will is the key to understanding this.

  29. Rutee:

    “Well, it’s both. It is grossly inethical to emotionally abuse people to get them to have sex with you, but it is also generally ineffective.”

    Seducing women is not the same as emotional abuse. In fact, people who are down with emotional abuse do not need seduction skills since they can simply trick women into believing they will one day marry and have kids. If they were ok with that they already had all the sex they wanted and would not need PUA

    “I doubt you even convince yourself of this”

    Thats funny cause it can only mean you give ridiciolusly high value to getting a womans number. Do you also need convincing when talking about hard things to do like the ability to ride a bicycle or cooking food? You know common stuff where contesting the ability doing it better with practise is just stupid.

    “Wow, that totally sailed over your head, didn’t it? She explained to you how advertising works.”

    We were not even discussing advertising. Also we are talking about human beings who have a free will to not buy the product regardless of the ad. One of the three researchers writing about Free Will is Kathleen Vohs, Associate professor of marketing so I am pretty sure they do know the subject.

    “If you think PUAs don’t try to sell their teaching services by making you feel you need them, you either suck at the concept of advertising, or haven’t actually heard its afficionados speak. To hear them tell it, trying to have sex with women without Game is a sucker’s bet which will never happen without massive amounts of effort and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”

    Well the fact is research proves very high correlation between number of girlfriends/ amounts of sex/ chilren, and resources – and only for men not for women. In fact women with better resources seem to be more likely to be single and childless. Which is one of the ad-companies most wanted groups.

    “The only element to this I’ve seen be accurate is that people are fucking brutal to women who do not use sufficient product, in higher class establishments. I know programmers who are harrassed for insufficient(ly fancy) makeup.”

    I was talking about women where the job is to attract people for money. For example if a waitress is hotter – she normally gets more money. If a singer is hotter, she normally gets more playtime sells more records and get richer. Observe Avril Lavigne who marketed herself as “against dropping clothes” on covers then got a few years older and made every feminist disappointed by – yes dropping clothes on covers herself.

  30. darksidecat:

    “Um, that’s hilariously wrong. Feminists have a wide range of political positions, though they do think women should have equal political rights-whatever they think those should be.”

    Well fact is two philosophy professors have analysed feminism and written books about it. Both concluded the same thing. There are 2 feminist movements. One for equal treatment of women and one for special treatment of women. Since women in general 2012 already have equal rights with men, the more active feminists seem with few exceptions be people who are AGAINST equal rights.

    For example the Womens Center at Simon Fraser University went against the plans regarding a Mens Center. A gender studies person comments:

    “The idea that the definition of equality should be that all people are treated the same is something that women’s studies scholars have challenged through research and theoretical work over the years”

    http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/05/03/SFU-Mens-Centre/

    “Are there zero women who live in your country?”

    Not at all, however women votes for several different political parties and this means what one woman likes another woman hates. Feminists supporting one woman is against a different woman.

    “women vote at higher rates than men, not lower ones.”

    Voting do not require interest in politics. According to several newspapers more women voted for Hillary Clinton that time when she started crying.

    “That sexism often denies women access to positions of political power does not prove that women aren’t interested in politics or government.”

    1) How often is sexism proven and how often is sexism just assumed? The Sexual Paradox contest the claim for sexism.

    2) Many studies show women are less interested than men in taking risks and making sacrifices. How did feminists respond? They killed Larry Summers carreer.

    3) When i said women are not interested. I meant if you have 1000 random men and 1000 random women more men will be interested (Measuered in time money) in politics than women.

    “Pst pst women aren’t a hivemind.”

    Never said they were. I said if they wanted to vote for women they can.

    “constitutionalism is supposed to be a check on the majority if it tries to apply unfair rules, it has had varying success.”

    Actually, The Constitution is a check on the goverment. Historically majorities was opressed by kings and churches (something u should know) making a law to protect us from the majority completely redundant.

    Also the definition of democracy is letting more people be a part of making decisions. Not finding excuses to only let your friends do it.

  31. Every feminist? i wasn’t disappointed by Avril Lavinge, I forget she exists.

  32. Kendra, the bionic mommy

    Voting do not require interest in politics. According to several newspapers more women voted for Hillary Clinton that time when she started crying.

    I know men who voted for GW Bush because “he seemed like the kind of guy you could drink a beer with”. All this proves is that some people don’t vote on issues, but instead vote on whichever candidate they find most likable. It’s not a gender issue.

    When i said women are not interested. I meant if you have 1000 random men and 1000 random women more men will be interested (Measuered in time money) in politics than women.

    You can’t just make up statistics to prove your point. Well, you can, but I won’t take your hypothetical study seriously.

    The reason the feminists were concerned about the proposed men’s center at SFU is that the men wanting to start it up do not want to work in collaboration with women. That makes it look more like a reactionary “women suck club” more than a safe space for men on campus. Why should the school fund reactionaries?

  33. Kendra, the bionic mommy

    Oops, the part of my comment “When I said women are not interested. I meant if you have 1000 random men and 1000 random women, more men will be interested (Measured in time money) in politics than women” was actually a quote from Aktivarum.

  34. Many studies show women are less interested than men in taking risks and making sacrifices.

    I always get a kick out of this one.

    Let’s start with the obvious fact that the costs of taking risks are not the same to men and women. Financial, political and social success is considered men’s birthright, so men enjoy a far wider safety net than women when they take risks. They are allowed to fail without being written off as “typically incompetent” members of their gender. Men can expect, as a matter of course, that OTHER people will sacrifice for them in order to reduce the risks that they are supposedly taking: that the wife will put a dent in her own career to promote his, and spend all her free time keeping the kids from being a nuisance to him, that the whole family will move thousands of miles for his job, disregarding all other factors, such as convenience, personal happiness, proximity to family and friends, etc. It’s completely ordinary for an ambitious man to have his wife sacrifice her career for his and to do absolutely no child care. For a woman to do something like that is unthinkable, even in this day and age. Women are allowed to pursue careers and take risks, sure — as long as it doesn’t inconvenience the menfolk. And merely putting your kid in day care so you could go to work earns you buckets of rage from people who deem you a horrible mother.

    The second problem with this statement is inconsistency. I like to play a little game with this one. If men are natural risk-takers, that means they take risks EVERYWHERE, including the family life; that if they are willing to risk money because it’s in their psyche, then it follows that they are also willing to risk ruining relationships, children and their loved ones’ happiness; if they are willing to sacrifice time to climb the corporate latter, that means they are also willing to sacrifice others. After all, you are talking about a propensity for risk-taking here, that’s valued in and of itself, not just a means to an end, but an end in itself. But as soon as I point this out — that being “natural risk-takers” would suggest that men make terrible husbands and fathers – proponents of this idea do a complete about-face. What hypocrites you all are.

  35. Aktivarum: Actually I never said feminists do not attack womens magazines. I said they do not attack womens magazines because…

    So they have a reason for not attacking women’s magazines, ergo you said (and admit that you said) they don’t attack women’s magazines.

    One of the three researchers writing about Free Will is Kathleen Vohs, Associate professor of marketing so I am pretty sure they do know the subject.

    Ooh… an appeal to authority. I’m all agog.

    Ah, the Simon Fraser University Men’s Centre, put into being with the stroke of a pen. One guy, who happened to be in the budget drafting committee inserted a line item for 30,000 dollars. One guy, without any appeals from an groups on campus, decided it was needful

    Still, it isn’t just the women’s centre that questions the funding. Joel Warren, who represents labour studies students on a council that advises the overall student society, says students should have been consulted before the budget went to the subcommittee for approval. “It was created top-down by fiat,” he says. Syeda Nayab Bukhari, a doctoral student in GSWS and user of the women’s centre, agrees. “There needs to be a proper needs assessment,” she says, adding that she’s concerned about how the centre would “incorporate race, class and gender.”

    Midgley admits no men approached him asking for their own space.

    No one approached him. He inserted a personal project into the budget. And you say people questioning that is proof women are against equality.

  36. Tell me one thing then, why do women who get very well payed for creating male attention normally do the things described?

    Because advertisers are looking for one thing… some people to buy some thing.

    They don’t care if it’s a small slice of the population, just so long as it’s enough to keep the client convinced they got value for dollar. If that means spewing nonsense, then they spew nonsense. It’s what all snake-oil salesmen do.

    Actually post-Mystery-Style-era what PUA gurus do is 1) Have lessions regarding what women like and why. 2) Take students to clubs and make them do approaches , telling them how to improve what they were doing.

    More snake oil (for a guy whose not talking about advertising, you sure use a lot of advertising examples). What most people who are having problems getting attention from the opposite sex need is to go out and interact. It’s not the “secrets” or the “tips and feedback” which makes the change, it’s the going out and actually talking to people.

    The PUA Gurus are dressing this up with bullshit about, “how women are”, and you bought it.

  37. It’s so amusing when trolls think they’ve really scored by sneaking into the FAQ page.

  38. Aktivarum: pecunium:

    “As told by whom?”

    Me in the earlier post above. (Another context-based argument btw)

    And who are you? Why should I believe you? You’ve done nothing which convinces me that my experience is wrong.

