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.
“I’ll take Tom Martin over him for Troll of the Year any day.” Maybe hars chairs is A REALLY big problem, (or the hemorrhoids are really big”
BTW , I have a question for the people who know law. Is it perjury if you make up case-law and reference non-existing cases in your pleading in court?
I believe perjury is only possible while under oath; but it might be contempt.
But IANAL.
Also not a lawyer, but I happen to be talking to a law student — contempt and sanctions = yes; perjury = not technically, that only applies to testimony; I’m assuming you aren’t a lawyer? Don’t try it if you are unless you want a disbarment hearing.
Going out on a limb here and assuming that once talacaris starts spouting his lines about how lies are beautiful and there is no such thing as logic, any self-respecting judge would throw his ass out of court post-haste.
It’s not perjury. It’s contempt of court, and will go badly if the judge discovers it.
Perjury is a pretty technical thing. The elements (at least on the federal level, though I am pretty most of the state laws are much the same) are:
One is under oath.
One tells a knowing falsehood
About a material fact.
It is not, contra the people who go all foaming at the mouth that, “Clinton committed perjury too, so who cares about Scooter Libby?!!!??!!!?!!!!!”, merely lying, while under oath.
If I tell someone I am only 35 years old, it’s not perjury, unless I am claiming that I therefore can’t be expected to remember anything which happened 36 years ago (when I would have been more than old enough to remember any number of things).
But a false citation… contempt at the very least, disbarment a possibility, sanctions certain to be entertained; and a judge you never want to appear in front of ever again.
But I can’t imagine you have any meaningful reason to ask the question.
Talacaris, try this: http://answers.yahoo.com/
(Say “Hi” to Antz for us!)
“But I can’t imagine you have any meaningful reason to ask the question.” — define meaningful? Could be about to go sovereign on us…
Re lying about your age, it’d also be material in things like a stat rape case. Clinton pulled a very tricky line there, but that’s the republicans fault for not being able to imagine what sort of sex act she can keep her clothing on for (that is the line right? not to meta this, but I was too young to really get it)
katz — depends on the context, if he’s not being dangerous he’ll probably be allowed to stay because of rights to defend yourself and what not (eg that “the court is a pirate ship” guy) — contempt is meant to change the person’s mind, if that’s never going to happen there’s no point in doing it. Manson only got himself thrown out when he jumped over the table and lunged at the judge though, and even then he got to watch via CCTV, it’s really hard to get yourself flat out physically removed from most sorts of legal proceedings (now, try it for a traffic ticket, and you just lost, but you can stay while you’re told that)
@Katz: Troll of the YEAR sure, but I think we ought to consider troll of the month.
After all, we chew ‘em up and spit ‘em out so fast, they often don’t last.
And our two (in my awareness of things), NWO and DKM aren’t really mustering up much of anything new.
And while Tom was quite fun, he didn’t last.
Troll of the Moment, but he went outta here pretty darn fast.
Though I admit chairs, penguins, and all his attempt to cite stuff was sorta fun. *happy sigh*
Sorry for being ‘way for a while but i just read up on some freeman stuff. Appararently your name and the name in capital letters is not the same, the latter is a strawman created by the guv’ment through birth certificates. You can even distance yourself from the strawman even more by chosing a calling of the form X of the family Y. Then you can remove consent to governed by admirality law,which is apparently commercial law or vice versa. Interesting..
And gold-fringed flags mean it isn’t a real court, so don’t worry about committing perjury or being in contempt — the judge is really a pirate!
clou:diah(c)
You should also say “under duress” when boarding hir vessel. Maybe also demand a ransom in gold, so your inalienable rights are intact.
Surely if you’re in contempt of pirate, it would be worse? I mean, they’d just get angry and shoot you.. i’m not sure judges are allowed to do that. :O
Argenti: The entire Clinton mess was so many ways of screwed up.
The claim is that no one could honestly say that the relationship Clinton had with Lewinsky wasn’t sexual.
That’s one of the issues.
Even if his answer hadn’t been legally true, per the terms of the deposition (and it was, the lawyers for Jones allowed Clinton’s lawyers to keep the definition fairly narrow, but I digress), the question was out of line, as it had zero bearing on the issue at hand.
So even if the answer had been a blatant lie e.g:
Atty: Did you, President Clinton, ever allow Monica Lewinsky to fellate you?
Clinton: No
There would have been no perjury, because his relationship with Lewinsky wasn’t material to the case.
All of that is without going into why that case should never have been being heard, at that time.
If Clinton hadn’t been able to get it postponed until he was out of office (a not completely unreasonable claim; as being president is time consuming, and a lawsuit is time consuming, and it’s not hard to see that the one being well done might outweigh the other being heard just then), he ought to have defaulted.
Because there is no way his opposition wasn’t going to use the proceedings as a stick to beat him with. His hubris, thinking he could defend the case, do his job, and not get sandbagged in the course of one, or the other, was what tripped him up.
He was too proud to say, “I am the President, I have been elected to represent all of your interests, while I would like to contest this baseless charge, and attain vindication in court, I cannot do that and properly fulfill my responsibilities to you, The American People, and so i am choosing to put your interests before mine… yadda yadda yadda”, and it would have all blown over.
Instead he gave his opponents both opportunity, and means, to badger him, and badger him, and make him look small, and weak, which is part of how we got to the present mess.
And only sign in red ink, red is the color of blood and means you’re signing as flesh-and-blood you, black is the strawman (I don’t get why, sorry) and blue is admiralty law.
They don’t get that under admiralty law the captain has duties to zir passengers, like safety and paying if the boat sinks and shit.
I’m debating going “the court is a pirate ship!” the next time I’m in court, as it’ll be a disability hearing to prove I’m nuts — it’s just too perfect, and I don’t normally go for performance art but this is really tempting.
Pecunium — to be fair, we did get some good sex jokes out of it (or at least the FWB and I did, “wait, is this *sex*?” being just hilarious in certain contexts) — but yeah, he should’ve done as you suggest if he could’ve, I’d thought it was an impeachment hearing though? And would thus have to be heard immediately? I might be way off on that though.
Anyways — Atty: Did you, President Clinton, ever allow Monica Lewinsky to fellate you?
Clinton: I plead the fifth
would’ve worked
I believe black was for your strawman because black is the color of death, and your strawman is a dead entity, or something like that.
As far as the impeachment goes, that was a subsequent trial, and the only charges were perjury and obstruction of justice for the testimony in the first case. So in fact, if he had never testified in the first place, there would never have been an impeachment.
“I believe black was for your strawman because black is the color of death, and your strawman is a dead entity, or something like that.” — yes, that’s it!
Re: Clinton, ah, ok, just more layers of legal idiocy then.
Why is anyone even trying to engage this particular troll? He’s both dumb as bricks and so sexist that he doesn’t realize that saying that men who refuse to accept a woman’s no are going to have more sex than men who do is a rapey tautology.
