>From a discussion of feminist men on the perversely misnamed NiceGuy’s MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) forum. (Requires registration, so here’s a screencap.) There is so much wrongness packed into this brief comment; it’s really quite impressive.
Categories
>The Stepford Solution
>Sandy said… Yohan, when you say hateful things like "you must be a loser" it shows that you are hate.Yes, I agree, many feminists say that to men out of various reasons, like being married with a foreign wife, or in case of interracial partnership or being unable to pay alimony because being out of job and living already indegent in a van etc. Men are not always rich CEOs, they are also frequently found living on the poverty level, in prison, homeless etc. etc. There are many men who are poor off and ridiculed by feminists.Western men feeling unable or are unwilling to socialize with American girls = loser etc.'You must be a loser', that's standard feminist rhetoric against men.This shows that feminism is a hate-movement using shaming language against men all the time.Thank you for pointing this out!
>It's funny that you say "you must be a loser" is feminsit rehtoric when you used it against me.You must be a feminist! And party of a hate movement!No, Yohan, just because there are hateful people like you and some feminists in a movement does not make the movement a hate movement.Also like I said, it is more disdain and dislike than hate, I was being flippant when I used the "hate" word. As in "I hate you guys!"
>"PamIts not, and the idea that men have an inherent need to control women … you should look at how women enforce them, as I said to you above."What's not? Actually, this is the first post in this thread where you have addressed me, so I'm not sure which of your other posts was meant to be addressed to me."You dont seem to contribute anything here bar backing Davids false premises…"That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But how, then, would I be seen as contributing, in your opinion? Only if I negate David's premises?Was your entire post directed at me, or just the first paragraph, as I don't recall saying anything about "practicing game", etc. And actually, I'm not really supportive of anyone, be it men OR women, having casual, no strings sex, especially if they're not up front about it with their current partner, but that doesn't mean that I go around condemning and shaming those who do engage in casual, no strings sex, I simply don't go around extolling the virtues of casual sex.
>@EoghanSo you concede that your assumptions that I posted about previously are true; and then say I'm a liar? Fuck man, you're stupid…"As usual you are making a large post based on things are aren't true.[With the exception of the] whole blog [] 99% of what [MRA trolls] here say, is based on misrepresentations and fallacies."
> Sandy said… It's funny that you say "you must be a loser" is feminsit rehtoric when you used it against me……No, Yohan, just because there are hateful people like you …Somewhat strange statement from you and reading back even using search utilities, I cannot find any comment from me, where I used the word 'loser' against you.Maybe you mistaken me for EOGHAN. YOHAN and EOGHAN are two different persons.I do not know who is EOGHAN.The feminist shaming language with the word 'loser' is real however from feminists against men, who in any form are unwilling to accept this hateful ideology and are trying to arrange their own life in a different style.
>TEC: Take a look at Eoghan and Yohan's rants about false rape and male victims and then their rants recently illustrating that they don't respect consent…TEC, I really think you need a psychiatrist, false rape allegations against men done by malicious women are the reality, male victims do exist and you cannot deny that they do not exist. Yes, male victims do exist, plenty of them. With no consequences for the accuser fabricating stories out of her fantasy.—–And about consent, what did I write in the other thread?http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/paul-elams-vanishing-post-blaming-and.htmlMy advice as MRA to all men is to prevent such a situation from the beginning on. Stay away from such questionable places like bars full with drunk women inside and do not join strange parties full with drugs.Do not socialize with drunk and crazy psycho-girls and never invite them to your own private rooms. …..If I (the man) say NO – and I have the right to do this even to a woman in a feminist country, call me a misogynist for that – I need not to ask her for her consent. Consent for what? Consent from her because I say NO to her? Do you really think I need the consent from a woman, when I say NO to her?Are you crazy?Do you think, I am the fuck-machine for any woman crossing my way? Available on request by any psycho-girl?If you really insist consent must be given from the woman to allow a man to say NO to her, you are plainly stupid and any discussion with you is on the brink of idiotism.