    You’ve told me, “how it is”, but offered no evidence to counter the evidence I already have.

    Off course not! They are about tricking men to want to go to bed to you giving you the woman power and choice whether she want free drinks, dating or sex – putting men in the role giving women whatever she think she needs. Since 40 years back most media want to empower women. PUA off course empower men but most people simply dont like gender equality when it refers to men being the part empowered.

    Is there a rational sentence here? I’d settle for comprehensible.

    It’s not a response to what I said (that women’s magazines are about keeping a guy interested, not getting him), and I can’t make head, nor tail, of what it’s trying to say.

    Now you are confusing relationship and courtship. Every single advice in PUA as well as womens mags are about improving chances in courtship. For relationship advice you need an advisor who is educated in psychology and knows what the persons are like

    No, I’m reading the mags. They talk about, “keeping your man interested”. That’s not, “courtship” (how pleasantly archaic), that’s relational maintenance.

    a) When saying “untill you get no” it implies you HAVE to have her permission.

    Nope. It is based on the idea that you have permission, until she says NO!. You don’t have to get it, she has to withdraw it.

    It also says, in no small number of Gurus explanations, that it has to be a, “strong no”, that “giving up” the moment she says no is a mugs game, and only wimps and losers don’t make her, “prove she means it.”

    Trivers… ok. But it’s not as if Trivers is proven science. Trivers based his theory on the work of Bateman. Bateman has some problems. his methods had flaws, including the elimination of genetic variance, sampling biases, miscalculations of fitness variances, statistical pseudo-replication, and selective presentation of data. We conclude that Bateman’s results are unreliable, his conclusions are questionable, and his observed variances are similar to those expected under random mating.

    A REAPPRAISAL OF BATEMAN’S CLASSIC STUDY OF INTRASEXUAL SELECTION Snyder and Gowaty, 2007

    Martinez and Ryder do a more accessible analysis (it’s not behind a paywall).

    The most important aspects of Batemans work, to Trivers were confounded by Batman’s use of flies that didn’t need to mate as regularly to reproduce, compunded by the presence of hormones in the male sperm which inhibit female copulation.

    D. melanogaster males produce seminal proteins that can increase females’ latencies to re-mate by inhibiting receptivity. Thus, female ‘‘coyness’’ is induced by males rather than being an inherent characteristic of females. If receptivity was inhibited, the very small sample sizes used by Bateman (3 or 5 flies of each sex per experiment) may have effectively lowered the number of receptive females available, causing males to mate indiscriminately with any receptive female they encountered.

    The Problem with Paradigms: Bateman’s Worldview as a Case Study

    Martinez and Ryder (2005)

    Researcher David Buss proved cross-culturally this is not just true for the western world but also true in different cultures.

    Proven!

    Citation needed. Where is this study?

  39. Argenti Aertheri

    PUA is the male equivalent. “Game” Can be anything as revealed by the book-title “The inner game of tennis”

    That analogy is more right than you realize —
    love, noun
    13. Chiefly Tennis . a score of zero; nothing.
    Which basically seems to be how PUAs view things too.

    Their proplem with PUA is not that PUA doesnt get more phone numbers – I guraantee you – we do!

    Congrats? Most people aren’t interested in just expanding their rolodex (holy shit is that an outdated reference!) — nor are most people interested in only having one night stands.

    They are about tricking men to want to go to bed to you giving you the woman power and choice whether she want free drinks, dating or sex – putting men in the role giving women whatever she think she needs.

    *picks up a cosmo, flips randomly* hair care products, let me try that again; ridiculously bad medical advice that mostly is just wasting 4 pages on saying either “that’s normal” or “see a doctor”, let’s try again. AH! here we go — “talk so he’ll listen” don’t say this: we don’t spend enough time together; say this: I’d really like to find a way to have more time just for us; why: instead of complaining, you’re presenting it as an issue you can both solve together — ignoring that I hit some sort of anti-feminist trifecta there, that’s “advice” for people already in a relationship and has fuck all to do with getting things from men. Unless time counts as things now?

    Well, women do not need to isolate guys…

    Implying that men do need to isolate women? Isolation is an abusers game, not something one should be proud of doing. As is insisting that only no means no — “you want to get dinner?” “eh, I have to study” = no. And when it’s not about sex people know this and I can probably dig up a study proving that if I can remember the citation.

    Now you are confusing relationship and courtship. Every single advice in PUA as well as womens mags are about improving chances in courtship. For relationship advice you need an advisor who is educated in psychology and knows what the persons are like.

    No, you’re confusing whether women’s mags talk about relationships or courtship — it’s the former. And you’re just continuing to prove that PUAs are not actually interested in relationships.

    Actually, none of them said that. They say IF you already are dating a guy and want it to be exclusive this is what you can do. The rest was your subjective opinion regarding why they would say anything at all.

    Ever actually read one? Because exclusivity almost never comes up, it’s all either pointless shit or how to be “perfect” so you won’t piss him off. That is, Pecunium is right with — “They talk about, “keeping your man interested”. That’s not, “courtship” (how pleasantly archaic), that’s relational maintenance.”

    a) When saying “untill you get no” it implies you HAVE to have her permission.
    b) The context of pushing until you get no are the kind of guys usually giving up. What kind of guys do you think the girls normally had sex with? Basically those that kept pushing and not getting no. PUA just analysed the situation and gave it a name.

    a) no, no it doesn’t, it implies that you have to force her to say no because you won’t listen to things that mean no
    b) “Basically those that kept pushing and not getting no.” well hello rapist logic, I knew we’d get there eventually! What kind of guys do girls normally have sex with? One’s who’re respectful and at least halfway decent in bed?

    But yes evolutionary psychology supports a situation where females who invest more are choosier in courtship (Trivers investment theory) It also supports that women when asked which guy is hottest use information not related to looks. Resarchers proved women statistics on attraction change with information on social stats. By having 9 pictures and asking women which of 3 guys was hottest women – without knowing it – show the same guy who had 4 on looks got a 9 when the sign said he had a different social status,

    Researcher David Buss proved cross-culturally this is not just true for the western world but also true in different cultures. And then off course we have harvard professor Steven Pinker clearly peer-revewed and never without data on anything. Currently he works with showing how and why there is lesser and lesser violence in the world.

    Neither of those is ev-psych, the first paragraph is straight psychology (could be ev-psych in context, out of context it isn’t reading like that though) — Pinker’s still doing philosophy right? So still not ev-psych. Way to not answer the question there.

    Actually I never said feminists do not attack womens magazines. I said they do not attack womens magazines because the mags give women more power over men by trickery (game). Also the attacks are based on the straw man fallacy. Neither PUA nor Womens Mags tell what you should do. They both tell you HOW you do things if you want to.

    O RLY? Cover story: women and danger this decision could cost you your life; they don’t tell women what they should do? Guess that’s more like must not should, but still.

    Seducing women is not the same as emotional abuse.

    Trying to find wiggle room in anything but “no” is.

    Well the fact is research proves very high correlation between number of girlfriends/ amounts of sex/ chilren, and resources – and only for men not for women.

    Do you get that most women will not stay with an asshole? No matter how rich he is?

    I was talking about women where the job is to attract people for money. For example if a waitress is hotter – she normally gets more money. If a singer is hotter, she normally gets more playtime sells more records and get richer. Observe Avril Lavigne who marketed herself as “against dropping clothes” on covers then got a few years older and made every feminist disappointed by – yes dropping clothes on covers herself.

    Feminists! Observe that there are still a bunch of utterly not sex related jobs where being sexy is required! (hint: we know) — I couldn’t care less if Avril Lavigne strips, so long as she’s doing it because she wants to.

    Not at all, however women votes for several different political parties and this means what one woman likes another woman hates. Feminists supporting one woman is against a different woman.

    Wtf does that even mean? Women’s votes are only counted against each other now or something?

    According to several newspapers more women voted for Hillary Clinton that time when she started crying.

    *dies laughing* Pecunium can we get your citation needed graphic please?

    “constitutionalism is supposed to be a check on the majority if it tries to apply unfair rules, it has had varying success.”

    Actually, The Constitution…

    constitutionalism =/= The Constitution, let me google that for you.

    ——
    Apparently PUAs really piss me off, sorry about the length!

  40. Kendra:

    “I know men who voted for GW Bush because “he seemed like the kind of guy you could drink a beer with”

    The claim “I know people…” is anecdotal. It only shows who you choose to hang out with. Also the point I make was women changing who they vote for because of her H. Clinton crying in media. Did u mean guys vote for Bush cause they see him drinking beer?

    “You can’t just make up statistics to prove your point. Well, you can, but I won’t take your hypothetical study seriously.”

    I did not even present any statistics.

    “The reason the feminists were concerned about the proposed men’s center at SFU is that the men wanting to start it up do not want to work in collaboration with women.”

    Do you have any idea how crazy its sounds telling me the problem with a MALE ONLY space was that women were not asked for permission?

    Off course women are not asked, the purpose of the space is women-free. It already exists such a male-free space for women. Its a simple matter of gender equality. You sound like the people who opposed the suffrage.

    First common men cant vote cause they are considered stupid.
    Then women cant vote cause they cant be trusted.

