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.
Oh, Mr. Let Me Explain Why Rape Isn’t Really Rape Because I Say So is still here?
Sharculese:
My idea of equality is already presented:
– Meaning when women care for me, I care for women. When women dont care for me – I am not obligated to care for them.
Pecunium made the point:
I replied:
– 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.
Yes, and still droning on about how two possible false accusations totally mean that he should record sex acts forevermore. Without asking permission, of course.
doooooooooooooon’t caaaaaaaaaaaaaare
I care! I totally care about this budgie who sounds like R2D2:
Bostonian:
Both those were proven to be false, not possible false, proven false by video evidence catching them red-handed. You calling them “possible false” is laughable.
As opposed to the women asking permission for the criminal act of making false accusations? They commit a crime and you say nothing but excuses. I talk about committing a lesser crime (yes, falsely putting people in jail is more serious than without permission making recordings) and guess what bostonian have problem with? – The lesser crime of course.
I know some people may be unfamiliar with the story of Star Wars, so here’s a recap by a 3 year old:
This troll is still at it?
Some people have way too much time on their hands.
Wait, is Aktivarum B__n?
Or are there TWO people out there who secretly record sex to avoid rape accusations?
Pffft, you can totally know how Star Wars goes without seeing it.
Katz, Br___n had a better grasp of the language. Not by much, but still.
Can this tedious fuck be moderated or banned? Boring troll is booooooooooring.
Maybe if we talk about bra sizing he’ll go away?
hellkell, first I have a message for him:
I wish their was a Jedi mind trick I could use…
^there^
ACK!
i cant see b____n as a pua. well, i could see him going in for shit like negging and kino as essential biotruths or whatever, but the whole manual of ‘tricking women into sleeping with you’ shit? nah. in the b______n-verse, women ought automatically recognize the magnificence of b_____n. those who don’t arent worth the effort.
also yeah, i can totally believe the internet is big enough for two creeps with self-serving justifications for secretly recording their partners
cloudiah — thank you, I try. *cracks knuckles to go at it again*
Oh this is one strange time indeed, where when it is noted that ones antecedent was unclear and instead of accepting that clarification could’ve avoided that, one simply insists the person noting the lack of clarity is wasting time! As a Victorian time traveler it is my humble duty to inform you that I, good sir, have literally all the time your could ever imagine, and then some.
I am beginning to question whether people in this era are still capable of reading, or if that fine art has been lost along with the meaning of “antecedent” and anything resembling research rigor. For you said —
“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.”
Ergo it is utterly irrelevant that this one gentleman has a lady partner, if, in fact, most men in your time are solely interested in the act of coitus.
It is, in truth, absolutely essential to the law that someone who has disrobed in your presence may still defer on the act of intercourse. Verily, I have already provided you with proof of this, readily available upon this magical box you call a “computer”.
As it would appear the fine art of language has been utterly perverted by your time, perhaps you did not intend to imply ownership; however, the words “to keep her” and “having her” imply ownership, akin to the way one has shirts, and keeps the receipt. You may have meant to say “whether to continue seeing her”? Alas, it would seem that the idea women have agency is sadly lost on you, I see Pecunium has tried to explain the concept in some depth and failed, I doubt my apparently overly wordy use of language shall improve the situation.
Perhaps this is true in this curious land of yours, in mine, however, one who refuses to address an argument, and instead simply resorts to insults, is committing the fallacy of argumentium ad hominem — arguing against the person, instead of the idea — while one who addresses the argument and also insults is not committing any sort of fallacy at all. And you sir? Your fondness for red herrings can only lead me to conclude that you are a peddler of fish.
Pray tell, what is this bastardization of English you are using, and where exactly can one get a translation? Does subjective not still mean something which exists within the mind of someone? Has the definition perhaps contracted to exclude situations where a replying party must interpret what has been said and try to derive the proper meaning?
Cliff — “I mean, are you really willing to look down on a woman screaming “no please stop get off me now” and keep on going?” — Alas! I have met gentlemen of that nature, and, to use your vernacular, they are indeed “fucking scary.” (I may be enjoying this just a bit much! XD)
Aktivarum — Cliff’s example has, in fact, everything to do with what you wrote, for, you see, you implyed that disrobing in your presence meant consent to sexual relations, and, as I have already cited (twice) there is legal precendent for the idea that, no, this is not the be all and end all of consent. That, rather, one can withdrawal consent at any point during coitus and, if one’s partner does not cease coitus, this is an act of rape. Thus making the question as to where one draws the line of “you now consent to coitus” truly quite relevant and important.
Cliff — correct me if I am mistaken, but do you not have a piece on this topic, asking whether consent to vaginal intercourse is also consent to anal intercourse? Aktivarum here may be enlightened by your exquisite explanation of the problem. (That’s only half snark, I really do think that post is brilliant)
…bra sizing? Lo, I am but a confused time traveler, familiar with corsets, and the movement against them, but what is this “bra” of which you speak?
…I am simply aghast at this statement, perhaps that time machine left me more confused than I’d first thought for it is an absolute mystery how I missed this —
“’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.”
Now, it is possible your “one simple rule” is that women cannot change their minds after the sex act has been completed, however, it reads frightening like you meant women cannot change their minds once disrobed. Have you no respect at all for your fellow humans?