Also, is Motley Cruel Vince’s side project where he tortures live kittens on stage by singing at the very highest end of his register until they cry? By the way, since we’re on the subject, rock stars do not in general (other than the ones who actually are rapists) make women want to have sex by some mysterious method. In reality they have lots of sex with women who turned up already wanting to have sex with them – no persuasion required, just fame.
Cassandra — I’m bothering because someone is wrong on the internet! And in this one’s case, potentially dangerously wrong, I’ll consider it worth the effort if he actually reconsiders anything he said (namely the rapey parts, but really I’d settle for not misrepresenting me left and right).
Oh, and I’m incredibly stubborn XD
Before he gets back to say that fame getting rock stars sex = women fuck rich men, no, it’s a probability thing (and, at least in America, our obsession with celebrities) — but they’re famous, ergo they meet more people, ergo they’re more likely to meet people who want to have sex with them.
Argenti: Anyways — Atty: Did you, President Clinton, ever allow Monica Lewinsky to fellate you?
Clinton: I plead the fifth
would’ve worked
It wasn’t the impeachment the question about Lewinsky was asked in.
And pleading the fifth wouldn’t have worked. Not legally, since there was no criminal aspect to the question, and most importantly not politically.
It was in a deposition for a sexual harrassment case (civil) which was being paid for by people who had Clinton in their crosshairs; people who were getting stragic advice from the Ken Starr, who was the independent counsel investigating Clinton for everything under the sun; on the dubious legal theory that having been empowered to investigate one non-crime, he was allowed to investigate everything Clinton had ever been involved with.
Lying about the Lewinsky affair wouldn’t have been a crime.† Implying there was a criminal aspect to it would have put all the dogs baying; even worse than his being caught out in a non-lie did.
† and he didn’t, in the terms of the lawsuit being pursued, lie; at all. Sex had been defined in a way which excluded oral.
Pecunium — can we investigate Bush for anything we can name then? Please?
“Sex had been defined in a way which excluded oral.” — that was about all I got of it when it was happening, and is why we need to make our definitions clear. Eg troll here insisting that rape = force when I keep repeating that rape by coercion is a real thing.
We can still impeach him. There’s a pretty good case to be made he didn’t fulfill the requirements of the AUMF before he sent troops to Iraq. The Downing Street Memo makes it pretty clear he was fixing the intel. Things Condoleeza Rice said (demanding Hussein account for yellowcake we knew didn’t exist; because the Niger documents were such a blatant forgery), refusing to allow the UN Inspectors do their work… all of those are pretty plainly able to be used to justify a “high crimes and misdemeanors” charge.
That’s even before we get to the question of Valerie Plame.
But that one is a bit personal. If you’d like I can go through my archives and see where the things I wrote then are; but I’m not going to go off on a tear about that now.
Pecunium — perhaps later? This is probably not the place for that anyways. Definitely agreed on the whole “how do you prove you don’t have something?” problem though (and omgs welfare is putting me through that currently and I might start screaming over it)
One actually on topic note —
“MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: … I the the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.”
“I the the” should be “I think the” no?
*catching up with the thread*
Ok, well, THAT happened.
Thanks to everyone who posted interesting critiques of EP. I learned some things. Though this might not have been the most efficient way to learn those things.
This isn’t just a couple of buddies being described, this is a well documented phenomenon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/gops-primary-problem-would-you-want-to-have-a-beer-with-any-of-these-guys/2012/03/01/gIQAg95wkR_blog.html
(one of many, many links that come up in google)
I don’t think you have even an inkling of what this type of advertising is really about. Women attracted men long before makeup existed. Advertisers created a standard: you need to look this way or you have no value because ATTRACTING MEN IS YOUR ONLY VALUE. Men didn’t protest and women became convinced that it was their only option, so they conceded. It created a world in which some women go so above and beyond just accentuating their natural beauty and turn themselves into completely different people, oftentimes making themselves ugly to men. What this obsession does is consumes women, keeps their minds fixated on trivial things like having perfect hair, skin, clothes, etc, to keep them stupid. Advertising to women is much more insidious than you care to recognise. And until I see almost every man resorting to “game” tactics like almost every woman is convinced she has to wear makeup before she leaves the house, I’m not apt to compare the two. The only similarity is “do this to attract the opposite sex.” The major difference is that men are not taught that their worth lies in being attractive, but in being accomplished, so the PUA pitch is not nearly as damaging to a man’s sense of self worth.
Have you never heard of a cock block? Male friends turn women off pretty easily. Furthermore, if a female friend is “cock blocking,” it’s normally because she is observing aspects of the man’s personality that she finds to be dangerous and off putting. I thank my lucky stars for friends who are willing to do that. And hate me all you want, but I find it incredibly important to keep an eye on my girlfriends in bars and whatnot so that they have backup when they need it. And I have been thanked profusely by every woman who I’ve butted in for, normally saying, “He wouldn’t get the hint and go away.” Meanwhile, when it seems like my friend really likes the guy and he’s not giving off any rapey vibes, girl I’m all for it. But I will be available in the event that things change.
You don’t get what this desire to not be isolated from your group stems from because your privilege gets in the way of your empathy. It’s ingrained in women to stay safe, and blamed on us when we don’t and something happens to us. That’s something that men generally don’t fear. We are expected to look out for ourselves and our girlfriends.
And as for men isolating themselves, ehh, I would need to see this one to believe it. At least in the bars I frequent, men tend to come in groups and there is generally no way in hell I’m approaching a group of men if I’m interested in one of them. It’s too intimidating and for good reason: three men vs one woman, I’m not likely to win in the event that they have bad intentions.
Anyways, I just don’t think you get it. If you’re talking to a woman and she’s interested in you, odds are she’ll find an excuse to go off with you. If she doesn’t, she’s probably just being nice and too afraid to tell you to fuck off. So your tricks at isolating her are skeezy as hale. Learn to understand body language and social cues and you might not find yourself in these perplexing situations where you’re annoying some woman who is too polite to tell you to leave her alone.
The latter is called rape, JFC!
THis analogy doesn’t work because forcing someone (or coercing someone) to have sex with you is violent and invades their body whereas convinving someone to give you their money is not. We’re not talking about talking to someone who was kinda/not interested in sex but your general awesomeness turned her on, we’re talking about putting pressure on her to make her feel like she has to or there will be some consequence (which ranges from violence to just not leaving her alone and allowing her to remove herself from the pressure). I can walk away from a salesman, but when a guy has me cornered, all alone, drunk, and nervous, it’s a lot harder to walk away. I mean, there are all types of coercion, do some research.
10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone’s rights.
11.to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person’s privacy.
Believe it or not, it can be pretty easy to tell how someone will be in bed depending upon how they treat you. People who are self absorbed often suck in bed because they either:
1. Don’t give a shit about your pleasure and are only focused on their own
2. Are so focused on proving their worth by pleasuring you that they’re too distracted and worked up to actually pleasure you and you wind up having to fake it just to gtfo
It’s not a 100% guarantee, but there are plenty of cues to take into consideration. Generally people who respect and have interest in you want you to enjoy the experience and will listen to your imput so that, say they intially aren’t good, they can improve with some direction.