    And now men cant have a Men´s center without mommy over their shoulder making sure the little boys behave (Clear cut Misandry). Dont we just love hearing the excuses from last century as long as it is the bad kind of people described? Its ok now cause now we dont mean black people,

    We just mean a larger group including half of the black people.

    “That makes it look more like a reactionary “women suck club” more than a safe space for men on campus. Why should the school fund reactionaries?”

    Reactionary is in this case a Straw Man-fallacy, that is not what they said but something you made up. Also even if they were reactionary they should fund them cause

    a) democracy creates creative people with smart and tested solutions while selective teaching creates opportunism and corruption.

    b) They call themselves a school and not a church.

  41. Argenti Aertheri

    “Do you have any idea how crazy its sounds telling me the problem with a MALE ONLY space was that women were not asked for permission?”

    Way to miss the point — no student organization can fund anything without admin permission, they control the money >.<

    "They call themselves a school and not a church."

    Which means that had it meant the school requirements it would've been opened, it didn't and thus was not. You could try starting an underwater basket weaving club and have this happen, or a frisbee team, or whatever — you have to meet school policy, which is perfectly reasonable.

  42. Aktivarum: The claim “I know people…” is anecdotal. It only shows who you choose to hang out with

    Then you can link to studies to support your claims about women voting for Clinton because she cried.

    Off course women are not asked, the purpose of the space is women-free.

    You missed the point of when they were not asked. They were not asked about how to spend money they had contributed. About how to use space they would lose access too.

    They were not asked, in ways in which men are asked, when a women’s centre is being built. The disparity in treatment is an example of why a men’s centre isn’t as needed as all that.

    a) democracy creates creative people with smart and tested solutions while selective teaching creates opportunism and corruption.

    As with pretty much every fact claim you’ve made you might consider this

  43. QuantumSparkle

    Hahahahahah! This is just too foolish:

    2) Many studies show women are less interested than men in taking risks and making sacrifices. How did feminists respond? They killed Larry Summers carreer.

    Hahahaha!!! You mean Lawrence Summers? The former Harvard president who hypothesized that there were fewer women in science because maybe women just weren’t smart enough to do science?

    Yeah, feminists totally “killed” his career. After that “maybe women just aren’t smart enough and spend too much time thinking about babies” speech (seriously, that was in that shit-speech, although it sounded more polite), his career was OVER!!! It was just awful: it got so bad he was selected by President Obama to be the director of the White House National Economic Council. Such a tragedy! His career- RUINED!!! So sad.

  44. a) When saying “untill you get no” it implies you HAVE to have her permission.
    b) The context of pushing until you get no are the kind of guys usually giving up. What kind of guys do you think the girls normally had sex with? Basically those that kept pushing and not getting no. PUA just analysed the situation and gave it a name.

    a) no, no it doesn’t, it implies that you have to force her to say no because you won’t listen to things that mean no
    b) “Basically those that kept pushing and not getting no.” well hello rapist logic, I knew we’d get there eventually! What kind of guys do girls normally have sex with? One’s who’re respectful and at least halfway decent in bed?

    At least some PUAs (Gunwitch springs to mind) subscribe to the “no doesn’t really mean no” method, where a woman who says “no” is met with reasons why she doesn’t really mean no or doesn’t know what she wants, or possibly is responded to as if her “no” was not heard. Basically, in this case, “no” is ignored unless followed by “And fucking stop harassing me, asshole, or I’ll call the police/scream/taze you/etc.”

    I was talking about women where the job is to attract people for money. For example if a waitress is hotter – she normally gets more money.

    It’s interesting to note that in a recentish* study on job discrimination, high-end (expensive) restaurants were far more likely to hire men than women. Women were more likely to get hired at less expensive restaurants (diners, cafes, etc.) — where of course their tips would reflect their customers’ smaller bills. If being a hot woman is a prerequisite to being a well-paid server, it’s news to the US restaurant industry.

    *If memory serves, this nationwide study was from the last 20 years or so, although it has been recreated on a smaller scale in different cities since then.

    Voting do not require interest in politics. According to several newspapers more women voted for Hillary Clinton that time when she started crying.

    Possibly “several newspapers” stated this. But I always find that it’s so much more interesting when one puts historical events in context, instead of pretending that they exist in a vacuum!

    1. When they weren’t talking about how some women supported Hillary after she cried in public, the media were busy hypothesizing about how crying in public had ruined her chance at the presidency, because obviously future presidents don’t cry!

    2. All this was on top of YEARS of the media decrying Hillary as too bitchy, unfeeling, inhuman, cold, calculating, what have you … and thus a totally unlikeable person in general.

    3. The crying moment came when Hillary was talking to a group of women voters about life as a woman running for president, which included intense scrutiny into her personal life — was she eating too much, not exercising right, did her eyes look puffy, did her hair look weird?

    4. The media also speculated about whether the crying was just a crass, manipulative move to make Hillary seem more real.

    5. All of which amounts to the kind of scrutiny that women face as political candidates which differs (and is in addition to) the type of scrutiny that their male counterparts face. Which is only one of the reasons** why, although women vote in greater numbers than men in the US, so few women run or are elected to political office.

    **Actually, this probably comprises two separate reasons: Individual women’s unwillingness to subject themselves to heightened media scrutiny for female candidates and voters’ decreased likelihood of voting for such candidates after such media scrutiny.

  45. Ahahaha, troll sneaks into FAQ and thinks he can leave his droppings unchallenged, and BAM.

    Demolishment.

    Does this happen in other blogs’ FAQs (I only really hang out here, other blogs I read on my feed).

    This was fun.

  46. I’m thinking of using the FAQ comments box whenever I’m tempted to post something off topic on one of the “live” threads. Given how often I go OT, this might soon become the longest discussion thread…

  47. Kendra, the bionic mommy

    The claim “I know people…” is anecdotal. It only shows who you choose to hang out with. Also the point I make was women changing who they vote for because of her H. Clinton crying in media. Did u mean guys vote for Bush cause they see him drinking beer?

    Of course, since I’m a woman, you can discount anything I say from personal experience. After all, wimminz always be lying, amirite? Also, when you say “he’s the kind of guy you can drink a beer with”, it means you think he’s down to earth and friendly, not that you’ve necessarily seen the person drink a beer. That’s how a male friend of mine described GW Bush. He said he realized it wasn’t the greatest choice when the economy crashed during the Bush administration. You think that only women vote based on what candidates they find more likable, but I’m saying that both men and women vote that way.

    I did not even present any statistics.

    Then what was this?

    When i said women are not interested. I meant if you have 1000 random men and 1000 random women more men will be interested (Measuered in time money) in politics than women.

    Note that you said if you did a study on 1000 random men and 1000 random women. There is no such study, but I’m supposed to take what you say as a proven fact. If you know of a real study that shows this, then go ahead and present it.

    Reactionary is in this case a Straw Man-fallacy, that is not what they said but something you made up. Also even if they were reactionary they should fund them cause

    No, I think the adjective reactionary fits for a club dedicated to the idea that women = suck. If there are some male students that want to start up a women suck club on their campus, they can do it with their own funds and not the college’s.

  48. ithiliana: It happens on Making Light, mostly because the regulars there are monitoring several threads at once, and a lot of them do what I do, load the “1000 most recent comments” to both keep up, and look for spam.

    So someone will find an old thread, on something controversial, and,”tell us how it is”, and get their ass handed to them, on a cheap plate.

  49. Argenti:

    “13. Chiefly Tennis . a score of zero; nothing.
    Which basically seems to be how PUAs view things too.”

    Relevance here? Zero, the longer title of the book is “The Classic Guide to the Mental Side of Peak Performance”

    “Congrats? Most people aren’t interested in just expanding their rolodex (holy shit is that an outdated reference!) — nor are most people interested in only having one night stands.”

    Again, PUA is a method – its not a scientific theory or a belief system. There are no rules saying you need to have one night stands. I could name several PUAs known for longer relationships.

    “*picks up a cosmo, flips randomly* hair care products, let me try that again; ridiculously bad medical advice that mostly is just wasting 4 pages on saying either “that’s normal” or “see a doctor”

    You seem to not know what business Cosmo is in. It is a magazine for entertainment. They dont sell the articles, they sell products using entertaining articles to lure people in. The “advice” you speak of is entertainment for women – little stories to socialize about, The real message is the advertisements. Hair Care, Make Up, etc is used by women to attract men. PUA is used by men to attract women. Selling PUA is like selling make-up.

    “Implying that men do need to isolate women?”

    Yes, and women would need to isolate men if male friends acted more like female often do and men did not isolate themselves from the guys.

    “Isolation is an abusers game, not something one should be proud of doing.”

    Telling a girl lets find new friends is not even close to anything called abuse. Girls reward guys for doing this implying they want guys to do it. It takes away resposability and creates freedom. Women dont “have” to do anything – they choose to do things.

    “As is insisting that only no means no — “you want to get dinner?” “eh, I have to study” = no. And when it’s not about sex people know this and I can probably dig up a study proving that if I can remember the citation.”