Your time does not still use community shaming as a punishment does it? This is sadly unfortunately as you, good sir, should come with a warning indicating that merely disrobing in your presence is a blanket consent to sexual acts. I must wonder, is there a limit on this consent? Does it apply only to coitus or to such acts as cunnilingus and fellatio?
(I do actually know Victorian euphemisms, but I’m afraid I’d cease making any sense at all…don’t ask)
Please share Victorian sex euphemisms. And Victorian porn, if you’ve got any.
The bra-sizing thread was sometime in early January, but I’m not having any luck finding the thread. It really freaked out some of the MRAs. Does anyone else remember which post it was?
Yes, please share the Victorian euphemisms!
katz — I have a few pdf copies of The Pearl but it really is about the most questionable thing I’ve ever read. As for euphemisms —
My email is turning up — paedicatio mulierum (anal sex, except that’s from an anti-homosexuality piece so idk) and tribadism (scissoring) — it’s a bit sad how many results my email is turning up for sex terms (hey, the FWB is 500 miles away!)
And from The Pearl — “The red head of “Cupid’s Battering Ram” was now brought to the charge”; “Mr. Priapus”; “gamahuched” (oral)
The problem with The Pearl is that last one is one sister performing oral on another, and it does not appear they’re nearly adults (though consent, this story does sort of have it at least) — you’ve got a mix of pretty good light BDSM, random limericks and bestiality jokes, and then there’s some that’s just “…well that was rape”
Oh and “a St George” appears to be sex with her on top…and obvious enough they never remotely give enough context to get that without google. Cunny and frigging should both be obvious.
Fine, I’ll humor your stupid question. No, of course it doesn’t mean consent to sex. It also doesn’t mean that if “you” are a man (or genderqueer, or anything else). Someone doing those things might very well consent to sex, or they might consent only to cuddling, or they might consent only to sleeping, which, radical as it may seem, is a pretty common thing people take off their clothes and get into bed to do. You don’t get a sex cheat code. You have to actually confirm that the person in question wants to have sex, not just say, “Hey, you got naked and lay down! Now anything I want to do is magically fair game even if you say no!”
“Does me going to bed and you following and undressing mean you consent to sex or not?”
Define sex, not to me, to the person following you to bed — should your partner agree that that sounds good, then you have consent (until your partner says otherwise, or you do something you haven’t asked about) — otherwise? Nope, not consent, kind of rapey, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Aktivarum — Both those false accusations resulted in jail time for the women making the claims, so what exactly is the problem here?
So, to be honest, I haven’t read any of the wall-o-gibberish posts, but my eyes glanced across this little treasure.
Using force is NOT the same as forcing somebody. Really.
Learn to English, gibberish troll.
Argenti:
The problem is although they were proven false, Bostonian claims/pretends they were “possible false” Also they resulted in jail time for the women not because of consent existing (what you claim is important) but because the sex was recorded proving it was sex the girls wanted (what I said is important).
Thus I get the impression women could take back consent even after sex</strong and you doing nothing about it (making recordings needed). This mean the "consent" you are asking for is worth absolutely nothing for the guy while she wanting sex is worth everything cause that is something that cant be taken back.
I don’t suppose ethics or legality come into the equation of whether or not to secretly film people having sex?
Dave hasn’t banned this one yet?
“Using force is not the same as being forced/forcing somebody.”
Well, using force is indeed not the same thing s being forced, so congratulations on that part? I’m not sure if the “being forced/forcing someone” part means that this person doesn’t understand how the “/” symbol is used or if it’s just more of the usual context is irrelevant, these things that appear to be opposites are actually the same bullshit.
Since we’ve already done bra sizing, maybe talking about feminine hygeine products could be the next way to banish MRA trolls? I’ll start – tampons, pads, or Diva cups?
katz:
As opposed to ethics of legality having consensual sex and then pretending to be raped? (A much worse crime) Thats a tough one! Also the recording need not be a film. Several false accusations have already been thrown out of courts after they heard audiorecordings.
ArkTroll’s definition of equality:
Wow.
Just.
Wow.
In the present plane of reality I inhabit, equality is equal access and rights — and my equality has nothing to do with what you think or care about (or what any other individual thinks or cares about).
You’re not talking about equality.
You’re talking about your personal relationships with women.
And why the fuck you think a bunch of strangers on a blog’s FAQ would care is beyond me.
No wonder you’re so boring.
@Argenti Aertheri — Sorry to keep derailing the topic (and the troll), but I’d just like to add that “The Dragon on St. George” as a euphemism for the woman being on top has in fact been around at least since the 17th century, as it was recorded in a slang dictionary from 1699.
Akitivarum: 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.
Whut?
What I see is people “rigidly” demanding citations, and internal consistency. I see you providing damn all of both, and doing a lot of bobbing and weaving when called on it. Take that comment of yours. It was in reply to me asking you which of the listed as bannable offenses you intended to commit; when you said you were afraid you would be banned.
Are you know trying to say you thought you would be banned because the commenters here offended you? Neat trick that.
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.
Had to… not chose to. It was an issue of need; and it was imposed on you (though the use of Coca-Cola implies an aspect of choice, the real issue is one of dehydration). The lack of choice is the issue. And your reply about children is nonsensical. If they say “You can’t make me, because they don’t know better it means they can be made to do something which is against their will and the verb, “To make” means to compel, to force.
The smell of ripe mangoes makes me retch, as with Kate Winslet it’s an involuntary (and hence forced) reaction. (You really aren’t very good at this counter-example stuff… Does Sweden have some form of Open University? I am sure they have classes in logic and argument. You might want to look into it.)