Thanks for using stereotypical gender roles to speak for all men while completely ignoring how much of this is learned behavior.
I’ve always completely disagreed with this, but I’m also kind of a bitch, so when I see people out dressed crazily I’m mostly just silently judging them/talking about them with my friends. Crazy clothes are an automatic deal breaker. Same with fedoras, and most hats in general. I just hate them, they’re awful.
You. need. to. study. privilege.
While money is a form of privilege, it is not the only privilege.
A rich black person is still more likely to be racially profiled than a white person(have you ever seen the Chris Rock joke about police having him convinced he stole his own car?)
A rich woman is still more likely to be raped/sexually assaulted than a man
A rich lgbt is still more likely to be assaulted for their sexuality/gender than a straight/cis person
Being rich makes life easier in some ways, it doesn’t erase systemic oppression
You don’t seem to understand the way that ingrained gender roles can influence behavior. Concepts that should’ve been out the window decades ago are still peddled to the modern day youth. It takes time for society to overcome stuff like this, which is why you still see racism, sexism, and homophobia today. As long as men and women are being taught to act a certain way, those actions are being reinforced by media and their peers, and few people challenge them, you aren’t going to see drastic changes in learned behavior.
There are so many conclusions to make about this that it’s absurd to assume that women are attracted to the money specifically. For example, maybe those men have the luxury of going out more, thus meeting more people, thus having more opportunities to find sex partners. When you’re worried about paying rent and keeping the lights on, going out to the bar or clubbing is usually not what you’re going to be able to spend your money on, and you’re probably going to be spending lots of nights in, not meeting new people.
Oh? That’s funny, because I see confidence in the men I meet being directly related to their looks and not their money. I have a friend who is pretty overweight and not traditionally attractive, but he has a really good job and makes decent money. He struggles to find dates. Meanwhile I recently met a man who had no job but was lean and traditionally attractive. His facebook profile shows women fawning all over him and him being super selective about the women he actually dates. That’s anecdata, but you keep speaking in absolutes and making generalizations that none of my life experience backs up, so I’m not just gonna take your word for this stuff.
Argenti:
I didnt speak of the Pope. The Pope wasnt even the subject of our discussion. I talked about PUA Adam being in the PUA hiearchy elected by popularity. Since he took his girlfriend to seminars where he was the main event and still Made Top 10 you claiming those seminars teach people they should not have a girlfriends is clearly wrong.
Do you really think it is realistic to claim people learn not to have girlfriends from a guy who has a girlfriend and bring her to the teaching seminars where he is top 10 in the world?
Btw If you dont want my responses on your blog just tell the people who discussed the subjects they can find my responsens at The Culture Commentary. If they want discussion they can respond there, or at Manboobz if they cant handle being on neutral turf. Neutral meaning TCC is not a blog where lots of my friends agree to anything I say.
Jessay:
Well men attracted women long before PUA existed, the point of both businesses are doing those things better and during a tougher situation. Neither are something new.
Advertisers created a standard? Citation?. Advertisers hardly created womens opinions. More likely womens opinions decided what works in advertising. You show something women dislike and they do not buy the product. Women do not buy whatever they are told.
This is also true in PUA. Anything I ever learned in PUA was written cause women were more attracted by it. Also you are overplaying the standard. Beauty is not told to be the only value women have, they are told its the best value. This means less work and more profit in evolutionary terms. However Soccer players being richer than guys in gymnastics doesnt mean guys having to be soccer players.
On the assumption women listen to men protesting at all Citation? Since when do women care men protesting anything? Men protesting are at best described as weak whiners and at worst women see any protest regarding women as against women. When men wanted women to wear longer skirts feminism wanted freedom for short skirts. When younger men starting to like short skirts and turning it into a business feminism wanted women to wear more clothes and Ariel Levy asking why liberation turned women into female chauvinists.
Yes and this correlates culturally with women getting more choice and power. It doesnt correlate with countries where women have less choice and power. This is called “The sexual paradox” Thus the women in the world doesnt empirically support your theory the reason for their behavior is having less power.
Yes and the more power women have the more of these things are observed. Its clearly not correlating the way feminists have believed. However feminist theory seem to work the same way as advertising. If they say things women like there is no demand for empirical support. You could never be in feminist theory and tell women that women have power to do things cause women would chose not to listen.
This is off course nothing New. Daphne Patai have already presented the problem.
Care to give a citation on this? I personally dont think any feminist scholars ever need empirical correlation and I also dont think women would accept feminist theory having wrong explanations. Same as in advertising I dont think women buy stuff they do not like and you have presented nothing that indicates they do.
Those are not comparable. You are confusing the normal things (women do make up, men do pickup/dating) with the modern extreme things (some women do extreme appearance-change some men do PUA) Also you dont take into account higher number of women want fewer number of guys.
“Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent”
This means a larger number of women than men will compete against eachother cause a larger number of men are considered worthless losers and arent even in the competition.
In what way is that better? More people can be good at being beautiful than at being successful thus a larger number of women can be attractive than is possible for men. Thus most women go for the 10% best guys. For the women it seems to be great being a guy.
Dude, you said that you were leaving. Begone! Does anyone have some banishing incense handy?
Arkitvarum: Nope. You bring the subject up here, you get to talk about it here. If you think a place you own, when you describe a place no one here but Dave can do anything to a post as one where we are engaging in “censorship”† because we insist on reading your words and comparing them to themselves, and you haven’t got the intellectual honesty to support your claims; hell you can’t even keep the same claim from one sentence to the next.
Why in the name of all that’s holy; when this is as close to “neutral ground” as you are going to get. I, nor Argenit, nor Jessay, nor Ithliliana, nor Cloudiah, nor anyone (but Dave) can do anything to anyone else’s words. And the banhammer here comes for personal attacks. So far you’ve avoided that.
So thanks, but I’ll stay here, rather than try to beard the jackal in his lair.
† which isn’t, “He won’t let me talk”, it ‘s a gov’t refusing you the right to speak at all. You can still say black people are lazy, and jews are money grubbing thieves but you can’t say it in my living room. That’s not censorship. When the gov’t throws you in jail, or cuts out your tongue for saying something, that’s censorship.
It’s an important difference
Anyone looked (speaking of a Man Going his Own Way” at Varpole recently?
…well, I’m totally down with outlandish and colorful clothes. I think they look awesome. And a dude dressed as a peacock certainly catches my eye. So, mission accomplished! When you dress funny you signal to those who dislike flamboyant dress that you’re not their type, and you signal to me that you’re my type.
Ish. I’m not down with dudes who are disrespectful to women. Anything out of the PUA handbook in a conversation, particularly negs, and you are right out.