    Yes people know this but when women do have sex they more often have sex with which guy? The one listening or the one not listening? A published study on “token resistance” showed 50% of women refused sex with guys who respect their no. Guys according to half the woman population should “risk it”

    “you’re confusing whether women’s mags talk about relationships or courtship — it’s the former. And you’re just continuing to prove that PUAs are not actually interested in relationships.”

    I talked about what the magz sell. You talk about the entertaining material doing the selling. Relationships? Yes, that must be the reason well known PUA Adam had his girlfriend on lots of workshops. His girlfriend is there so off course PUA are not interested in relationships.

    “Ever actually read one? Because exclusivity almost never comes up”

    You dont really need to “read” a picture of lipstick colors or eyeliner-use. But you are correct the text is mostly pointless shit – entertainment – making people seeing the paid content – how to become beautiful – and btw what is on the magazine cover again?

    “Basically those that kept pushing and not getting no.” well hello rapist logic, I knew we’d get there eventually!”

    Rape is a crime of violence. Using your logic would mean a normal sales call would be equal to committing armed robbery. Neither salesman, nor robber accept no. However in the real world being a salesman/PUA is allowed, being a robber/rapist is not.

    “What kind of guys do girls normally have sex with? One’s who’re respectful and at least halfway decent in bed?”

    1. Respect – This means fearing or admiring. Most guys admire the girl they are trying to pick up for something – this is why they chose her, So basically you either want guys to be afraid of women – or your description would be true for every single PUA.

    2. Decent in Bed – You dont know how good he is until you already have chosen him so cleary he cant be chosen on basis of this.

    “Neither of those is ev-psych, the first paragraph is straight psychology (could be ev-psych in context, out of context it isn’t reading like that though)”

    There is no such thing as “straight” psychology: There are clinical or experimental psychology. Evolutionary psychology is the newest revolution in experimental psychology. Before the evolutionary approach there was the cognitive approach.

    ” — Pinker’s still doing philosophy right? So still not ev-psych. Way to not answer the question there.”

    Pinkers Ph.D is in experimental psychology.

    “Cover story: women and danger this decision could cost you your life; they don’t tell women what they should do? Guess that’s more like must not should, but still.”

    See above, what business Cosmo is in.

    “Trying to find wiggle room in anything but “no” is.”

    See above, According to that logic any person in sales is “abusing” people by not respecting no.

    “Do you get that most women will not stay with an asshole? No matter how rich he is?”

    Guys in general dont want most women to stay after sex. Guys want to have sex with many women and relationships with a few special ones. Also, do you think the SMS Tiger Woods sent his mistresses was respectful?

    “Feminists! Observe that there are still a bunch of utterly not sex related jobs where being sexy is required!”

    Its not required at all. Nobody is forcing rich stars to act this way. They do it cause it pays better when it sells better and that is the business they chose to be in. Entertainment is about luring people in to sell them products… The reason Hollywood can do expensive movies is companies with products think it helps them sell.

    “Wtf does that even mean? Women’s votes are only counted against each other now or something?”

    It means nothing hinders a woman to become president, except lack of interest and support from other women.

    “constitutionalism =/= The Constitution”

    Yes and guess what Stanford Encyclopedia says on the matter

    “Constitutionalism is the idea — that government can and should be legally limited in its powers”

  50. Aktivarum said, way back near the top of this thread:

    “Both those claims are wrong. You are confusing the method part (PUA) with the science part (EP) ”

    No, I’m not confusing PUA with EP. I pointed out that your belief that “male primary sex drive means looks indicating health female primary sex drive means behavior indicating social status” is evolutionary psychology propaganda.

    PUA, like all organizations that have an interest in bolstering male privilege, eagerly adopts EP theories.

    One of the standard tenets of EP is that women aren’t visual and men are. This of course ignores all the evidence that women are in fact interested in exactly the same features in a partner – youth and beauty – that men are. And I’ll testify for you – I am much more likely to be sexually attracted to a 25-year-old than a 52-year old based on physical appearance.

    What EP always ignores is the fact that until very recently, women haven’t had the luxury to choose partners based primarily on youth and beauty. Until very recently most women had to compete to be chosen by a man who would then support her financially. Only in the last 50 years have women had the opportunity, in large numbers to be wholly self-supporting.

    And a necessary caveat – this is only true of industrial societies. There are still some places in the world right now where little girls are sold into marriage by their families to old men.

    But wherever women have the luxury of choosing partners based on aesthetics, they are very much visual creatures.

    The fact that the “cougar” trend has happened now is no coincidence – it’s a response on the part of women to their freedom to choose men on the basis of youth and beauty.

    And of course the term cougar is a legacy of absolute male dominance over mating practices. The term for men who prefer younger women is “men.” But the term cougar will fade as the behavior becomes more common, and in less than an evolutionary time-span.

    And then of course there are “metrosexuals” – heterosexual men who put more care into their grooming and appearance than has previously been considered acceptable – or necessary. Why should men primp for women? Men had all the money – it was up to women to show they were worth the financial investment of marriage by men.

    The appearance of metrosexuals at this time is also not a coincidence, but a response to female financial independence.

    But since both cougars and metrosexuals have appeared within less than an evolutionary time span and flout the EP dogma, the EPs will do what they always do with evidence that disproves their theories – ignore them.

    And that is but one reason why evolutionary psychology is such a pathetic joke.

  51. Argenti Aertheri

    Aktivarum —

    “Relevance here?…”

    Relevance minimal, hilarity of irony high — it was a joke FFS.

    “Again, PUA is a method – its not a scientific theory or a belief system. There are no rules saying you need to have one night stands. I could name several PUAs known for longer relationships.”

    Um…pump and dump, that’s all I’m saying. I don’t give one rat’s ass if some, or even some actual percentage (which “several” is probably not, several is an anecdote), have long term relationships. I don’t care if some get married. The commonly seen method is the pump and dump, and even when it isn’t, the idea that your tactics will lead to an actual relationship are absurd, how does anyone have a relationship with someone they don’t even speak to enough to know if they have anything in common?

    “You seem to not know what business Cosmo is in. It is a magazine for entertainment. They dont sell the articles, they sell products using entertaining articles to lure people in. The “advice” you speak of is entertainment for women – little stories to socialize about, The real message is the advertisements. Hair Care, Make Up, etc is used by women to attract men. PUA is used by men to attract women. Selling PUA is like selling make-up.”

    You seemed to have missed that I own one issue of cosmo and mock it (and that’s why I own it, my mother thought it’d amuse me). That “how not to get raped and/or murdered” article is definitely meant as advice though.

    “Yes, and women would need to isolate men if male friends acted more like female often do and men did not isolate themselves from the guys.

    Telling a girl lets find new friends is not even close to anything called abuse. Girls reward guys for doing this implying they want guys to do it. It takes away resposability and creates freedom. Women dont “have” to do anything – they choose to do things.”

    Wow do you not see the difference between introducing your girlfriend to your guy friends and isolating her from her friends? The latter is an abusers game to the point it’s commonly cited as a red-flag. How is isolating her from her friends ever supposed to “create freedom”?!

    “Yes people know this but when women do have sex they more often have sex with which guy? The one listening or the one not listening? A published study on “token resistance” showed 50% of women refused sex with guys who respect their no. Guys according to half the woman population should “risk it””

    No, half of guys should ask again at a different time, she’s not currently interested. And saying no equals refusing sex? You are not entitled to sex.

    “I talked about what the magz sell. You talk about the entertaining material doing the selling. Relationships? Yes, that must be the reason well known PUA Adam had his girlfriend on lots of workshops. His girlfriend is there so off course PUA are not interested in relationships.”

    One guy! That’s even more an anecdote than the note about men saying Bush looked like a guy you could drink with. And you talked about what you think the mags sell, probably without ever opening one given —

    “You dont really need to “read” a picture of lipstick colors or eyeliner-use. But you are correct the text is mostly pointless shit – entertainment – making people seeing the paid content – how to become beautiful – and btw what is on the magazine cover again?”

    Here’s the cover for the one I’m holding — <a href="

    "Rape is a crime of violence or coercion. Using your logic would mean a normal sales call would be equal to committing armed robbery fraud by coercion. Neither salesman, nor robber accept no. However in the real world being a salesman/PUA is allowed, being a robber/rapist is not.”

    fixed that for you

    “1. Respect – This means fearing or admiring. Most guys admire the girl they are trying to pick up for something – this is why they chose her, So basically you either want guys to be afraid of women – or your description would be true for every single PUA.”

    Admire =/= respect, not when admire means “find sexy” (how in the fuck do I have to state that?)

    “2. Decent in Bed – You dont know how good he is until you already have chosen him so cleary he cant be chosen on basis of this.”

    Point was more that respectful guys who absolutely suck are likely to get dumped/not called back.

    “There is no such thing as “straight” psychology: There are clinical or experimental psychology. Evolutionary psychology is the newest revolution in experimental psychology. Before the evolutionary approach there was the cognitive approach.”

    Oh my! I have a psych degree, clinical and experimental are both “straight” psychology. Developmental, evolutionary, etc are branches of experimental; cognitive, Freudian, etc are branches of clinical. Please at least know wtf you are talking about.