Using force is not the same as being forced/forcing somebody.
What? Let me try this with some other concepts.
Using a car is not the same as drving/being driven. Nope, still nonsense.
Fighting is not the same as resisting/being resisting by someone. Nope, still nonsense.
Doing ‘X’ is not the same as doing ‘X’/having ‘X’ done, is nonsense no matter what noun/verb is inserted.
Offering you a better price and conditions if taking it now is that a crime?
It is when my actual, informed consent, wasn’t obtained. The trick was to ask a question, “Would you like to have the chance to pay a lower rate for phone service?”, to which someone would say yes. All the rest of the conversation was persiflage, because the interest in the possibility of a lower rate was interpreted to mean an agreement to switch phone service carriers, even if the person later said, “No”.
It was fraud.
Not at all I was saying she decides what she puts effort in and this will decide what value she has to offer
No. It’s you not seeing anything other than looks. It’s you assuming that because when she goes out for a night on the town, and dresses up; uses make-up, gets her hair done, that all she cares about is looks.
It’s not her, it’s you.
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.
Like I said, sex first, person later. If she’s a good fuck, then you’ll consider the odds of her being interesting enough to be a girlfriend; that or you don’t want a friend, just a pretty fuckbuddy you can show off to the world.
Because, while sexual interest is important to me in a partner, the partner aspect is what make them partner material. If I’m thinking in terms of, “girlfriend” I’m not going to ignore the things which make them interesting people, just to get to the fucking.
And you keep saying you need the sex first.
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”
This is more nonsense. You are trying to say that Celine Dion intended to make a song which nauseates Kate Winslett? Ok, show the links in the causal chain. Show the intent to induce nausea in Kate Winslett on the part of Celine Dione.
Good luck with that.
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?
What things? Could we get an antecedent here? Really. The lack of one takes whatever theoretical sting I might have felt about the charge of my “white knighting by pedestalisation” right out of it. You probably still get your, “debating a male feminist points” in the MRA Merit Badges though.
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
No. Again with the lack of attention to detail. I am making two, parallel, arguments (well, I am making two parallel streams of argument). One is the nonsense you peddle as fact.
The other is the merits of you as a human being; based on things you have said in the course of your explanations of how men and women are.
I am not saying your arguments on those subjects are wrong because you are a terrible human being. I am saying the are wrong because they are nothing but logical fallacies, unsupported assertions and self-contradiction (when they aren’t incomprehensible gibberish).
I am also, completely unrelated to that, saying you are a blight on the face of humanity in your interactions with women (at the very least) because you have the empathy of a fungus.
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.
You said, “make her want something she didn’t want”. You’ve said misrepresenting yourself, in pursuit of that is a legitimate ploy. That’s trickery.
You could have said, “persuade her that she does want it”. You have persistently chosen to not do that. I have, from that evidence (thousands of words, all on the same theme), drawn what I think a reasonable inference, and so made my conclusions.
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.
And the “more/less” you chose to use was, “if you don’t want to fuck them, don’t give them a nine or a ten”. So you are saying the ratings are about how attractive the men are. Hell, what you say right there has in it that it’s about what they think is sexy… “this would be equally true if all the guys were ugly”
That means it’s about what is “attractive”. Since the study pretends to be about what women find attractive (and says it’s not looks, but money”, even the study says it’s about what is attractive.
Why are you trying to deny it?
“Married to the implicit sense that consent exists, and the woman has to prove she has revoked it, you are, at the least, possessed of latently rapist behaviors.”
I think thats a ridiculous interpretation as well as very careless use of the word rape.
Ridiculous where? You say that women have to say no. That until she says no, a yes is assumed. That’s an implicit sense of consent.
It’s not a careless use of rape. I never said rape. I said rapist behavior. I was being decidedly precise. Someone who doesn’t believe the default state of a potential sexual partner is “no”, is possessed of beliefs which are potentially rapist. You admit to acting on that sort of belief. Someone who acts on such beliefs has behavior patterns which are potential rapist.
It can be expressed as a set of syllogisms.
S1
P1: The Default State of Consent is No.
P2: Consent must be obtained to pursue sex.
C: Any act for which consent is not obtained is not consensual.
S2:
P1: Sex without consent is rape.
P2: Assuming consent always exists can lead to non-consensual sex
C: A person who thinks negative consent must be declared is more likely to have non-consensual sex, i.e. rape.
Q. E. D. Since you think that non-consent must be declared, you have potentially rapist beliefs.
Cliff: 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.
I’ve got a pretty good idea, from reading all his words (which, amazing as it is, is harder than slogging through 692 comments in the Brandon on Marrage Epic):
You are consenting so long as you don’t convince him you don’t want sex.
Until then it’s, “token resistance”.
Aktivarum:
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.
Except that your example fails because The Pope, is elected. He’s representative of a group’s shared beliefs.
Your dude isn’t that. He’s a snake-oil salesman. He can have a girlfriend, a wife, any number of lovers. None of that means squat.0
You are trying to say that the PUA’s who attend his seminars might want girlfriends, because the guy who is selling techniques to get one night stands has one?
There isn’t even correlation there. There sure as hell isn’t causation. If he was selling a book, “How to establish a lasting, and meaningful, relationship”, then you’d have a case.
But he’s selling, “how to get in their pants, no matter what”.