I love flamboyant clothes (and hair), but the PUA version of eye-catching catches the eye in all the wrong ways. It doesn’t read as unique and interesting, it reads as do you not own a mirror?
It’s cute that this little fart wants citations for everything.
PUAs mostly look like they got lost on the way to a rave.
After stumbling out of a time machine.
(Not in a fun way, in a “the 90s want their accessories back” way.)
Pecunium:
How would I know? This is what was written earlier.
Thus I gave the link to reply in case people here dont let comments up. Simple as that. now to your response.
Pecunium:
It do not agree cause being persuaded to want it is the exact same as being made (by method of persuasion) to want it. This as opposed to being made to want it by any other method also being the cause of you wanting something. You wanting something imply consent. Choices however often involve a tradeoff where you get what you want by doing something you dont want. For instance jobs often involve getting money by doing stuff people would not do were they not paid. And women often have sex with a guy earlier than they would like cause they want to be treated special.
This is an absurd statement! Rape means she doesnt want sex at all. For example there was a reality TV-show where a couple become boyfriend-girlfriend. She however wanted to wait with sex. The TV-company wanted action so they sent in a supermodel in the show to put the moves on him and make his girlfriend want to have sex. This is also what happened. By the logic you have used she was “raped” cause seeing another woman showing interest in her boyfriend made her change her plans and have sex sooner.
I decide what is of value in my relationships – same as everyone else. When we first meet her being interested in me is her seeing value in me and likewise. Then after sex same thing when deciding if we wanna keep seeing eachother. The main difference here is women are harder on men in the first decision for sex while men are harder on women for the second decision on relationships. Research will tell you when men are scarce, women have more casual sex. When women are scarce, men spend a more time on courting them before getting to bed and less causal sex happens.
As I said on Manboobz “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.”
“W. Keith Campbell, a psychology professor at the University of Georgia, which is 57 percent female, put it this way: “When men have the social power, they create a man’s ideal of relationships,” he said. Translation: more partners, more sex. Commitment? A good first step would be his returning a woman’s Facebook message.”
Not at all. Thats more you assuming I would decide whether to keep her of dump her before even having her at all. First if we are attracted we meet and have sex. Then if she likes me, she wants to keep seeing me, If i like her I want to keep seeing her. Thats called equality! We will then be seeing eachother and see what happens. The entire point of your argument seem to be the old situation where people date first – and then maybe have sex.
Also being too interested before sex doesnt help guys at all. One of the most common reasons women give for not wanting sex is “he seemed desperate”
I dont agree. I am talking about me and her having sex. Me getting sex and her getting sex is perfectly moral and equal. Her using sex to get me to do things I dont want to would be less moral. If I like her i wanna keep seeing her, and there is no gurantee she will say yes cause she might not wanna keep seeing me. She cant demand I wanna see her, I cant demand she wanna see me. Nobody is used, we are just having fun together and seeing where things are going.
I really dont care replying personal attacks (ad hominem). However if that was the case she would not wanna keep seeing me after having sex with me so where would the problem be even if this was true? It doesnt seem to help your argument at all.
That is relative attraction being measured. Which means comparing A, B and C and girls getting to choose who are more/less attractive. However they dont know what is also studied is whether girls decide who is more attractive based on picture alone or using information provided althoug not a part of the task.
Yes I do, however I also assume people reading are objective and if people reply to their own interpretations more than the material I provided. This kind is commented here:
“What a language with its gender system means is what people use it to mean. It is an evil principle to think that we can tell other people what they mean by what they say, because of some theory we have that makes it mean something in particular to us, even when they obviously mean something else. Nevertheless, there is now a common principle, in feminism and elsewhere (especially flourishing in literary criticism), that meaning is only in the response of the interpreter, not in the mind of the speaker”
Not at all, you are ignoring the context. I compared test A with prof. Conleys test B and told you test B doesnt work cause people dont know how they react to such things and when they happen people do not even have the time to think about half the things in the test. Also I explained Conleys idea of EP is wrong cause according to EP guys use visual cues to decide the age of a woman, knowing her age would not matter. Also women take cues of high status from guys behavior, this is the point of the subject PUA.
Where am i supposed to have said that? What I do say is feminists have some good ideas but bad unrealistic methods. Most times people talk of feminism they said “feminists wants…or feminists are against” Meaning the ideas. Even if I believe those claims they do not tell me in what ways things are supposed to happen.
*stumbles out of a time machine* Egads! What forsaken world have I landed in?
“I didnt speak of the Pope. The Pope wasnt even the subject of our discussion.”
It would appear I’ve stumbled into an era that no longer understands how to properly clarify antecedents! When you are speaking with someone, and they say something like “I don’t care if he’s the pope” and then you reply without clarifying who the “he” in your statement is, alas, the only logical conclusion is you meant the same “he” that they did — the pope.
“Do you really think it is realistic to claim people learn not to have girlfriends from a guy who has a girlfriend and bring her to the teaching seminars where he is top 10 in the world?”
What manner of era is this, where people argue that one relationship disproves what they just said about relationships in general?
“This is an absurd statement! Rape means she doesnt want sex at all.”
Is this time of yours one where taking advantage of people is acceptable, desired even, if the person gives any sign they’re interested, or simply no sign strong enough that they aren’t? Tell me, in this strange land of yours, is there even an indicator, besides violence, that is strong enough to signal that your partner isn’t interested? This is one very odd era, where people who I assume have not just stumbled out of a time machine cannot check legal citations but lo! my misplaced time traveling self can! It would appear that in your time a woman can want sex, and change her mind during the act and it still be rape, amazing time this is!
“Thats more you assuming I would decide whether to keep her of dump her before even having her at all.”
Ah but you do still own your women, times haven’t changed that much I see, too bad I cannot report back to the good Queen Victoria on this matter, she’d be most intrigued.
“I really dont care replying personal attacks (ad hominem).”
Oh but it would appear that your Latin is sorely lacking, for woe is me but that is not what ad hominem means. It would appear this wondrous thing called “wikipedia” has definitions right at your fingertips, simple amazing that, and, as could be clear from the words argumentum ad hominem, this mean an argument against the person, instead of arguing against their thoughts — mere name calling does not an ad hominem make, you peddler of fish!
“Yes I do, however I also assume people reading are objective and if people reply to their own interpretations more than the material I provided.”
Thou speaks of objectivity whilst also discussing how people reply, yet how people reply is quite obviously a subjective standard. Tell me, is this strange time of yours ruled by the Church of England and people now dare ignore the Church’s proclamations of objective standards? Blasphemy!
CassandraSays — thank you, that was quite fun!
And sorry to anyone my Church of England crack may’ve offended (I’m hoping any religious people reading along will note that the point is about humans never being objective and it’ll make sense)
Arkitvarum: How would I know? This is what was written earlier.
Argenti: If you’re especially, or persistently, offensive, disruptive, or tedious,
Thus I gave the link to reply in case people here dont let comments up.