    “Pinkers Ph.D is in experimental psychology.”

    Then I’d imagine he has some clue wtf he’s talking about, though that depends how long he was out of psych while doing philosophy. Pecunium’s point(s) about that study still stand.

    “See above, According to that logic any person in sales is “abusing” people by not respecting no.”

    Yes, please see above re: coercive sales not being legal either.

    “Guys in general dont want most women to stay after sex. Guys want to have sex with many women and relationships with a few special ones. Also, do you think the SMS Tiger Woods sent his mistresses was respectful?”

    You’re arguing on what most people do based on one incredibly rich man? Really? Also, you just admitted PUAs want one night stands, thanks for playing, please play again!

    “Its not required at all. Nobody is forcing rich stars to act this way. They do it cause it pays better when it sells better and that is the business they chose to be in. Entertainment is about luring people in to sell them products… The reason Hollywood can do expensive movies is companies with products think it helps them sell.”

    You clearly have no clue how the world works…if a waitress’s tips are tied to how she looks, not how well she does her job, then yes, she is “required” to look sexy (more like preferred, but the point stands). Nobody is forcing stars to act “this way”? Oh is that why female stars regularly complain about having to dress sexy and what all the tabloid articles on them being seen in jeans are about? You clearly cannot see the difference between being sexy in front of a camera and being expected to be sexy while out for a walk though. (And Hollywood can do expensive movies because people will pay to see them — if you did 100% product placements it’d flop epically.)

    “It means nothing hinders a woman to become president, except lack of interest and support from other women.”

    And the same public interest in her appearance…or did you miss when Hillary Clinton wore no make-up and glasses?

    “constitutionalism =/= The Constitution”

    Yes and guess what Stanford Encyclopedia says on the matter

    “Constitutionalism is the idea — that government can and should be legally limited in its powers”

    …which is what darksidecat said, to which you replied:

    “Actually, The Constitution is a check on the goverment. Historically majorities was opressed by kings and churches (something u should know) making a law to protect us from the majority completely redundant.”

    to which I said the above, and now we’re going in a circle >.<

  52. Argenti Aertheri

    Shit I never pasted the link into my draft, it’s here (thanks Cliff pervocracy! [love the cosmocking btw])

  53. Seducing women is not the same as emotional abuse</blockquote.
    No, but PUA is!

    If they were ok with that they already had all the sex they wanted and would not need PUA

    This from the guy who says PUAs don’t have to advertise XD

    Thats funny cause it can only mean you give ridiciolusly high value to getting a womans number

    I put less than 0 value on it, because I only use my phone for work, to speak with family, and to browse the net. I don’t really associate phones with friends or romance, and haven’t since early high school. But you were trying to brag, and I remain unconvinced that you do anything to brag about. XD

    Do you also need convincing when talking about hard things to do like the ability to ride a bicycle or cooking food?

    I dunno, do people usually talk about how awesome they are because they can ride a bicycle and how they only started thanks to the magic of abusing people emotionally? XD

    We were not even discussing advertising

    No, you are trying to avoid discussing advertising, because you are trying to desperately call attention from the fact that PUA uses snake oil salesmanship to convince you you need it. The rest of us, which is to say, we, are noticing it and telling you you are full of shit.

    Well the fact is research proves very high correlation between number of girlfriends/ amounts of sex/ chilren

    Oh, an evopsycher. Feel my apathy at your silly assumptions of priorities XD

    More to the point, correlation is not causation. In the modern era of birth control, do you know what is much, MUCH more strongly correlated with having kids than having lots of sex? Wanting kids. Specifically wanting kids to be born helps a lot.

    and only for men not for women

    Imagine my surprise that girlfriends are not correlated with children for women.

    I was talking about women where the job is to attract people for money

    Yeah – and you were wrong. FIrst off, even in a sexist society such as our own,t hat is actually not the job description of that many women (FYI: It is not the job description of wait staff to look sexually pleasing to men in most establishments, it is an additional expectation levelled at female wait staff in many areas though), and lots of people use makeup; far more than actually need to, since you were the one who defended the makeup ‘worked as advertised.

    For example if a waitress is hotter – she normally gets more money.

    Do you have any idea how expensive makeup is, dude? The meager benefits do not generally outweigh the cost. You’re the one who said you saw people ‘rely on it financially’. I’m going to hazard a guess and say in nearly every case, the ads you see do not target people who actually benefit financially for it, because those ads do not target people who make even thousands of dollars on their appearance (and most of those people are maintained by a full staff who makes decisions, at any rate…)

    I already listed the primary professional benefit; a lack of harrassment at your job. And that doesn’t care about your job description, because as I said it hits fucking programmers. It only cares about whether you are identified as a woman by coworkers.

  54. Argenti Aertheri

    One tiny note on what Rutee just said — “and most of those people are maintained by a full staff who makes decisions, at any rate…” — they also tend to have little to no control over what that staff does, magazine staff picks how the cover will be done, not the person on the cover. In other words Aktivarum, the women on magazine covers are forced to look the way they look and you can fuck off if you think their appearance being judged is what singers signed up for.

    “And that doesn’t care about your job description, because as I said it hits fucking programmers.” — programmers, receptionists (and other office staff), cashiers, artists to a certain degree (particularly singers)…probably across the board, but those are where I’ve personally seen it.

  55. Kendra:

    “Of course, since I’m a woman, you can discount anything I say from personal experience.”

    It was not a matter of experience, It was a matter about confusing your subjective life with the objective world. I can discount your friends as a measurement for people in general regardless you being a man, woman, black, gay or whatever. You simply picked people you like, not people representative of what the world is like. This is why democracy is the superior system. Ideas are tested on merit – not on social relations.

    “After all, wimminz always be lying, amirite?”

    I neither said you were lying, nor did i talk about women.

    “Also, when you say “he’s the kind of guy you can drink a beer with”, it means you think he’s down to earth and friendly, not that you’ve necessarily seen the person drink a beer.”

    The point I made was women changing their opinion to Hillary Clinton. I did not talk about why they earlier voted for Obama I expressed what made them change their mind.

    “He said he realized it wasn’t the greatest choice when the economy crashed during the Bush administration. You think that only women vote based on what candidates they find more likable, but I’m saying that both men and women vote that way.”

    No I did not say women vote on likeable. I said women stopped voting on whoever they voted on cause Hillary Clinton cried and had a tough time. She might actually have won had she played more on it being so hard for her – however that is not the way she wanted to portray herself.

    “Then what was this?”

    It was a conclusion from the scientific studies of gender differences. Men and woman are not interested in the same things and even more important -most extreme persons are men regardless subject. The reason being women twice as likely than men to historically produce offspring forcing men to either be good enough or be gone from the genepool.

    “Note that you said if you did a study on 1000 random men and 1000 random women. There is no such study, but I’m supposed to take what you say as a proven fact. If you know of a real study that shows this, then go ahead and present it.”

    There are lots of studies on gender differences. Here is a simple summary of the one from Marco Del Giudice, Tom Booth, and Paul Irwing on 10.000 people.

    “No, I think the adjective reactionary fits for a club dedicated to the idea that women = suck.”

    They do not say women suck. Again that is just YOUR own intepretation. Same as the first argument against me above was just YOUR own inerpretation of me not listening to womens experiences. Know what? I might as well start saying you are a supporter of Society for Cutting Up Men and the shooting of Andy Warhol… Not that you ever said you were but hey, you are inventing things I never said right?

    Also you assuming a Mens Center would be a “Women suck club” would mean Womens Center allowed to be a men suck club right? Otherwise there would be rules allowing neither.

    “If there are some male students that want to start up a women suck club on their campus, they can do it with their own funds and not the college’s.”

    They want a Mens Center, not a woman suck club. if the womens center is not a men suck club your fears can only explained by misandry where women can be allowed to live free while men cant be treated equally.

  56. Sometimes you do come across PUA advice that seems to make sense, but then it usually looks like something that would work equally well for women hitting on men, or gays for that matter.
    Like, the other day there was an interview with Neil Strauss in our morning paper, and he gave some pick-up advice. One was not to start a conversation by giving a compliment, but asking a question instead. Something you really don’t no the answer to. That’s a better way to get a conversation started. Well, I can totally believe your chances of eventually going home with somebody’s phone number improves if you start a conversation by asking them something rather than just going “hey, beautiful!”, but that would apply to both genders, and you don’t need some particular evo psych theory to back it up.
    There’s also this theory that you should wear crazy clothing when going out. I believe that might actually improve your odds for several reasons. Firstly, you’ll catch people’s attention, which I suppose is a good first step towards getting on with somebody. Secondly, your weird clothes can provide a topic for a first conversation with somebody. Thirdly, if you’re shy and your problem is that you tend to disappear into a corner, weird clothes that everybody stares at might force you to become more extrovert. But once again, that would apply to both genders, and not just heterosexuals.

    Then there’s completely abhorrant advice as well of course, like to keep pushing when a woman says “no”. “Start raping people who don’t want to have consensual sex with you” is NOT a good answer to the question “how do I get laid more often?”.