The reasonable person would think the people paying for that, are looking for that.
Aktivarum: - 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?
Since you repeated this are we to assume it’s a free standing thought? That you really think equality is reasonable (not evident from your comments here) and that women dont’ want equality?
Citations fucking needed.
Aktivarum: The point was me asking you. Does me going to bed and you following and undressing mean you consent to sex or not?
No. Not for anyone.
That was easy.
Pecunium already pointed out it’s more than that. But notice; Akky here wants to put forward beliefs, and when people point out that it’s horrible, and that believing them would mean you treat people in terrible ways, well, then we’re commiting ad hominem attacks.
No.
Argenti touched on this too.
If you say you believe striking people in the face is okay when they’re hysterical (studies show it doesn’t help, you know) that means you’re a person who’s likely to strike fellow human beings, which is violent. It means you’re likely to act in a violent way.
That’s not ad hominem. It’s simply following your argument to its conclusion.
Something Akky seems terribly incapable of.
Argenti: re the Pearl: The age of consent in Victorian England was appallingly low; I seem to recall the big push was to make it 14, instead of 12.
Katz, et al: I ought to be packing (off to weddings in Canada this afternoon), so I am not likely to take down my book on Victorian attitudes to sex (they liked it, what a shock), and the language people writing to each other actually used.
I’ll try to remember when I get home.
Hm, more Victorian time traveler shall we? (This is just too much fun!)
Aktivarum —
“The problem is although they were proven false, Bostonian claims/pretends they were “possible false” Also they resulted in jail time for the women not because of consent existing (what you claim is important) but because the sex was recorded proving it was sex the girls wanted (what I said is important).
Thus I get the impression…”
It would appear, from your incomprehensible arguments, if they can even be called arguments, that you have a great many impressions, and the vast majority of them are utterly incorrect. For example, in this case, I get the impression that Bostonian, and likely others, decided not to bother with another round of irrelevant links from you and instead commented upon the absurdity of video recording all your sexual acts (video recording! Why what a wonderful use of that new invention they call a “camera” — such a device could make for wondrously interesting sexual affairs, assuming, up of respect and basic human decency, that all parties involved consent to this “video recording”)
Aktivarum re: Pecunium — “You really aren’t very good at this counter-example stuff… Does Sweden have some form of Open University? I am sure they have classes in logic and argument. You might want to look into it.” — Alas my misplaced time traveler self is a bit confused on this matter, but it would appear that one “MIT” has Open Courses on exactly these topics (and many more! Amazing thing this “internet”, all this information right at your fingertips.)
Ithiliana — “In the present plane of reality I inhabit, equality is equal access and rights — and my equality has nothing to do with what you think or care about (or what any other individual thinks or cares about).” — Most grand! I was beginning to doubt that anyone in this strange time had any sense of decency remaining at all!
Sorka — Please, oh kind derailer of trolls, continue with the derailing. (and thanks for that history lesson!)
Pecunium —
“What things? Could we get an antecedent here? Really.”
Oh please don’t confuse him further, it is already abundantly clear that the concept of “antecedent” is lost on him; I am, however, most pleased to learn it has not been completely lost.
“Except that your example fails because The Pope, is elected. He’s representative of a group’s shared beliefs.
Your dude isn’t that. He’s a snake-oil salesman. He can have a girlfriend, a wife, any number of lovers. None of that means squat.”
Unfortunately, it was I who bought The Pope into this, when I said that I do not care whether Adam is The Pope, for he is still but one person and thus merely an anecdote. Indeed, what Adam may or may not have in his personal life is irrelevant both to what PUA “teaches” (sells) and what Aktivarum said “most men” want (causal sex).
“The age of consent in Victorian England was appallingly low; I seem to recall the big push was to make it 14, instead of 12.”
I am quite aware, however it would appear this is now potentially considered to be pornographic material of children, and thus may be illegal — I am not really comfortable posting what may be child porn in an open forum. (And I think I just broke my Victorian time traveler thing as it completely collided with my actual thoughts on the matter)
The Pearl is quite raunchy however, so “Victorian attitudes to sex (they liked it, what a shock)” would seem entirely correct — enjoy the weddings!
“If you say you believe striking people in the face is okay when they’re hysterical (studies show it doesn’t help, you know) that means you’re a person who’s likely to strike fellow human beings, which is violent. It means you’re likely to act in a violent way.
That’s not ad hominem. It’s simply following your argument to its conclusion.”
Indeed, and even if that ended with “It means you’re likely to act in a violent way, and you’re a terrible person.” it is still not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be more like:
“striking people in the face is okay when they’re hysterical (studies show it helps, you know)”
“I don’t care what studies say, you’re just an asshole either way”
versus
“Your studies have serious flaws and are misrepresented, and you’re also an asshole.”
Nuance appears lost on this one.
Argenti: I don’t think that’s a good example of ad hominem. It’s simple denial,. married to insult.
I’ll to vary it
“striking people in the face is okay when they’re hysterical (studies show it helps, you know)”
He says there are studies to support him but should we listen when we know that he used to skip Sunday School so he could go to the library and read Judy Blume’s, “Are you there God? It’s me, Margaret”
Hey, you know, he totally ignored the part of the study I linked to that contradicted him!! In favor of red herring out the part about who men find attractive, because he didn’t think that proved anything. The part where women actually were rating men who should have rated higher just the same as they rated other men–lower, in fact–he ignored it!!