Oh. Were you planning to be especially persistent in offensive behaviors, or just planning an excess of tedious disruption?
Now to what passes for substance in you post.
To make someone do something is to force them.
Hence the childish response to a parent, “You can’t make me!”
Married to the implicit sense that consent exists, and the woman has to prove she has revoked it, you are, at the least, possesed of latently rapist behaviors.
Things like this: <i.This is an absurd statement! Rape means she doesnt want sex at all.
Nope. Rape happens when someone (not just a woman) doesn’t want sex right now and someone else insists. No force is required. It’s sort of the same as fraudlent sales. I might want to change phone companies, but when a company make a pitch which causes me to, “agree” to a change in service by playing with the technical meaning of the language, it’s still a crime.
You even (seem to, it’s a passage of almost incomprehensible grammar” seem to admit this when you say, the difference between forced to sex you dont want – and being made to want sex (you do want).
If someone wants it they don’t need to be, “made” to want it. It’s not that some people don’t change their minds, it’s that you persist in using a verb of coercion, as if it were a verb of persuasion.
Not at all. Thats more you assuming I would decide whether to keep her of dump her before even having her at all.
That’s you not reading what was being talked about. Change it, to, “that’s one deciding”. But let’s look at your actual words.
HER clearly putting more effort into her body than other things of value is my problem?
You were clearly saying that, apart from her looks, she has nothing of value to offer. That was in this part of the quotation: If we are not gonna be in a longer relationship me not admiring other things about her than what attracts sexually is neither a) disrespect nor b) a problem. (really dude, it’s all there; we can look it up. Pretending you didn’t say it doesn’t help you).
Your clarification in this comment isn’t helping your case that you aren’t objectifying women as things for fucking, rather than people.
I decide what is of value in my relationships – same as everyone else. When we first meet her being interested in me is her seeing value in me and likewise. Then after sex same thing
Sex first, then we see if she’s a “real person”.
I am talking about me and her having sex. Me getting sex and her getting sex is perfectly moral and equal.
No argument. It’s not a question of what, it’s a question of why. Your motives are base. Not that you like casual sex. I’ve like casual sex. But you aren’t treating the people in the other half of the equation as people.
You think that “making” them want sex is legitimate. You think that having sex with no real consideration of them as anything more than a warm hole is reasonable.
That’s not treating them as ends, but as means (see above, where it’s making them want sex, then seeing if they are worth knowing as people).
I really dont care replying personal attacks (ad hominem)
It was an insulting estimation of your character. It wasn’t an ad hominem I didn’t say your repulsive lack of empathy was why you were wrong. I didn’t even connect it to your arguments at all. I just said it was a repulsive lack of empathy.
Ergo it wasn’t ad hominem That you pretend it is is a different sort of logical fail; a misuse of pathos, or an unwillingness to be correct in your language, or an intentional attempt to mislead the audience by pretending I have actually committed a fallacy.
I am prone to thinking it the second; because the idea that insult is verboten categorically, because there is a way in which it can be misused is so common it deserves it’s own name.
That you are so careless with words/meanings is it’s own problem. That you have been so careless, so often, in all of the work I’ve seen you present is what leads me to this conclusion.
Careless is, as careless does.
Back to playing piñata:
However if that was the case she would not wanna keep seeing me after having sex with me so where would the problem be even if this was true? It doesnt seem to help your argument at all.
<Au contraire, mon frere, you admit that you are willing to trick her, to, “make” her want to have sex with you, when she was otherwise uninterested. You presented a false representation of your actual nature (see above, re Kant, and treating people as means, not ends; thank you for being so accomodating in this fisking). As a result she might have been interested, had you been treating her as a person, not an object.
That is relative attraction being measured. Which means comparing A, B and C and girls getting to choose who are more/less attractive. However they dont know what is also studied is whether girls decide who is more attractive based on picture alone or using information provided althoug not a part of the task.
This is gibberish. It’s not attraction, it’s, “relative attraction”. Relative to what?
Relative to what they think is sexy. It’s possible to design a study which constrains the results (rate the following people from most to least attractive [which, btw, will get different results than a study which askes people to rate from least to most; which calls all such studies into question, in some interesting ways: but I digress]) but that’s not what you said this one did.
It rated from 1-10. That’s an outside scale. That’s a self-referential scale. It’s a scale internal to the person asked to rate. It’s what they find attractive.
You even said this: They dont ask people who they find attractive. They ask people to grade 1-10. If you would not eff anyone dont give anyone a 9 of 10.
You say that a 9 = wants to fuck. That’s an internal/individual metric, not, “A versus B versus C.
Again, you don’t seem to read what what you write from one sentence to the next. Since all you’ve written (from one comment to the next) is here for anyone to read, you might want to fix that.
Oh good lord… Your’re citing Against the Theory of Sexist Language? Kelly Ross?, a second rate philosphy professor †
An argument that’s based on a use of the Strong Sapir-Whorf theory, and badly using even that; but taking the specific aspects of non-English, and applying them to English, with a prescriptivist gloss of what language is, while ignoring how culture and language interact: Does he go into the ways in which the subject/object pronoun pairs are fading? Or why the formal/informal in English stopped being used, much less why the formal was the one adopted? No. He rather pretends that the broader culture’s use of langauge marginalising large groups within it is irrelevant; even when some of those other questions (esp. the one on formal/informal default pronouns) are fundamental to the issue of gender/non-gender uses of default pronouns in English.
† I have only second hand knowledge of his skills as an instructor. None of the people I know who took classes with him, back in the late 1980s. because I was going to Pierce, not Valley; but I had friends who went to Valley. It’s a small world).
BTW, those links aren’t citations. They are, at most, references. Cite your work.
Not at all. Thats more you assuming I would decide whether to keep her of dump her before even having her at all.
That’s you not reading what was being talking about. Change it, to, “that’s one deciding”. But let’s look at your actual words.
HER clearly putting more effort into her body than other things of value is my problem?
You were clearly saying that, apart from her looks, she has nothing of value to offer. That was in this part of the quotation: If we are not gonna be in a longer relationship me not admiring other things about her than what attracts sexually is neither a) disrespect nor b) a problem. (really dude, it’s all there; we can look it up. Pretending you didn’t say it doesn’t help you).
Your clarification in this comment isn’t helping your case that you aren’t objectifying women as things for fucking, rather than people.
I decide what is of value in my relationships – same as everyone else. When we first meet her being interested in me is her seeing value in me and likewise. Then after sex same thing
Sex first, then we see if she’s a “real person”.
I am talking about me and her having sex. Me getting sex and her getting sex is perfectly moral and equal.
No argument. It’s not a question of what, it’s a question of why. Your motives are base. Not that you like casual sex. I’ve like casual sex. But you aren’t treating the people in the other half of the equation as people.
You think that “making” them want sex is legitimate. You think that having sex with no real consideration of them as anything more than a warm hole is reasonable.
That’s not treating them as ends, but as means.
I really dont care replying personal attacks (ad hominem)
Nope. It was an insulting estimation of your character. It wasn’t an ad hominem I didn’t say your repulsive lack of empathy was why you were wrong. I didn’t even connect it to your arguments at all.
So it wasn’t an ad hominem That you pretend it is is a different sort of logical fail; a misuse of pathos, or an unwillingness to be correct in your language, or an intentional attempt to mislead the audience by pretending I have actually committed a fallacy.
I am prone to thinking it the second; because the idea that insult is verboten categorically, because there is a way in which it can be misused is so common it deserves it’s own name.
That you are so careless with words/meanings is it’s own problem. That you have been so careless, so often, in all of the work I’ve seen you present is what leads me to this conclusion.
Careless is, as careless does.
Back to playing piñata:
However if that was the case she would not wanna keep seeing me after having sex with me so where would the problem be even if this was true? It doesn’t seem to help your argument at all.
<Au contraire, mon frere, you admit that you are willing to trick her, to, “make” her want to have sex with you, when she was otherwise uninterested. You presented a false representation of your actual nature (see above, re Kant, and treating people as means, not ends; thank you for being so accommodating in this fisking). As a result she might have been interested, had you been treating her as a person, not an object.
That is relative attraction being measured. Which means comparing A, B and C and girls getting to choose who are more/less attractive. However they dont know what is also studied is whether girls decide who is more attractive based on picture alone or using information provided althoug not a part of the task.
This is gibberish. It’s not attraction, it’s, “relative attraction”. Relative to what?
Relative to what they think is sexy. It’s possible to design a study which constrains the results (rate the following people from most to least attractive [which, btw, will get different results than a study which asks people to rate from least to most; which calls all such studies into question, in some interesting ways: but I digress]) but that’s not what you said this one did.
It rated from 1-10. That’s an outside scale. That’s a self-referential scale. It’s a scale internal to the person asked to rate. It’s what they find attractive.
You even said this: They dont ask people who they find attractive. They ask people to grade 1-10. If you would not eff anyone dont give anyone a 9 of 10.
You say that a 9 = wants to fuck. That’s an internal/individual metric, not, “A versus B versus C.
Again, you don’t seem to read what what you write from one sentence to the next. Since all you’ve written (from one comment to the next) is here for anyone to read, you might want to fix that.
Oh good lord… You’re citing Against the Theory of Sexist Language? Kelly Ross?, a second rate philosophy professor †, in a question of linguistics and social behaviors?
An argument that’s based on a use of the Strong Sapir-Whorf theory, and badly using even that; but taking the specific aspects of non-English, and applying them to English, with a prescriptivist gloss of what language is, while ignoring how culture and language interact: Does he go into the ways in which the subject/object pronoun pairs are fading? Or why the formal/informal in English stopped being used, much less why the formal was the one adopted? No. He rather pretends that the broader culture’s use of language marginalising large groups within it is irrelevant; even when some of those other questions (esp. the one on formal/informal default pronouns) are fundamental to the issue of gender/non-gender uses of default pronouns in English.
† I have only second hand knowledge of his skills as an instructor. None of the people I know who took classes with him, back in the late 1980s. because I was going to Pierce, not Valley; but I had friends who went to Valley. It’s a small world).
BTW, those links aren’t citations. They are, at most, references. Cite your work.
My god… I’m sorry for not breaking up that WALL-O-TEXT.
I’m going to claim the Argenti-Defense,and say it looked a lot shorter in notepad.
† I have only second hand knowledge of his skills as an instructor. None of the people I know who took classes with him, back in the late 1980s THOUGHT HE WAS MUCH GOOD AS AN INSTRUCTOR. I was going to Pierce, not Valley; but I had friends who went to Valley. It’s a small world
(I am enjoying the Victorian time traveler game, just a heads up there)
This “attractiveness” study of which you speak, where may one find a citation? As this strange time of yours seems to lack any understanding of Latin, English, logic, or the meaning of the word “objective” I would very much like to examine their research for myself.
Of this study you have said the following statements, some of which directly contradict each other:
“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.”
“They dont ask people who they find attractive. They ask people to grade 1-10. If you would not eff anyone dont give anyone a 9 of 10.”
“That is relative attraction being measured. Which means comparing A, B and C and girls getting to choose who are more/less attractive. However they dont know what is also studied is whether girls decide who is more attractive based on picture alone or using information provided althoug not a part of the task.”
Pray tell, would you like short lesson in research methods, as perhaps standards have waned over the century between your time and my own? A double blind study means that neither the people administering the conditions of the study nor the study participants know which condition any given participant is in, this is nearly impossible in psychological research (simply amazing that that is done now, simply amazing!) No study in which researchers “easily trick” the participants could ever be double blind for, alas, the researchers know the study condition any given participant.
Further, first you imply that the study rating are of attractiveness, then of sexual desire, then of relative attractiveness, has attractiveness become a synonym for sexual desire? Admittedly the time machine and all this strange technology has left me a bit confused, but it would seem that even in this strange time one can find someone attractive while not wanting to have sexual relations with them. Even if these words have become synonyms, relative attraction must still mean “in relation to others”, in this case that would mean the study participants rated the attractiveness of photographs of men in relation to each other, yes? Thus it is entirely possible a study participant may find all ten photographs attractive, perhaps even sexually desire all ten men, yet, being forced to assign each a different number, would end up rating one as the low end of attractive. Unless the basics of mathematics have also changed drastically it would appear that it is entirely possible for some of the men rated least attractive to still be considered attractive.
Finally, as attractiveness itself is a very subjective measure, there is no conceivable way to determine the weight of the additional information provided. That is to say that since study participants may have a drastically different senses of what makes someone attractive, it would be impossible to determine whether any given photograph was rated as “more attractive” as a result of the additional information, or as a result of the different measures of attractiveness the study participants are using. While the law of large numbers would help minimize that affect that law only applies to truly unbiased sample populations, which, without the study itself, we cannot possibly judge to have been the case or not.
Good day sir!
Instead of time to flounce, maybe I should start guessing time until they beg you to come visit their blog.
(Speaking of which, Anti-Manboobz is pretty much throwing in the towel.)
And his entire blog is this one post from January:
At least he managed to work a double period in there. Truly he is an MRA!
“time until they beg you to come visit their blog” = 7 days and 43 minutes for this one
Why he’s here at all remains quite the mystery however.
katz: I didn’t even notice that. He backdated his post about this discussion? Why? What possible purpose could that serve?
I’m still laughing about a blog he created being ‘neutral ground’ though.
Pecunium: it WAS shorter in your text editor. You pasted your reply in twice.
And then I thought to myself, I wonder if the troll will even notice? I mean, he certainly doesn’t seem to spend much time thinking about the content of any given post before he replies…
Also: he suddenly thinks feminists have some good ideas?