  57. Argenti Aertheri

    No I did not say women vote on likeable. I said women stopped voting on whoever they voted on cause Hillary Clinton cried and had a tough time. She might actually have won had she played more on it being so hard for her – however that is not the way she wanted to portray herself.

    The reason being women twice as likely than men to historically produce offspring forcing men to either be good enough or be gone from the genepool.

    As with pretty much every fact claim you’ve made you might consider this

    http://aktivarum.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/article-2082398-0f5722a200000578-729_468x383.jpg

    There is no fucking way that’s in the original study, it’s in color! (Peer reviewed journals almost never let you submit figures in color, because they’re often printed in black and white) — so again “you might consider this” — also, that chart could easily be “as rated by” which proves jack all about the truth of life (you need a study actually getting at personality traits and then correlating them with gender, not one just asking people what they think)

    Dvärghundspossen — yeah I sometimes see PUA advice that’s just decent advise in general, “One was not to start a conversation by giving a compliment, but asking a question instead.” being a common one. Maybe the more people who repeat that refusing to accept a no is rapist logic the more likely he is to realize I’m not just making shit up?

  58. Argenti Aertheri

    Dvärghundspossen — one other note — “both genders” — all genders, not both, not everyone is either a man or a woman (eg intersex people, genderqueers) — thanks!

  59. Nancy:

    “I pointed out that your belief that “male primary sex drive means looks indicating health female primary sex drive means behavior indicating social status” is evolutionary psychology propaganda.”

    No you just claimed it. Pointing it out would involve proving it. Not just saying it and trusting friends will agree to anything.

    “PUA, like all organizations that have an interest in bolstering male privilege, eagerly adopts EP theories.”

    PUA is not an organisation. Still just a method. Also most males do not have any privilege. The privileged people have privilege regardless of gender.

    “One of the standard tenets of EP is that women aren’t visual and men are. This of course ignores all the evidence that women are in fact interested in exactly the same features in a partner – youth and beauty – that men are.”

    No, it just conclude they are not as important for women as they are for men. This is not an opinion thousands of women have been tested for this in double-blind tests. The researchers tell the women to tell us which guy is more attractive HOWEVER they also make sure women can read information of the guys – thus scientists can easily trick girls by asking them which guy is hotter and lie about which guy works as a club owner and which guy works at macdonalds.

    “And I’ll testify for you – I am much more likely to be sexually attracted to a 25-year-old than a 52-year old based on physical appearance”

    EP never said you werent. It just said you would not be as likely as a guy to think this is important. Also you do not measure 25 compared to 52, you measure older looking 25 compared to younger looking 25. You measure rich 25 with poor 25.

    “What EP always ignores is the fact that until very recently, women haven’t had the luxury to choose partners based primarily on youth and beauty.”

    Neither had men. Young people were paired together based on class, family etc. Kennedy had younger women on the side, Clinton had younger women on the side. Lots of Kings in central and northern europe had bastard sons with younger mistresses.

    “Until very recently most women had to compete to be chosen by a man who would then support her financially. Only in the last 50 years have women had the opportunity, in large numbers to be wholly self-supporting.”

    Yes, but the data on this were not created 50 years ago. The data we have are based on the women of today.

    “And a necessary caveat – this is only true of industrial societies. There are still some places in the world right now where little girls are sold into marriage by their families to old men.”

    Yes, unlike USA where democratic politician Dennis Kucinich born -46 is married to Elizabeth -77

    “But wherever women have the luxury of choosing partners based on aesthetics, they are very much visual creatures.”

    Yes, women are visual and men are more visual than women.

    “The fact that the “cougar” trend has happened now is no coincidence – it’s a response on the part of women to their freedom to choose men on the basis of youth and beauty.”

    Which cougar trend? Statistically no cougar trend ever happened. No change in the normal statistical age difference in couples happened. Dads did not magically become younger and moms did not get older. What did happen was Ashton Kutcher marrying Demi Moore. Off course due to operations she looked 20 years younger than her real age and now he has a much younger girlfriend.

    “The term for men who prefer younger women is “men.” But the term cougar will fade as the behavior becomes more common, and in less than an evolutionary time-span.”

    We have no reason to belive it will become more common. In fact the normal evolution is daughters do not wanna be like their mothers.

    “And then of course there are “metrosexuals” – heterosexual men who put more care into their grooming and appearance than has previously been considered acceptable – or necessary.”

    Metrosexuals are rich people in large cities, same as the nobility of old times. Nothing new. They are like the british in Pirates of the Caribbean in their fake-hair and brightly colored uniforms.

    “Why should men primp for women? Men had all the money – it was up to women to show they were worth the financial investment of marriage by men.

    Now you again assume men married based on attractiveness. They did not, in fact married public men like Clinton and Kennedy cheated their wives with younger women. Also wives were not judged on looks but on classy behavior.

    “The appearance of metrosexuals at this time is also not a coincidence, but a response to female financial independence.”

    Metrosexuals is nothing new. Any study on upper class men would reveal the same thing. Enjoy this picture of a russian metrosexual from the 1700s also observe women could not be judged on looks, you can hardly see what she looks like in those outfits

  60. @Argenti: Sorry, all genders. :-) I’m not even sure I’m completely a ciswoman myself (although I’m definetily not a transman) so it was a really stupid mistake to make.

  61. Argenti Aertheri

    “What EP always ignores is the fact that until very recently, women haven’t had the luxury to choose partners based primarily on youth and beauty.”

    Neither had men. Young people were paired together based on class, family etc. Kennedy had younger women on the side, Clinton had younger women on the side. Lots of Kings in central and northern europe had bastard sons with younger mistresses.

    “Why should men primp for women? Men had all the money – it was up to women to show they were worth the financial investment of marriage by men.

    Now you again assume men married based on attractiveness. They did not, in fact married public men like Clinton and Kennedy cheated their wives with younger women. Also wives were not judged on looks but on classy behavior.

    Both of these are the same problem — Nancy says men pick partners based on looks; Aktivarum assumes this only means the partner they married and then goes on to say their mistresses we picked on *drumroll* looks.

    Aktivarum please learn to read for meaning at least, really though, you’re long past tedious, what’s the point here? You want the PUA definition changed and thus will argue every point under the sun?

    David can we get rid of this fool already? Or at least direct him someplace that isn’t the damned glossary?

    Dvärghundspossen — no problem, and the note kind of does belong in the glossary anyways (unlike the rest of this)

  62. Argenti:

    “Um…pump and dump, that’s all I’m saying.”

    And I was saying guys do not want most women to stay after sex, They want to have sex with many women but they want to be with just a few special women. The problem was guys being in a relationship cause of sex with women they do not care for.

    “I don’t care if some get married. The commonly seen method is the pump and dump, and even when it isn’t, the idea that your tactics will lead to an actual relationship are absurd, how does anyone have a relationship with someone they don’t even speak to enough to know if they have anything in common?”

    Since when is “not speaking” PUA? One of the first things you look for is things you have in common. If she seems to be girlfriendly you find rapport, if she isnt you break rapport. Regardless which, you know things about her.

    “That “how not to get raped and/or murdered” article is definitely meant as advice though.”

    No it isnt. It is meant to cause fear and play on needs of conformity. Men are way more murdered than women yet no mens magazine writes how we can avoid being murdered.

    “Wow do you not see the difference between introducing your girlfriend to your guy friends and isolating her from her friends?”

    I do not see a difference between needing to go away from guy friends or needing to go away from girl friends. All I see is difference in the need arising. Guys dont as often go in between their friend and the girl he wants. Women let their girlfriends dictate what is appropriate.

    “The latter is an abusers game to the point it’s commonly cited as a red-flag. How is isolating her from her friends ever supposed to “create freedom”?!”

    Cause women sexually repress women (Beumeister, sexual economics), being alone means she is free from this. She can break the rules cause a) guys dont normally tell whatever happened with a woman to other women and b) even if she take initiative she can later say it was his fault.

    “No, half of guys should ask again at a different time, she’s not currently interested.”

    That half of the women said they WERE interested. They said they would have slept with the guy had he actually been interested “man” enough to ignore yes.

    “And saying no equals refusing sex? You are not entitled to sex.”

    Awesome argument! Tell me what purpose free abortions have cause if sex is so un-important I cant see why the state should help women with abortions. Isnt the entire issue unless state helps with abortions women cant have sex as much as they want?

    Or maybe you meant men having sex is not important for you. Your ability to have sex when you want and need (feeling entitled) should be everyones economical problem?

    “One guy! That’s even more an anecdote than the note about men saying Bush looked like a guy you could drink with.”

    One guy from the world ranking. Not just anybody but somebody important.

    “Rape is a crime of violence or coercion. Using your logic would mean a normal sales call would be equal to committing fraud by coercion.”

    They are not equal. Also Women lie about appearances to get sex. Its called the “beauty industry”

    “Admire =/= respect, not when admire means “find sexy” (how in the fuck do I have to state that?)”

    According to which bible?

    “Point was more that respectful guys who absolutely suck are likely to get dumped/not called back.”

    Most girls a guy have sex with he doesnt want her to call back cause she is not girlfriend material to him.