>Are you being deliberately obtuse about the issue of consent from the other thread, Yohan? NOBODY was saying or implying that you needed consent from a woman when you've said "NO". NOBODY.What was in question was your statement, "A woman who says YES and agrees to go with her new boyfriend to his private rooms at 2:00 AM the same night cannot be considered to be a victim of 'rape', if she regrets it a few weeks later suddenly out of whatever reason."What might have been misunderstood by commenters was what the woman was saying "YES" to in the above scenario. Where you might have been meaning that she said "YES" to sex (sex understood to be intercourse in this instance) and THEN agreed to go to his private rooms may have been understood by others to mean that she was simply saying "YES" to his invitation to go to his private rooms, the issue of "to have sex" not having yet been broached. Based on that possible misunderstanding, what commenters thought you might be saying was that in simply saying "YES" to go to his private rooms she was also consenting to have sex with him.
>@YohanOh I have a psychiatrist thanks. He agrees with me about women-haters like you though…(In other words, shaming language, not going to work on me. Also, rain is wet…)You and Eoghan made very disturbing comments about assuming consent e.g. when a woman goes up to a man's apartment.And when did I ever say that a man couldn't say no? That's ridiculous. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never made such comments. Men have every right to say no. It's called being a human being. You're the one who claimed otherwise….
>Tecyou cant just repeatedly say things that arent true, you clog up the blog here with nonsense. I find that women like you that will so very easily make false accusations to do with rape, which is exactly what you are trying to do in your misrepresenting me here are usually the same women that claim that women lying about rape isnt a problem.Of you are going to accuse me of making "very disturbing comments about assuming consent" you should back it up somehow, otherwise its just another false rape accusation.
>Tec said… @YohanOh I have a psychiatrist …..You and Eoghan made very disturbing comments about assuming consent …..And when did I ever say that a man couldn't say no? You need really a psychiatrist, and no, I did not make VERY disturbing comments about consent.You do not like to hear advice from MRAs telling every man to stay away from Western psycho-grrls and never to bring them to a private room.For me the consent is irrelevant. AVOID such females, and if you cannot and she asks you for doing her a favor (sometimes she expects money for that) say NO!That's a good example about a girl and her mother, link below. – VERY modern feminists, the new family, but the MRAs advice is to stay away from both of them. In case there are any troubles, false accusations etc. it is the fault of the man/ and even it could be the fault of a boy despite he is still a minor. I am not talking about consent, TEC. I am talking about to say NO. – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1330689/Portrait-VERY-modern-14-year-old-Tattoos-piercings-drinking-alcohol.htmlPortrait of a VERY modern 14-year-oldShe's got two tattoos, body piercings, drinks alcohol and sleeps with boys (and the middle-class mother who allows it all to happen)
>Prediction: Despite the fact that Yohan just urged all men to refuse sex altogether with volatile women, rendering the question of consent irrelevant, some feminist ideologue (which is the typical feminist) will come along and extract the following words from his comment above and claim that he is a rape apologist:"For me the consent is irrelevant."
>Tec, you are having some reading malfunctions.Sandy.You have to look at the facts in the ground rather than feminist cliches. I can point to media, legislation, dress codes, fashions behaviour and many real world examples that demonstrate that female sexuality is more free than that of male. I can also point to the fact that we all know about the variety of female orgasms there is and that most people arent even aware that men have a variety too and the majority of men have never experienced their full range.If you are going to state that male sexuality is less free than female, can you provide real world examples of legislation or fashions or media, something to back up what you are saying. And I think that the modern depiction of men as frantically sexual has come from the misandric rhetoric of feminism. Virility and male sexuality has always been admired as a positive thing, until feminist rhetoric dehumanized it by using the behaviour of rapists and pedophiles to stereotype it.
>John, reread Pam's comment above. THAT's the statement we're referring to when we talk about the consent issue. It's ambiguous. Nobody's taking anything out of context. http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/stepford-solution.html?showComment=1290082417881#c8742413004095500683
>David, it's not ambiguous at all. It's as clear as day; the woman expresses her consent to engage in sexual intercourse with the man who she later accompanies to his home; she later regrets her consensual decision, and falsely accuses him of rape. Yohan advised men against taking such women home in the first place, which is why it's obvious — rather than ambiguous — that he did not make a pro-rape statement. It is a very clear statement that men would be well-served to avoid making risky decisions to have consensual sex with women who could later falsely accuse them with impunity.If you didn't perceive the clarity, that is a deficiency of yours. However, if you knew perfectly well that Yohan was advising against a sexual encounter occurring in the first place and yet you decided to conflate it into "rape apologism," then you and your allies should be ashamed for being the liars that you are.