Name one.
Also, because Trolly McTrollpants keeps going on about how women’s power is all in imagery, a little bit of something to think about. (from the blog Hello Ladies)
It’s as though Aktivarum has caught the scent of a real problem in the world. And decided that the source of it is that women are dumb, not that theere are structural biases.
Imagine that.
What I like best about this silliness is that, in order to accept that “thinking someone is very attractive” intrinsically means “wanting to fuck them,” absolutely everyone must be either (a) completely pansexual or (b) completely incapable of having opinions on the attractiveness of members of their non-preferred gender(s). If, as a dude, you ever think that Brad Pitt or George Clooney is a good-looking man, it means you want to fuck them, even if you were under the impression you were totally straight. Also, asexuals think absolutely everyone is ugly. :-p
Pecunium:
That deepends on whether you mean offensive to you or offensive to me. I was not planning to be offensive but off course anything I say can be interpreted as offensive by any rigid interpretation of the kind found in churches.
Children believe this cause they dont know better. If I say “The heat is making me buy Coca Cola” it doesnt mean I was forced to buy Coca Cola. It doesnt mean I had to do it.
Kate Winslet: Celine Dion’s ‘Titanic’ Song Makes Me Want to Throw Up
I think thats a ridiculous interpretation as well as very careless use of the word rape. Also you gave no citations.
Using force is not the same as being forced/forcing somebody. You can be forced by any means (including physical force and/or threats) however the point being rape is sex you had to have. Not sex you choose to have. Choice is the key word. Men report unwanted intercourse (62,7%) mostly cause of peer-pressure and wanting to be popular (Muehlenhard). Should women be put in jail for taking advantage?
“It’s sort of the same as fraudlent sales. I might want to change phone companies, but when a company make a pitch which causes me to, “agree” to a change in service by playing with the technical meaning of the language, it’s still a crime.”
Offering you a better price and conditions if taking it now is that a crime?
You can be forced by any method (not just physical force) but if you have choice its not things you have to do. Rape is sex you had to have. Not sex you choose to have.
Its in fact neither. The Titanic Song makes Kate Winslet want to throw up.
Not at all I was saying she decides what she puts effort in and this will decide what value she has to offer. Its the exact same for guys. Women do not have sex with guys of no value to them. Women do not want relationship with guys not having value to them. Its 100% equal.
Neither, I clarify its dependent on her choice. Thats what the word “IF” meant.
“Sex first, then we see if she’s a “real person”
Everyone are real persons. However I am not looking for a pal I am looking for a girlfriend thus I need to know if she is interested in me sexually. If not she cant be my girlfriend and thus it would not matter if I liked her or not.
Guys listening to you spend countless hours on the wrong girl hoping for sex.
My motives are simple. I am looking for girlfriends but I am not looking for pals.
Celine Dion thinks playing a song making Kate Winslet want to throw up is legitimate? I have replied to your semantics regarding the words “make me want”
I think equality is legitimate and reasonable. Women dont care about those things yet you think I should cause I am a guy and not a girl? Thats as I see it either sexism or you simply dont know how little women actully care – you placing women on a piedestal.
Thats treating women as equals. Meaning when women care for me, I care for women. When women dont care for me – I am not obligated to care for them.
So basically your defence is I am wrong cause what you write is common verbal abuse with no relevance at all to the argument? Ok
We have a separate argument on “make” where I do not agree with your interpretation: Now your new argument is “make/trick” being the same thing? I do not agree with that interpretation either. If I wanted to say trick I would say trick.
I do not believe you. Even women themselves say they dont want their male friends to hit on them and this excuse is so common its gas its own acronym, LJBF.
Relative to the other choices.
No, relative to which they think is more good looking and less. This would be equally true if all of the guys were ugly. Key words being more/less.
However this study involves researchers sneaking in information that are not supposed to be used at all. The womens task is telling us which guy they think looks more good. Knowing which is richer is no excuse for changing numbers.
Yes and then money and other information is thrown into the equation. Which doesnt affect the numbers unless they actually do find money to matter for attraction.
The same guy who got a 4 at first got a 9 at the same picture in the same test when women though he had a different financial situation.
your argument is that were not being lazy and imprecise enough in our use of language? boy, you are just a model of someone who’s thought this all the way through, now aren’t you?
Pecunium may not have but I did.
choose, verb (used with object)
1. to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference: She chose Sunday for her departure.
2. to prefer or decide (to do something): He chose to run for election.
3. to want; desire.
4. (especially in children’s games) to contend with (an opponent) to decide, as by odd or even, who will do something: I’ll choose you to see who gets to bat first.
want, verb (used with object)
1. to feel a need or a desire for; wish for: to want one’s dinner; always wanting something new.
2. to wish, need, crave, demand, or desire (often followed by an infinitive): I want to see you. She wants to be notified.
3. to be without or be deficient in: to want judgment; to want knowledge.
4. to fall short by (a specified amount): The sum collected wants but a few dollars of the desired amount.
5. to require or need: The house wants painting.
verb (used without object)
6. to feel inclined; wish; like (often followed by to ): We can stay home if you want.
7. to be deficient by the absence of some part or thing, or to feel or have a need (sometimes followed by for ): He did not want for abilities.
8. to have need (usually followed by for ): If you want for anything, let him know.
9. to be in a state of destitution, need, or poverty: She would never allow her parents to want.
10. to be lacking or absent, as a part or thing necessary to completeness: All that wants is his signature.
make, verb (used with object)
1. to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining parts, etc.: to make a dress; to make a channel; to make a work of art.
2. to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about: to make trouble; to make war.
3. to cause to be or become; render: to make someone happy.
4. to appoint or name: The President made her his special envoy.
5. to put in the proper condition or state, as for use; fix; prepare: to make a bed; to make dinner.
6. to bring into a certain form: to make bricks out of clay.
7. to convert from one state, condition, category, etc., to another: to make a virtue of one’s vices.
8. to cause, induce, or compel: to make a horse jump a barrier.
It’s that last one that’s important here, you literally cannot make someone want something without either violating English or the person, at best, you’re misusing English. I include “choose” because technically one can choose to be raped if, for example, the other option is beaten and raped. That’s a bit of a stretch of English, but you said “Rape is sex you had to have. Not sex you choose to have.” when in reality it could be sex you “choose” to have to prevent worse from happening to you.
“If I say “The heat is making me buy Coca Cola” it doesnt mean I was forced to buy Coca Cola. It doesnt mean I had to do it.”
Try — If I say “I went over a friend’s house to play some video games and ze made me buy zir a Coco Cola before giving me a ride home” if rather does mean you were forced to buy Coca Cola, assuming that ride was your only way of getting home.
You’ve mentioned this study a lot now, including some contradictory things and things that make no sense (like claiming it was a double-blind study, which isn’t possible given the nature of the study, and suggests to me that you don’t actually know what double-blind means and just think it sounds science-y). And chance at all you can refer us to the actual study and we can see what it actually says ourselves?
Boring Troll is VERY boring. *yawn*
Dance better, Troll!
@PsychoDan: Aktivarum is relying on an unpublished study with a double-blind, randomized abiotic control group, which (following conventional practice) was analyzed using regression equations on the sample size. In conclusion, our bivariate analysis demonstrated that there was a mid-point at variance with the relative selection pressure. This proves that (a) men are looking for girlfriends, not pals, and (b) women are only attracted to men with sizable bank accounts who can keep pushing past “No” until they get the answer they want.
I am trying to get this study published in The Prestigious Journal of Scientific Psychology but the editors are not answering my emails. Misandry!!!!!!!!!!1!
/sarcasm
Also, placing women on a “piedestal”? Now i’m just hungry.
cloudiah — is he ignoring my Victorian time traveler methodology lesson because he assumes I was doing what you’re doing there? Because um, I was snarking with science (snarking, now with extra science!)
Your snark makes as much sense as NWO does most days — all those words make sense, just not strung together like that XD
“And chance at all you can refer us to the actual study and we can see what it actually says ourselves?” — please? I really do enjoy tearing apart bad research, and there’s just so much of it out there.
My motives are simple. I am looking for girlfriends but I am not looking for pals.
Ah, the ongoing quest to have sex with people who don’t like you. A noble enterprise indeed.
And the Prestigious Journal of Scientific Psychology is always accepting submissions. Cloudiah, you must have gotten hung up in the rigorous peer-review process.
Argenti:
“When you are speaking with someone, and they say something like “I don’t care if he’s the pope” and then you reply without clarifying who the “he” in your statement is, alas, the only logical conclusion is you meant the same “he” that they did — the pope.”
A1. Adam does bla bla bla
A2. I dont care if he (Adam) is the Pope
A1. He (Adam) is (as the Pope) high in hierachy in an elected position.
A2: hahaha I know lots of The Pope you are wrong… lets waste lots of time on the Pope
A1: We are not discussing the Pope.
“Do you really think it is realistic to claim people learn not to have girlfriends from a guy who has a girlfriend and bring her to the teaching seminars where he is top 10 in the world?”
That is not even a real answer. However I will assume you mean yes.
“This is an absurd statement! Rape means she doesnt want sex at all.”
Between meeting and going to bed there are lots and lots of tests, all beginning with the guy normally taking initiative and the woman responding either positive or negative. How about this signal? When I go to MY bed, do not go to my bed and undress? Does that work for you or is it absolutely essential for women to go to my bed naked NOT to have sex?
Actually, I get the impression women dont need to change their mind during sex. I get the impression you would not care if women change their mind after sex. Maybe you think men should have to make recordings in case women “change their mind”?
It was only when police examined CCTV that detectives realised the soldiers were telling the truth and the attack never happened.
The single mother pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice after police found nearly an hour’s CCTV footage of the consensual intercourse taking place.
What in blazes are you talking about? I said I will decide whether I want to keep seering her and she will likewise decide whether or not she wants to keep dating me. In what way does that mean me owing her?
Again, verbal abuse and no relevance hardly being better.
Not at all. People either reply on the premise they try to understand what people mean. Or they assume what people mean is not important cause they wanna win as many “points” as possible to be popular with their friends
Nope, still boring.
What do you think of hard chairs, Troll?
Misandry, or not?
You haven’t been in a long-term relationship, have you.
But the real problem is that this rule exists only in your head. Some guys might have an imaginary rule that entering their apartment is consent to sex; some might have the imaginary rule that sitting on their bed clothed is consent to sex. Because I’m not psychic, I don’t know when I’m “consenting” to sex according to your personal rules.
People who think women don’t get to change their minds during sex are fucking scary.
I mean, are you really willing to look down on a woman screaming “no please stop get off me now” and keep on going? Are you going to answer that with “BUT TECHNICALLY I HAD THIS IMAGINARY RULE IN MY HEAD” and feel okay about yourself?
fuuuck
[disengages snark]
I do not have the stamina to sustain my snark for more than one or two paragraphs, tops. Argenti, your scientific snark is a thing of beauty and a joy forever; mine is just lazy snark. ;-)
[reengages snark]
Katz, I have citations and everything! Why didn’t your feminazi editors (excuse me, “peers”) approve?
Citations:
1. Some books from the 1950s.
2. Some books from the Star Wars series.
3. Some book by George R. R. Martin, with lots of maps in it.
4. My ass.
katz:
My motives are simple. I am looking for girlfriends but I am not looking for pals.
Not at all, I said
– I think equality is legitimate and reasonable. Women dont care about those things yet you think I should cause I am a guy and not a girl? Thats as I see it either sexism or you simply dont know how little women actully care
Also as i explained
– I was saying she decides what she puts effort in and this will decide what value she has to offer. Its the exact same for guys. Women do not have sex with guys of no value to them. Women do not want relationship with guys not having value to them. Its 100% equal.
Troll is boring, so I present you with a Star Wars telenovela:
“Your loins will be your downfall!”
yo aktivarum if youre idea of equality is that you get to ascribe to ‘women’ whatever sinister behaviors you feel like and then use it as an excuse for your own oafishness, you don’t believe in ‘equality’ you believe in ‘being a self-righteous bully’
i know, i know, you’ve got this whole grand framework of vague allusions to science and a bunch of hand-waving about language to back up your worldview, but guess what- all the bullies have that. it doesn’t make you different from the others, except in that you seem to be particularly whiny and desperate for validation of your personal school of bullying.
btw, don’t take that i wrote all that out as an indication that you need to reply or that i’m gonna read it if you do. for some reason a bunch of people seem willing to be sucked into your stultifying lament-cloud of ‘nobody really understands me’ but yeah, arguing with dudes who are just looking for validation from people they know arent gonna give it is not in skill set.
maybe if you had a worldview that didn’t involve treating people like video games you’d have someone irl to bring this shit to instead of dumping it all here. just food for thought.
Cliff Pervocracy:
Does that work for you or is it absolutely essential for women to go to my bed naked NOT to have sex?
Yes I have but that is neither an answer to the question nor relevant for the subject.
It was not a rule it was a question. You are still not answering.
I am sure they do, however that doesnt answer my question.
The point was me asking you. Does me going to bed and you following and undressing mean you consent to sex or not? (If “you” are a woman)
Actually, I get the impression women dont need to change their mind during sex. I get the impression you would not care if women change their mind after sex.
I never said I did! I said judging from this discussion women could change their minds after sex and there would be no objection. I also asked maybe you think men should have make recordings when they have sex? And I included two examples of women being caught in false rape accusations cause police saw them at CCTV
You seem to answer to everything except what I said/asked.
“I mean, are you really willing to look down on a woman screaming “no please stop get off me now” and keep on going?”
No I dont but why are you even asking cause it has basically zero with what i wrote.
I gave one simple rule and asked for opinion.