    “Developmental, evolutionary, etc are branches of experimental; cognitive, Freudian, etc are branches of clinical. Please at least know wtf you are talking about.”

    Yes they are branches or sub-fields or whatever you wanna call it. That was my point.

    “Then I’d imagine he has some clue wtf he’s talking about, though that depends how long he was out of psych while doing philosophy”

    I am pretty sure he as a better grip on the subject than you considering his points was suported by Diane Halpern.

    “Yes, please see above re: coercive sales not being legal either.”

    See above, Women lie to get sex, its called the beauty industry

    “You’re arguing on what most people do based on one incredibly rich man?”

    You said “regardless how rich” now you wanna point out he is rich. The entire point of your argument was it would not work even when he was rich.

    “Really? Also, you just admitted PUAs want one night stands, thanks for playing, please play again!”

    Read again, it clearly says “Guys in general” not “PUA” Also I never said guys dont want to have sex with girls who are girlfriend-material. I said most women the guys get to have sex with arent girlfriend-.material so its hardly their choice.

    “You clearly have no clue how the world works…if a waitress’s tips are tied to how she looks, not how well she does her job, then yes, she is “required” to look sexy (more like preferred, but the point stands).”

    Preference is the magic word. Its not required to get more money. People prefer to get more money and of free will chose behaving accordingly.

    “Nobody is forcing stars to act “this way”? Oh is that why female stars regularly complain about having to dress sexy and what all the tabloid articles on them being seen in jeans are about?”

    Them dressed sexy is part of the job they chose. Nobody is forced to be a star. They complain not over things they have to do, but things they are well paid to do. Things created by other people who are not stars.

    “You clearly cannot see the difference between being sexy in front of a camera and being expected to be sexy while out for a walk though.”

    When you are a star there is no difference: thats the reson for stars living a way most people dont and being paid very well.

    “And Hollywood can do expensive movies because people will pay to see them — if you did 100% product placements it’d flop epically”

    According to marketing people at “007 – Skyfall” they cant make the movie without placements. One of the placements involve James Bond drinking Heineken-beer instead of “shaken not stirred”. Last movie had him driving a Ford Focus. And he no longer plays baccarat in Casino Royale he now loves Texas No Limit Holdem

    “And the same public interest in her appearance…or did you miss when Hillary Clinton wore no make-up and glasses?”

    How many appearances did Jon Edwards do with his hair non-fixed? Try youtube: Jon Edwards, Feeling Pretty.

    “…which is what darksidecat said, to which you replied:”

    Incorrect: What darksidecat said was

    “constitutionalism is supposed to be a check on the majority if it tries to apply unfair rules, it has had varying success.”

    I said (third time) The constitution was supposed to be a check on the goverment.

  63. Argenti:

    A copule of studies you asked for.

    Marco Del Giudice, Tom Booth, and Paul Irwing “The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality”

    Jason Wilder, Zahra Mobasher, and Michael Hammer, “Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human Females and Males”

  64. Argenti Aertheri

    “And I was saying guys do not want most women to stay after sex, They want to have sex with many women but they want to be with just a few special women. The problem was guys being in a relationship cause of sex with women they do not care for.”

    So the “problem” PUA “solves” is that some men can’t handle dumping people they don’t like? And that’s solved by never getting involved? Yet you won’t admit that most PUAs do not have long term relationships? o.O?

    “Since when is “not speaking” PUA? One of the first things you look for is things you have in common. If she seems to be girlfriendly you find rapport, if she isnt you break rapport. Regardless which, you know things about her.”

    Yeah I didn’t exactly mean “do you like football?” there, but you’re clearly incapable of having an actual conversation in general, so I’m not going to bother trying to teach you how.

    “No it isnt. It is meant to cause fear and play on needs of conformity. Men are way more murdered than women yet no mens magazine writes how we can avoid being murdered.”

    Well yes it’s fear mongering, no one was arguing it wasn’t, you were arguing that cosmo et all have an “if you want” clause attached — “Neither PUA nor Womens Mags tell what you should do. They both tell you HOW you do things if you want to.” — I was arguing that there is no “if you want” attached to how not to get killed (FFS I need to explain this? really?)

    “I do not see a difference between needing to go away from guy friends or needing to go away from girl friends. All I see is difference in the need arising. Guys dont as often go in between their friend and the girl he wants. Women let their girlfriends dictate what is appropriate.”

    I did not fucking ask about gender differences, I asked if you really didn’t see the difference between forcing someone to be isolated and introducing your partner to your friends. The former is, and always will be, an abusers game.

    “Cause women sexually repress women (Beumeister, sexual economics), being alone means she is free from this. She can break the rules cause a) guys dont normally tell whatever happened with a woman to other women and b) even if she take initiative she can later say it was his fault.”

    I can’t even…wow…ok even if it is true that women sexually repress women (and you can provide a link if you want me to check the methodology on that study) — feminists are against the idea the whole “too slutty” thing, so please try again. And b?? You think it a good thing that if she comes onto you she can always accuse you of rape later? Well, you aren’t an MRA is all that proves…

    “That half of the women said they WERE interested. They said they would have slept with the guy had he actually been interested “man” enough to ignore yes.”

    I repeat, CITATION NEEDED — and again, the idea that women must play hard to get is something feminists are against.

    “‘And saying no equals refusing sex? You are not entitled to sex.’
    Awesome argument! Tell me what purpose free abortions have cause if sex is so un-important I cant see why the state should help women with abortions. Isnt the entire issue unless state helps with abortions women cant have sex as much as they want?
    Or maybe you meant men having sex is not important for you. Your ability to have sex when you want and need (feeling entitled) should be everyones economical problem?”

    “you cannot rape” => “ABORTION!!!” Dude go fuck off or at least stay on your made up topics. You are not entitled to sex with any given person and any given time, period, end of discussion, insisting otherwise is fucking rapist logic. (And no, abortion has nothing to do with economics, it was a legal case saying women [and others] have the right to make medical decisions with their doctors, not with the state) — Do I seriously need to state that men having sex with people who want to have sex with them is just fine by me? I mean really now!

    “One guy from the world ranking. Not just anybody but somebody important.”

    I don’t care if he’s the pope, it’s still an anecdote and not a statistic.

    “‘Rape is a crime of violence or coercion. Using your logic would mean a normal sales call would be equal to committing fraud by coercion.’
    They are not equal. Also Women lie about appearances to get sex. Its called the ‘beauty industry”'”

    “rape can also be coercion” => “but women wear make up!” — yeah just go fuck off. And no, they aren’t equal, rape by coercion will usually get you a decade, rape by force 25+ — you gonna go argue how that’s a meaningful difference with someone serving a decade?

    “‘Admire =/= respect, not when admire means “find sexy” (how in the fuck do I have to state that?)’
    According to which bible?”

    “I only like you for your body” =/= respect, if you can’t wrap your fucking head around that I’m not explaining it.

    “‘Point was more that respectful guys who absolutely suck are likely to get dumped/not called back.’
    Most girls a guy have sex with he doesnt want her to call back cause she is not girlfriend material to him.”

    So the fuck what? You made the valid point that one cannot judge how good a partner is in bed until you’ve done such, I said I was saying that’s correct, but still a factor in whether to continue the relationship…wtf does your reply have to do with this?

    “Yes they are branches or sub-fields or whatever you wanna call it. That was my point.”

    No your point was that I don’t know what I’m talking about and you apparently do know when to back down, good idea.

    “I am pretty sure he as a better grip on the subject than you considering his points was suported by Diane Halpern.”

    Point stands that asking people who they find attractive in a study means jack all about who they actually date. “More attractive” =/= “the only person presented who I’d fuck”

    “See above, Women lie to get sex, its called the beauty industry”

    Wearing make up versus refusing to take a no? MILES APART. Men sometimes wear hair gel, and fancy clothing, hey, I beat that’s even PUA advise! This the same as a girl refusing to take a no from you? Some girl you have no interest in who just will not leave you alone?

    “You said “regardless how rich” now you wanna point out he is rich. The entire point of your argument was it would not work even when he was rich.”

    Argh, remind me never to use modifiers — one man is an anecdote, he could be Brad pItt and he’d still be an anecdote.

    “‘Really? Also, you just admitted PUAs want one night stands, thanks for playing, please play again!’
    Read again, it clearly says “Guys in general” not “PUA” Also I never said guys dont want to have sex with girls who are girlfriend-material. I said most women the guys get to have sex with arent girlfriend-.material so its hardly their choice.”

    Are PUAs not men? Then “guys in general” includes PUAs. And now it’s “hardly their choice” that their method of meeting people means most of the people they meet “aren’t girlfriend-material”? You just contradicted your first point here, the one about PUA solving exactly that problem — then again, if PUA both creates and solves the same problem…that’s like advertising gold right there XD

    “‘You clearly have no clue how the world works…if a waitress’s tips are tied to how she looks, not how well she does her job, then yes, she is “required” to look sexy (more like preferred, but the point stands).’
    Preference is the magic word. Its not required to get more money. People prefer to get more money and of free will chose behaving accordingly.”

    Do you realize how little waitstaff gets paid? <>.<$4 an hour usually…so no, making more money isn’t merely a preference — she is preferred by her boss, customers and society to wear make-up, be sexy, whatever — doing so is required to make enough to survive as waitstaff however.