Huh, imagine that. And he threw up such a wall of bull that he got away with it. Man!! If I didn’t know better I’d speculate that he actually realizes his logic is crap and is trying to cover up.
And that’s also not an ad hominem argument. It is, though, an insult. You can ignore that part if you like, counter-arguing. But if you ignore the argument because of it, well, then that’s like admitting you have no argument.
Hmm.
BTW, when the second troll came in, for a minute there I thought he was going to make a semi-valid point. One of the classic fallacies is saying ‘my opponent has made a fallacious argument, therefore my position is true.’
Which is, of course, not true. It doesn’t even prove my own position untrue if I use a fallacious argument. It fails to prove my point.
Aktivarum attempts to pull this one, adding it to his list of fallacies. “You did an ad hominem, so my position must be true.”
Truly, he is coming close to rounding out a complete set of logical fallacies. If he does that, then he wins the prize on this fabulous game show, ‘can you make it to a full minute without saying bottom.’
Pecunium — yeah that’s a much better ad hominem, I was afraid mine was still just a boring old insult, not an actual fallacy (or at least not that one).
Howard — I stand by my “you peddler of fish!” until he stops replying with red herrings.
Re: Victorian views on sex — I’m reading on the Donner party and so many of the surviving children got marred at (or before) 16 — some were orphans, so it doesn’t appear they had much choice, but some ran off to marry at 16, I’m not really surprised then that <16 was considered "old enough".
Hm, I missed these last time —
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so — basically all the PUA stuff
Tu quoque (“you too”, appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position[62] — all those replies about how it doesn’t matter what feminism says, what do *I* do (like pro-choice people can only be pro-choice if they’ve had abortions or something)
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[15] — ignoring rape by coericion because rape = force to him
Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem. — two false rape accusation justifies filming all sex
Probably more, I’m not even looking at formal fallacies because he’d need to present a coherent argument for that. I don’t think he’s going to pull either appeals to fear or flattery though (the former might actually get him tossed, the later would require flattering us and that just isn’t going to happen). Nor will he likely Godwin, I’m guessing he’s been online long enough to know how that will go.
But no, I never said I was more right because I was playing spot the fallacy, just that he was an extra special kind of wrong. I am waiting for a No True Scotsman about PUAs though.
Argenti: He’s got a weak NTS in re his “he has a GF, ergo PUA isn’t all about pump and dump, so charges that lots of PUAs are pump-n-dumpers is unfair.
It’s really hard to keep up with the totality of fallacies. Heck, it’s hard even keeping on top of the one’s he’s using in just the positions he’s staking out in regards to my responses, they are so layered, and nested that hitting one just seems to give a sort of credence to the rest; because they were ignored he can pretend they are therefore validated.
Then again, he contradicts himself in the very act of trying to prove he didn’t say things he did. It’s not even one sentence to the next where he fails to be consistent, it’s in single sentences.
Here’s an ad hominem in the wild.
“Then again, he contradicts himself in the very act of trying to prove he didn’t say things he did. It’s not even one sentence to the next where he fails to be consistent, it’s in single sentences.” — Quite true, this part is just hilarious:
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.
Why are we discussing PUA? Are we not “wasting time” on that? Which is ignoring that “markets himself sufficiently well” =/= “elected position”.
Hm…I was taking that all as a fallacy of composition (Adam is a PUA, Adam has a girlfriend, thus PUAs do want girlfriends) — it’d be an NTS if I tried then claiming that Adam is, in fact, not a PUA because no true PUA wants a girlfriend. When in reality my point was that great, you found one guy with a girlfriend, that does jack all to prove all PUAs want more than the pump and dump. Particularly hilarious as he said most men want just sex, aka the pump and dump. Logic, he fails it so hard.
Though, this is all about as relevant to the glossary as the current exchange rate between American and Canadian dollars. Actually, you’re headed up there you just said, so I think the exchange rate might be more relevant XD
I’ll knock off playing spot the fallacy if you really think the incompleteness of it gives weight to the many fallacies I can’t be arsed to list, I’m still going to call him a peddler of fish for his fondness of red herring though. He probably can’t pull an actual NTS anyways, wtf makes a PUA a PUA?
A wild ad homenium appears!
Manboobz used “spot the fallacy”
It worked!
(Am I getting the form right here? Was never much of a pokemon fan)
I like your list of fallacies. I don’t think they have any effect on my dealing with them. He seems to treat all comments a something close to sui generis. My problem is that he has so many fallacies nested in his thoughts that I can’t pick them all out, so he treats one of those not neutralised as if it were therefore validated; even as he says the ones spotted aren’t really wrong.
He’s using is at least +5 Armor of Intelectual Impervium
Nononono, I meant to say that the troll attempted to counter your excellent listing of his fallacies with ‘well, you committed ad hominem, so I’m right.’
Adding ‘Argument from fallacy’ to your list of fallacies he’s committed.
You in fact showed him very particular non-fallacious arguments for your point of view before blowing away his fragmented counter-arguments. Totally different.
“+5 Armor of Intelectual Impervium”
*counters with a clue-by-4* Hmm…or maybe dementation, that might help here. (Maybe the rest of us just need Eyes of Chaos?)
I still can’t tell if the sui generis issue is idiocy or intentional misrepresentation — that previous “well that’s rapey” comments somehow don’t apply to his next rapey statement is either a defense maneuver or pure idiocy. And treating every statement as its own thing is basically classic gaslighting, like we can’t just scroll up >.<
When to tell a conversation has seriously degraded beyond all point: Everyone starts breaking out the Pokemon and D&D references. :P
Btw Argenti, the last line for your Pokemon thing should be “It’s super effective!”.
ShadetheDruid — the pokemon references are a common reply to NWO (his primary attack is ARGLEBARGLE btw), and my dementation reference is vampire the masquarade not D&D, but yes, all hope is lost when it becomes fandom time. Also, thanks for the pokemon correction.
Maybe he’ll go away if we get all LoTR geeky again?
Howard — kk, got it now. And nice call on the argument from fallacy, I wasn’t even trying to spot the formal fallacies (like I said, I’d thought he’d need an actual argument to manage those). Conditional statements, particularly proper ones, are MISANDRY!! after all XD
I mostly meant pecunium’s +5 Armour reference. Since i’ve never actually played Vampire the Masquerade (insert shocked gasp here), that reference sort of shot past me. :P
The ArkTroll must be eating healthy breakfasts–boy does he have stamina. And imperviousness.
*applauds Argenti and Pecunium in particular for a splendid game of Bowling with Trolls*
So nice you can all gather here and pat each other on the back about how much smarter you are than stupid men. The way you write and the comments you allow suggest that you really hate men and see it as a mission to denigrate them; not just misogynists, but all men. And you wonder why people are distrustful of feminists and find them their arguments to be reductive.
The feminism movement is no longer fit for purpose, and nor are your opinions. You won’t thank me for saying this, but you are as stuck in the past as the cavemen who think women belong in the kitchen. We need equality, not attempts to raise one sex above the other, and neither your blog nor your vocal users reflect modern society.
Is that also true of male feminists and male manboobzers, or will you just pretend they don’t exist?
Argenti:
“Hm…I was taking that all as a fallacy of composition (Adam is a PUA, Adam has a girlfriend, thus PUAs do want girlfriends) — it’d be an NTS if I tried then claiming that Adam is, in fact, not a PUA because no true PUA wants a girlfriend.”
Adam is not just any PUA he is a world class teacher of the art. The idea you cant have a girlfriend in the art yet still listen to people who do is stupid. Since you think PUA are stupid its no wonder you make this error. Its still wrong but how would you know? How many PUA:s do you even know of?
“When in reality my point was that great, you found one guy with a girlfriend, that does jack all to prove all PUAs want more than the pump and dump.”
1. You cant use the word “all” when doing general statements. Its most PUA:s in that case
2. Your point depends on he being just like everyone else and not an elite-teacher. Most PUA:s simply do not accept the kind of hypocrisy evident in the american political left. Also in academics as the late Michael Focault supporting revolution Iran while being homosexual thus the society he supported he could not even visit.
“Particularly hilarious as he said most men want just sex, aka the pump and dump. Logic, he fails it so hard.”
Problem is what i said is most guts want both sex and relationships. Only fewer girls qualify for the second. Well known PUA-intructor David DeAngelo calculated about 80% of the guys he was teaching want a relationship – they just dont want it with any woman who they want to sleep with.
Aktivarum: Adam is not just any PUA he is a world class teacher of the art. The idea you cant have a girlfriend in the art yet still listen to people who do is stupid.
Good thing no one said that then. Have you got a point?
. Since you think PUA are stupid its no wonder you make this error.
Why is this non-sequitor in here? Ah, I see, it’s so you can feel insulted; it’s a faux-outrage, based on things which weren’t said. It’s not been said that PUAs are stupid, just deluded, or conned.
Its still wrong but how would you know? How many PUA:s do you even know of?
Personally… I’ve known about half a dozen. That’s not counting the sterling examples (such as yourself) who grace us here to tell us how wrong we are about them.
Most them are about as intellectually capabable of describing The Art, as you are. Then there are the online gurus such as Roissy. All in al, it’s true, brains online don’t seem all that evident.
I’ve been attributing it to the vapidity, and a vacuity of Game, but I’m open to the idea that I’ve been fooled by the aptitude to debate of those who write about it.
Problem is what i said is most guts want both sex and relationships. Only fewer girls qualify for the second. Well known PUA-intructor David DeAngelo calculated about 80% of the guys he was teaching want a relationship – they just dont want it with any woman who they want to sleep with.
What you’ve said has been all over the map; The thing is, that the PUAs, aren’t “teaching” the majority of men. They are also selling a product (what passes for their “knowledge of women”), and so it’s not clear they are being completely honest in their estimations.
The last line, “They just don’t want it with any woman they want to sleep with” is more evidence of the objectification we have been saying you (and the PUA crowd) engage in.
To sum up, you are still wrong.
So, Pete you have examples of this male bashing? From this site?
Yeah! I am so much smarter than men… I am! I mean, it’s true that the smarter I get, the smarter men get. And therefore that can never actually be true. In fact, the more education I get here, the smarter men get. And the more education I give here, the smarter men get.
Great. Now my head hurts.
Um… I used to. But since I discovered feminism it’s been a lot easier to love me for who I am. Thanks for asking.
In what way do you find their arguments reductive? Citation needed.
What purpose. The original purpose? The fricking pay gap? Gender-based violence? Any of a million causes that get me hot under the collar? Why is it not fit for that? Citation needed.
Gee, thanks. My opinions are not fit for purpose.
Wait, the purpose of having opinions is… um… citation? What are opinions’ purpose?
You’re damn straight we need equality, not one sex raised above the other.
And that’s why the MRA movement, who wants to take the vote away from women, who want women permanently enshrined as second class citizens, are the worst.
And why feminists, who actively seek to raise everybody up as equal, are more needed than ever.
Thanks for expressing your opinion that we need more feminism! Awesome!
Oh, I get it, you’ve confused ‘misogynist’ with ‘man’, that explains this little silliness.
I love the faux rational types the best, personally.
Given the Republicans, and various other conservatives, attempts at co-option, I’m actually not as worried about this as you seem to think I am, personally.
‘Post sexism’. Of course you are. One assumes you want us to ignore the war on reproductive rights in the USA, the continuing wage gap and the prejudices against women in STEM, the way the best-paying and most prestigious jobs seem to always end up in the hands of men, the disproportionate rate of violence against women….
Pecunium:
“Your dude isn’t that. He’s a snake-oil salesman. He can have a girlfriend, a wife, any number of lovers. None of that means squat.0″
Since feminist superstar Gloria Steinem told thousands of girls not to have romance and marriage and then herself had romance and marriage I can see how this would be true in your group (assuming leftwing pc feminist theory people) However this doesnt mean every other person works the same way.
“You are trying to say that the PUA’s who attend his seminars might want girlfriends, because the guy who is selling techniques to get one night stands has one?”
No I am saying most guys want both sex and relationships and most girls do not qualitfy for the second – no more than girls think sex with most guys is something they want btw. PUA basically means guys dont have to be in relationship to have sex. Read this article in NYT
“There isn’t even correlation there. There sure as hell isn’t causation. If he was selling a book, “How to establish a lasting, and meaningful, relationship”, then you’d have a case.”
You are missing the (PUA) point. Most guys are today due to social and sexual needs with the wrong woman (for them) from the start! No book in existance can give them a good relationship with their girlfriend. That ship has sailed! Such a book you describe would be pure bullshit for guys. For a guy to have a lasting and meaningful relationship with a woman he must have the CORRECT woman. To find her he needs to have romantic encounters with lots and lots of women and this is skills PUA teaches.
I believe the reason you dont get this is due to the popular thing today being the “Therapy crowd” who wanna adress bad relationships and domestic violence with crap like “sensitivity training” They also makes up loads of excuses for women in bad relationships not to leave them.
“But he’s selling, “how to get in their pants, no matter what”
Not at all! He is selling, Meeting lots of women who want to have sex with him and keeping the one he like the best (if she wants to keep seeing him). You cant keep a woman you dont have sex with, and you cant find the right woman for you if you dont meet lots of women.
“The reasonable person would think the people paying for that, are looking for that.”
No that depends on how much hate they have for the male gender. Its basically guys paying to have more power and choice. The opinion “reasonable” people have thus depends on whether they think guys handle power good or assume the less power guys have – the better.
Why is everybody accusing me of self-hate today? I said I got over that! You can get over it too.
Aw… Did we hurt your feelings Pete?
Have you got anything better to offer than telling us we’re poopyheads because Aktivarum can’t argue his way out of a paperbag with a blowtorch?
But please, tell us what’s actually wrong with the arguments we’re presenting, instead of just not liking it.
What’s, “reductive” in what we’ve said (and what is it you mean by that)?
How is it our opinions aren’t, “fit for purpose”
Where, pray tell, are the cries for women to be raised above men?
No. If he was teaching men how to tell the truth, that would give them more power. Teaching them to ‘neg’–where’s the power in that? The power to manipulate and decieve? It’s not MEN having that power I object to–it’s your definition of power in the first place that’s a problem.
Aktivarum: Care to respond to any of the long posts you suddenly stopped caring about (the one’s about consent being in the NO state as default, and how not acting on that assumption is proto-rapist behavior)?
Somehow I didn’t think so.
How about the explanations of ad hominem?
Didn’t think so either.
What about the arguments from fallacy? Or the ad populem or the goalpost shifting? What about the red-herrings (my little seller of fish)? How about the problems of measures of attractiveness that aren’t measuring attraction? Or the use of force that isn’t force?
Yeah, I can see why you don’t want to go over that ground again.
Onwards then.
“Your dude isn’t that. He’s a snake-oil salesman. He can have a girlfriend, a wife, any number of lovers. None of that means squat.”
Since feminist superstar Gloria Steinem told thousands of girls not to have romance and marriage and then herself had romance and marriage I can see how this would be true in your group (assuming leftwing pc feminist theory people) However this doesnt mean every other person works the same way.
Non-sequitor. You are saying that because your guy has a Girlfriend, that means those who listen to him talk about how to get sex from women, even when they are resistant are actually there to find girlfriends/wives.
That’s completely different from Steinem, thirty years ago, saying one thing, and then changing her mind. But that sort of personal change (and the context of a large gap in time between one thing and the other; irrespective of any misrepresentations of the context of the time in which the first things were said: and what exactly you are intimating she said [I note a decided lack of quotation] are par for the course).
It’s not that I think every other person thinks the same (go ahead, show us where I said such a thing) so much as I think that people who are buying Peanut Butter Cups like to eat Peanut Butter Cups, and people who are buying tips on how to get no-strings sex, are looking for no-strings sex.
No I am saying most guys want both sex and relationships and most girls do not qualitfy for the second
What the fuck does this mean? “Most girls don’t qualify? I can’t make sense of this (more than I can’t make sense of lots of what you write)?
Qualify? Most? The fuck? Is there some exam, as for physicians, which approves women for relationships? Do they get a little tattoo they can show people to show they deserve to be someone’s girlfriend? Maybe a chip/pin card they can hand off to get scanned?
Because really that’s batshit. I’ll accept that most women won’t put up with the bullshit you seem to think is needed to make her worth you spending your, oh so precious, time on. Honestly, I think they are coming out ahead.
PUA basically means guys dont have to be in relationship to have sex.
That’s what Gloria Steinem was telling women, forty years ago; which not half a dozen thoughts ago you were mocking her (and me) for. Which is it… sex withtout strings, or men in search of “twoo wuv”?
You are missing the (PUA) point. Most guys are today due to social and sexual needs with the wrong woman (for them) from the start! No book in existance can give them a good relationship with their girlfriend.
Whut? (I’m so glad I’m not trying to have this conversation in public… the looks of dazed amazement on my face would lead people to think I was having a recurrence of Bell’s Palsy).
Let’s break this down.
Men are in relationships with the wrong women.
Right. It’s not that people are in the wrong relationships with each other. It’s that the women aren’t right for the men. I’ll grant that you don’t, quite, seem to argue the women ought to change; for that you get half marks. That’s still a failing grade, because the completely clueless nature of the assumption that it’s all the woman’s fault in such a situation is a loss of full marks, and the oddity of blaming it all on “social and sexual needs” means that there’s no way the recovered marks can bring you past 50 percent.
That ship has sailed! Such a book you describe would be pure bullshit for guys.
What book did I describe?
For a guy to have a lasting and meaningful relationship with a woman he must have the CORRECT woman. To find her he needs to have romantic encounters with lots and lots of women and this is skills PUA teaches.
hunh!? To have a lasting relationship with a woman a guy has to have lots of casual sex?
Here I thought it was finding someone who shared enough of one’s worldview, and looked toward the same theories of living together; as well as making the neighbors think they need to work on their sex-lives more; because of all the happy noises and wall-pounding they keep hearing.
But maybe that’s just my experiences coloring my judgement.
I believe the reason you dont get this is due to the popular thing today being the “Therapy crowd” who wanna adress bad relationships and domestic violence with crap like “sensitivity training” They also makes up loads of excuses for women in bad relationships not to leave them.
One strawman, and one lie.
I want to address DV with jail-time, and a zero-tolerance of it in the social realm. But you don’t know that because I’ve never mentioned any of it; so you made some shit up to pretend you have a justification for ignoring what I am saying about the greased-pig bullshit the PUA Pushers are selling being about tricking women in casual sex.
And the last implication, that feminists make up, loads of excuses for people in bad relationships not to leave… (and if it wasn’t about feminists, what was the point of lumping it in with the rest of your balderdash about why I [and the rest of the therapy crowd] can’t understand the pig’s ear you think is a silk-purse, which is Game?) is utter nonsense.
Again, find the supporting evidence. Show a feminist here who supports staying in a bad relationship. Feminists… those no-fault divorcing harpies, who are all about abandoning men and living on the fat of the land (in the form of welfare checks) are telling women to stay in bad relationships?
Go on… That’s right up there with Conservatives being in favor of income equality, fair wages, a broad social safety net and progressive taxes up to the highest levels of income.
“The reasonable person would think the people paying for that, are looking for that.”
No that depends on how much hate they have for the male gender.
No. It assumes that when they buy peanut butter cups, what they wanted was peanut butter cups.
I’ve yet to see a PUA guide that was, “this is how you meet someone and establish a lasting relationship.” What they say is, “this is you get a hot chick to fuck you. If she’s any good at it, you can keep fucking her. When you get bored there are more hot chicks to fuck.”
So, when I see that, I figure the guys who spend hundreds of dollars to go to seminars, are looking for hot chicks to fuck, not women to have relationships with.
Argenti:
“Personally… I’ve known about half a dozen. That’s not counting the sterling examples (such as yourself) who grace us here to tell us how wrong we are about them.”
Ok, at least not zero. Are any of those actual PUA:s qualified teaching in the field or are they just students?
“Most them are about as intellectually capabable of describing The Art, as you are.”
PUA is based of results. Describing in intellectual way would mean – nothing. Reminds of what Thomas Sowell says in his book “Intellectuals & Society”
“Then there are the online gurus such as Roissy. All in al, it’s true, brains online don’t seem all that evident.”
Is Roissy who we should listen to? Not David DeAngelo, not Juggler, not Adam, or any other of the people who actually matter?
“I’ve been attributing it to the vapidity, and a vacuity of Game, but I’m open to the idea that I’ve been fooled by the aptitude to debate of those who write about it.”
You base your opinion about peoples ability in one skill on how good they are on something completely unrelated? Ever heard of the halo-effect? Same error.
Which doesnt affect the argument at all – the point was the message given by PUAs themselves – not whether it was true or not.
“The last line, “They just don’t want it with any woman they want to sleep with” is more evidence of the objectification we have been saying you (and the PUA crowd) engage in.”
Actually it has nothing to do with PUA or me, its normal male behavior. Men have sex with more women than they have relationships with. Thus opinion on this is opinion on male gender in general. When “Male Studies” begin 2013 you can get this info in intellectually describing language.
Pete can’t tell the difference between man-bashing and mocking misogyny. Here’s a hint, Pete: they are two different things.