>@Yohan "For me the consent is irrelevant. AVOID such females, and if you cannot and she asks you for doing her a favor (sometimes she expects money for that) say NO!" It would be best to avoid saying that you do not care about consent, especially because you are currently kicking up a fuss about being accused of saying just that. What you are talking about, the right to say no when asked for sex or a favour, is what we call 'consent'. You see sex takes two (or more) people, all of whom need to consent. What you are advocating is that men not give consent to certain situations. Fine, don't give consent to people in these situations if you don't want to, I would never say you should be required to do otherwise, even thought I think your reasoning is bizarre and sexist, because people have the right to refuse consent to sex for any reason they please, even reasons others may think are foolish.@Dias, the commenters made it very clear exactly which comment of Yohan's they are talking about and it is not the one you reference. Pam said "What was in question was [Yohan's] statement, "A woman who says YES and agrees to go with her new boyfriend to his private rooms at 2:00 AM the same night cannot be considered to be a victim of 'rape', if she regrets it a few weeks later suddenly out of whatever reason.""
>**headDESK**If a man does not heed Yohan's advice and he invites a woman to his private rooms, are we to understand that it is implicit in his merely inviting her to his private rooms that he is also asking her to have sex (that being intercourse) with him? THAT is what is ambiguous in Yohan's statement.I'm glad that some folks here understand what I'm trying to make clear, as I was beginning to question my command of the English language.
>@Pam:"If a man does not heed Yohan's advice and he invites a woman to his private rooms, are we to understand that it is implicit in his merely inviting her to his private rooms that he is also asking her to have sex (that being intercourse) with him? THAT is what is ambiguous in Yohan's statement."An absurd interpretation by you is not evidence of rape apologism by Yohan, nor of ambiguity by Yohan. But it is evidence of your own dogmatic view of the world, where everyone is either on your side or else on the side of rapists. That is the way that an ideologue thinks and perceives the world. You jumped to a conclusion, and it was a conclusion that was not reasonable — that is, not reasonable from the point of view of a non-ideologue.
>@DarkSideCat:"@Dias, the commenters made it very clear exactly which comment of Yohan's they are talking about and it is not the one you reference."Another mistake (or deliberate omission?) by you about my understanding. That exact comment is what I was referring to.But here, for the sake of even more clarity I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that the woman did not explicitly tell the man, "I want to have sex with you. Let's go to your private room now," and instead she only said, "Let's go to your private room now." Assume that sexual activity occurs and neither party obtains explicitly expressed verbal permission from the other — nor does either party explicitly object to the other. If both were drunk, and neither explicitly expressed consent nor explicitly expressed refusal to consent, then which of the two is a rapist? Answer: neither of them.And yet, in Yohan's post, he points out that the woman can regret her drunken sexual episode and transform it in her own mind into an episode of rape, in order to justify her lack of judgment (either to herself or to others, such as a husband that she had been cheating on). If she's drunk and she has sex with a drunk man, under the laws and within our culture this situation makes him vulnerable to her bogus rape allegation and it also makes her vulnerable to a genuine rapist somewhere out there.Read Yohan's comment and tell me that it means anything else. There is no other plausible explanation.
>@John"An absurd interpretation by you is not evidence of rape apologism by Yohan, nor of ambiguity by Yohan. But it is evidence of your own dogmatic view of the world, where everyone is either on your side or else on the side of rapists. That is the way that an ideologue thinks and perceives the world. You jumped to a conclusion, and it was a conclusion that was not reasonable — that is, not reasonable from the point of view of a non-ideologue." And I guess that what you consider non-ideologues cannot distinguish between jumping to a conclusion and asking a question for clarification.NOWHERE did I state that I had interpreted ANYTHING Yohan said as indicative of rape apologism by Yohan. That's a more-than-absurd interpretation by you of my asking a question regarding a statement that others might have been misinterpreting. Yohan either did not realize or was being deliberately obtuse about the statement that he made that others might have misunderstood and reacted towards.
>@Pam:"NOWHERE did I state that I had interpreted ANYTHING Yohan said as indicative of rape apologism by Yohan."And I quote, from Pam:"What was in question…"…referring to the accusatory (not inquiring) comments that others had made. You are an apologist for those accusing fingers, seeking to justify them (and thereby aligning yourself with them) even as you simultaneously feign righteous indignation because I have called you on it.
>And on the subject of absurd interpretations, because some may have misunderstood Yohan's meaning in his maybe/maybe not ambiguous statement and are reacting to that, Yohan has jumped to the conclusion that those who are questioning his statement, the statement that I tried to point out what was ambiguous about it, are telling him that men need permission/consent from a woman for them to say "NO" to her. This is what Yohan says in response to those who are questioning that issue of "implied consent":"Do you really think I need the consent from a woman, when I say NO to her?Are you crazy?Do you think, I am the fuck-machine for any woman crossing my way? Available on request by any psycho-girl?If you really insist consent must be given from the woman to allow a man to say NO to her, you are plainly stupid and any discussion with you is on the brink of idiotism."Talk about absurd!!!
>"You are an apologist for those accusing fingers, seeking to justify them (and thereby aligning yourself with them) even as you simultaneously feign righteous indignation because I have called you on it."Whatever flips your switch, John.
>This thread shows clearly the malicious intention of feminists. – Absurd interpretation by deliberating twisting my words around, cutting entire sentences out of context.It is very clear to me, that feminists must hate MRAs. They hate the advice from MRAs given to men.And what is the advice from MRAs? What am I telling to men since many years which makes feminists so angry?I say it again, to make it clear again:Men, go your own way. It's all about PREVENTION.Stay away from women offering you sex for one-night stands, stay away from bars and parties which are always with alcohol and drugs.Do not socialize with these people.You cannot trust them.Say NO!If you say NO to all these women around you, you need not to think about consent from them. Might be feminists will use shaming language against you (see this thread and comments against me) if you reject them, but why should you care?There is no law, which says you must ask for consent from a woman to say NO to her.MRAs recommend men to use their time and money for something else – don't waste your money for sex with girls, better buy a motorcycle or car, pay off your house loan or save your money for YOUR future. That's the safe way to go for all men.
> Pam said… **headDESK**If a man does not heed Yohan's advice and he invites a woman to his private rooms, are we to understand that it is implicit in his merely inviting her to his private rooms that he is also asking her to have sex (that being intercourse) with him? THAT is what is ambiguous in Yohan's statement.If men are not doing what MRAs (Yohan)are advising them, it's their risk. We cannot help these men.Feminists cannot blame the MRAs for that.I answered about this situation already in this thread, I clearly said, if a man is going ahead and brings a drunk woman who says YES into his private rooms, that such consent cannot be trusted.Such consent can be recalled, even days later.YES means sometimes NO, and how can a drunk man decide what is right and wrong while together with a drunk woman.I said many times, the best (and only!) way to avoid such troubles for a man, is PREVENTION.Say NO, even if she says YES.I said, don't bring bargirls etc. to your private rooms, don't visit such bars, parties…Do not socialize with these women.Of course feminists do not want to hear this.But to say to stay away from such women and to say NO makes me a rape apologist?—–Even UK judges disagree on this question and sometimes keep the drunk woman also responsible for her behavior.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444804/Its-rape-woman-drunk-says-judge.htmlWoman cannot claim rape just because she was drunk, a top judge declared yesterday.
>There is a big difference between two people equally drunk (and therefore equally guilty in regards to sex with an intoxicated person) and raping someone you know is too drunk to say no, or purposefully getting someone drunk because you do not think they would otherwise consent. It actually isn't too hard to figure these things out. Would you let this person who had been drinking drive your car, keep an eye on your wallet, etc.? If someone is too drunk to be trusted with a car, they are too drunk to give free consent. Also, unconscious people are not consenting, ever. "She said her next memory was waking up to find Mr Bree having sex with her." If someone is passed out, they are too drunk to consent. If someone is "'continually throwing up'", they are too drunk to consent. Honestly, I have Aspergers and I can tell when these people are drunk off their asses, but, if you are incapable of telling when someone else is drunk, it probably is a good idea for you not to have sex with people who have been drinking, but not because they are wicked or liars, but because you do not have the requisite social skills for such an interaction. Also, if you can't figure out that people can't consent when not awake or when unconscious, it is best for everyone that you not try to have sex with other people.