    “Them dressed sexy is part of the job they chose. Nobody is forced to be a star. They complain not over things they have to do, but things they are well paid to do. Things created by other people who are not stars.”

    Nicely done ignoring how many celebrities are in industries unrelated to looking attractive — eg singers. And photoshoots pay shit, because “publicity is good!” (which is true to a degree, but merely showing up for a photoshoot does not pay well)

    “When you are a star there is no difference: thats the reson for stars living a way most people dont and being paid very well.”

    See above FFS, re: singers, and being an actor/actress should NOT automatically make your life open to public scrutiny, you seem to have most celebrities mixed up with lifestyle celebrities like Lady Gaga (who grocery shops dressed like that so she doesn’t have to worry about this FFS)

    “According to marketing people at “007 – Skyfall” they cant make the movie without placements. One of the placements involve James Bond drinking Heineken-beer instead of “shaken not stirred”. Last movie had him driving a Ford Focus. And he no longer plays baccarat in Casino Royale he now loves Texas No Limit Holdem”

    They can’t get the money without product placements =/= hollywood only exists because product placements, please try again.

    “How many appearances did Jon Edwards do with his hair non-fixed? Try youtube: Jon Edwards, Feeling Pretty.”

    Irrelevant — relevant question would be if anyone would give a shit if Obama or Edwards wore glasses instead of contacts. Or, better yet, whether any of them are expected to wear make up in the first place (noting that public appearances do generally require it of everyone because stage lights do weird things, I mean while speaking to Congress here)

    “…which is what darksidecat said, to which you replied:”
    Incorrect: What darksidecat said was
    “constitutionalism is supposed to be a check on the majority if it tries to apply unfair rules, it has had varying success.”
    I said (third time) The constitution was supposed to be a check on the goverment.

    I can’t tell if you’re fractally wrong or gaslighting at this point, so let me quote the entire conversation:

    darksidecat — “constitutionalism is supposed to be a check on the majority if it tries to apply unfair rules, it has had varying success.”
    you — “Actually, The Constitution is a check on the goverment. Historically majorities was opressed by kings and churches (something u should know) making a law to protect us from the majority completely redundant.”
    me — “constitutionalism =/= The Constitution, let me google that for you.”
    you — Yes and guess what Stanford Encyclopedia says on the matter ‘Constitutionalism is the idea — that government can and should be legally limited in its powers'”
    my last comment, the entire relevant section:

    “constitutionalism =/= The Constitution”
    Yes and guess what Stanford Encyclopedia says on the matter
    “Constitutionalism is the idea — that government can and should be legally limited in its powers”

    …which is what darksidecat said, to which you replied:
    “Actually, The Constitution is a check on the goverment. Historically majorities was opressed by kings and churches (something u should know) making a law to protect us from the majority completely redundant.”
    to which I said the above, and now we’re going in a circle >.<

    This has now gotten meta enough I cannot tell if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with darksidecat’s original point.
    I am, however, damned sure that you seem to think we can’t scroll up to see what you said last.

  65. Argenti Aertheri

    Marco Del Giudice, Tom Booth, and Paul Irwing “The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality”

    “In univariate terms, the largest differences between the sexes were found in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension (higher in females), and Emotional stability, Dominance, Rule-consciousness, and Vigilance (higher in males). These effects subsume the classic sex differences in instrumentality/expressiveness or dominance/nurturance (see [11]).”

    Considering those are ALL also socialized traits, I’d be wary of taking it as innate, but my biggests issue here is you made up the damned chart you cited last time. The point of which was about gender differences in voting. And ftr, I strongly disagree with their first objection in the discussion section, nothing gets publicized if you don’t cover those bases, but it’s the most common section for “make shit up!” this is neither the time nor place to debate univariate versus multivariate weighting, nor does it have shit to do with the glossary.

    Jason Wilder, Zahra Mobasher, and Michael Hammer, “Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human Females and Males”

    Biology isn’t my field, but an N of < 75? *wary face* Second, this is about genetic variation and mutation. Third they say —

    “However, no population exhibits a significant excess of rare variants in our NRY data sets, which is thought to be one of the genetic signatures of a recent selective sweep (Tajima 1989b; Fu and Li 1993; Braverman et al. 1995).”

    “Thus, our results provide no additional support for the hypothesis that differential positive selection causes the disparate TMRCAs of the NRY and mtDNA, although we cannot rule out selective sweeps (acting either globally or locally) that may have occurred before the coalescence of the observed genealogies.”

    “These lines of reasoning lead us to postulate that sexspecific demographic processes are the most likely causes of the observed discrepancy in the TMRCAs of mtDNA and the NRY.”

    They then go on to discuss how men take longer to reproduce (I’m simplifying because no one wants to read 3 paragraphs about generation times) and have a bit of discussion of polygyny and how reproductive success might be inherited patrilineally.

    “For instance, the widespread phenomenon of patrilocality (defined anthropologically as the tendency for a wife to move to her husband’s natal domicile) could contribute to the observed pattern if it resulted in higher rates of mtDNA thanNRYgene flow between genetically distinct populations (Seielstad, Minch, and Cavalli-Sforza 1998).”

    “In reality, both polygyny and patrilocality are common occurrences in human cultures, and it is, therefore, not surprising to see patterns in population genetic data that are congruent with these phenomena.”

    It would appear the only sentence you understood was this one — “Instead, we favor a hypothesis whereby sex-specific demographic processes act to reduce the male breeding population size.” — except they’re refering to the above discussed phenomenon, which have fuck all to do with mate selection by women.

    “This observation differs significantly from neutral expectations based on a one-to-one breeding ratio but is extremely close to the expected results given a breeding ratio of two females per male (Hedrick 2000).” — yeah they think men taking multiple wives was important, not men being unable to take any wives.

    And that’s evolutionary biology btw, not ev-psych.

  66. Howard Bannister

    “And the same public interest in her appearance…or did you miss when Hillary Clinton wore no make-up and glasses?”

    How many appearances did Jon Edwards do with his hair non-fixed? Try youtube: Jon Edwards, Feeling Pretty.

    …but, again, he’s proving the wrong point here, isn’t he? Any examination of John Edwards would have to include the ways he was attacked, and the way that was an outlier. He was attacked because he was percieved as taking too much care of his appearance. Yet he wasn’t putting in a fraction of what a woman in the same position would be expected to do–and the woman is attacked because she is percieved as not giving enough attention to appearance.

    It’s as if he thinks throwing out a series of random attacks makes it look like he’s winning. As if the quality of the ideas expressed has nothing to do with it.

    Hmm.

  67. Argenti Aertheri

    Shorter version — first study does find notable sex differences, but makes no attempt to account for socialization, I find their counter to the first objection highly questionable, and anyways, it’s got fuck all to do with how women vote — which was why you introduced the chart that I’d questioned.

    Second study is about genetic variance and determines it is probably due to sex selective factors like polygyny (multiple wives) and patrilocality (wives moving to their husbands location) — point is two fold, one that if you take many wives, all your sons, etc down the generations, will have your Y-chromosome, whereas your daughters will have a variety of X-chromosomes (you’d see the inverse if polyandry was more common) AND that because women are more likely to move, they’re less likely to be mating with their 5th cousin, thus spreading their X-chromosomes around more and introducing more variation. Again, fuck all to do with your claim, this time the claim being that half of men don’t mate and thus are evolutionary dead ends.

  68. Howard Bannister

    Again, fuck all to do with your claim, this time the claim being that half of men don’t mate and thus are evolutionary dead ends.

    I’m forming a theory about Aktivarum, at least as scientific as anything he’s said so far. He’s observed internet debates before, and thinks he understands the way they work. Based on his observation, the person who raises the most objections to what the other person says and references science and outside links the most often wins.

    He hasn’t actually read those debates, and doesn’t see a difference between saying ‘well this study by somebody says something’ and, um, ‘well, walrus, so, pigeon.’

    So we’re getting a lot of walrus and pigeon. Making noise to make it look like a furious debate. Because as far as he’s concerned, that’s as good as winning.

    Stuff like staying on point? Proving his points? He’s happy to throw out examples that disprove his points. As long as he throws out lots of examples.

  69. Argenti Aertheri

    “It’s as if he thinks throwing out a series of random attacks makes it look like he’s winning. As if the quality of the ideas expressed has nothing to do with it.”

    Yeah I can’t tell if he’s just dense, intentionally obtuse, or trying to gaslight his way into being right — I mention the latter because of the assumptions that a) I’m a woman, and b) that means I don’t care about whether men get any, when, if he’d hung around on any actual thread, he’d have seen I tend to indulge trolls in their requests for dating advice.

  70. Argenti Aertheri

    Your theory seems at least partly correct, though I’d add sprinklings of “no clue how to have an actual conversation in general” and “things annoying people into giving up is the goal” (cannot tell if that’s idiocy or that he’s usually an emotionally abusive prick, given the defenses of isolating your partner and refusing to accept no, the comparison between that and make-up….it’s not looking good)

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 8,539 other followers

%d bloggers like this: