>
 |
| Adam Smith: Legendary Cockonomist |
Sometimes mean people criticize Men’s Rightsers for complaining endlessly on the internet without offering any real solutions to the problems they complain about. Well, the meanies can’t make that criticism any more. Because now we have what is essentially a solution to all the world’s problems, in the form of a five-point “agenda for Nice Guys” set forth by a fellow called genepool on NiceGuy’s MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] Forum. It starts off with a bang:
Elimination/reduction of welfare and government’s socialized program. Welfare gives too much power to women. Women that don’t pick you shouldn’t get your money. The money comes with the cock. Sure she has her cunt. Well, you got your cash. Make sure it goes to and only to your biological children.
You may have to read this one twice to understand all the nuances. Anyone having trouble with the cock-centric economic theory here should get out Adam Smith’s Wealth of Cocks and remind themselves how the Invisible Handjob of the market really works. I quote:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their cocks. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their hard, throbbing dicks, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of our cunts.
Cocks are led by an invisible handjob, or maybe a blow job if she’s drunk, to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus, without intending it, to advance the interest of the society. And possibly to stick it in her butt if she’s a real slut.
Let’s skip point 2 for a moment to quickly cover the last three:
Privatization of marriage. … I do not have exclusive agreement with Mc Donald. Why should I have one with my wife?
 |
| Damn you, genepool! You have foiled my plans! |
Exactly. Any man who wants to put his dick in a woman who is not his wife, or to perhaps rub it on a Double Whopper at the local Burger King, should be free to do so.
The remaining two points: Legalization of prostitution, and limits on child support for rich dudes. Both total no brainers.
But it is point 2 that is genepool’s truly visionary notion:
Consensual women trafficking. All males in rich countries should support this. You’re rich. Women prefer the rich. You do not need to be deceptive or forceful to get a lot of beautiful women. A long time ago Nazis killed jews. Those Nazis couldn’t kill a lot of jews if the jews can easily immigrate to US, Shanghai, etc. The same way, why bitch about girls getting stoned in Iran? Get them here. However, you won’t do that out of altruism. You need [incentives]. What can those girls become? Sex workers. Keep it real. If it’s consensual, it’s win win and it should be legal.
Win win? Something this brilliant deserves at least four wins. Win win win win. A solution to nice guy loneliness AND the Holocaust! Imagine Anne Frank, sitting quietly up in that attic, scribbling away in that diary of hers. What if she could have gotten on the internet and snagged herself a sweet, shy pedophile in, say, New Jersey? That’s at least slightly preferable to a death camp, right? Problem solved!
Genepool, you are a genius.
>But Amanda, that would require actually realizing there is more to a woman than her cunt! Or that her mouth is good for something other than sucking cock.
>I apologize to our host if it seems like I'm being a gratuitous guest, but in reference to Ms. Marcotte, you do realize that many of these MGTOW guysA: Don't *want* to get laid, and have indeed embraced entirely voluntary celibacy, in some cases after bad marriages/relationships/accusations of rape/whateveror B: Have found that "being decent people" doesn't help with getting laid that much either.It may be gauche to defend the MGTOW people, at least around here, but I do think I'm at least being fair.
>Oh hi there Amanda Marcotte. So you want us to learn how to be "decent people" like…you? Hey, does this post ring a bell?I've been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.Yeah, you are just a paragon of decency there, Amanda, declaring these men to be guilty based on your personal opinion. After all, you know a hell of a lot more about the case than the prosectors, don't you? You disgust me.
>I'm not defending Amanda Marcotte's quote; I think she was entirely mistaken in making a preemptive judgement on the Duke case. But then, here's Cold doing the same thing about Julian Assange's accusers on this blog recently:"[…] their names and addresses wouldn't be known in the first place had they not falsely accused a man of sex crimes […]"That would be Cold declaring these women to be guilty (of making a false accusation/obstructing justice) based on person opinion. Because he apparently knows more than the prosecutors. [For the record, I have no clue if those women are preparing to perjure themselves or not; most of the details of the case have yet to be disclosed, so I won't make the mistake of making pronouncements either way, though for what it's worth, I agree that the manner this case has been pursued raises serious questions.] The problem with MRA's is that they justify doing stupid things because some feminists have as well.And the larger problem with MRA's is that they make stupid comments like the one cited in the post above. There are clearly legitimate issues affecting men; I just wish there was a substantive movement to address them rather than this one.
>Actually the Swedish prosecutors are not being very forthcoming with information about the charges. I fail to see how specifying what they think Assange did in any way compromises the case. If they won't tell us what they know then I can't take it into consideration, now, can I?The reason these specific women are clearly lying is that one bought him breakfast after being supposedly raped, while the other made an upbeat twitter post about him. It doesn't take a genius lawyer to see that there's something wrong with that picture. Oh, and let's not forget that these charges were dismissed and then suddenly reinstated for what appear to be political reasons.
>"The reason these specific women are clearly lying is that one bought him breakfast after being supposedly raped, while the other made an upbeat twitter post about him. "right, because women of course aren't trained to feel ambivalent about having their consent violated. What a stupid thing to say. And in any case, at least one of the charges isn't a rape charge, but a charge that doesn't have an English equivalent and amounts to doing something to limit the freedom/free will of someone else. Lastly, the charges were never fully dismissed, they were changed.
>Cold, I agree with you that there are aspects of these allegations that are extremely suspect. But I wouldn't agree that these women are 'clearly lying' because as yet, we've only heard some circumstantial evidence suggesting it, rather than a detailed account of what (ostensibly) happened between all the parties involved. You might remember that the media (as well as self-identified feminists) jumped on board those creepy emails written by a Duke player about killing and scalping strippers as evidence in favour of the rape charge, but that case was an excellent example of not jumping to conclusions. Personally, I'm interested to see what the Assange charges entail, mostly to see how they justify reopening the case, involving Interpol, and convincing the British government to extradite Assange. If the case is too frivolous, this really isn't going to play well, so I'm guessing the case will have to be stronger than the preliminary evidence suggests. Just a thought. Personally, if I can't take both sides into consideration (because all the evidence isn't out yet), I don't launch smear campaigns. And believe me–I think it's destructive when feminists do it as well. Equal consideration for everyone is the only path to a just society.
>"Privatization of marriage"…. what does that even MEAN? Like, the privatization of Social Security, it should be moved from control of the government to control of for-profit corporations? Does that mean the wedding-industrial complex now gets to issue marriage licenses, too? If the dude wants an open relationship, he should just say so. I know a bunch of men and women who are in some flavor of open relationship. But then, that means the man actually has to care about what the woman has to say, and her thoughts on the relationship. And I can see why that would be a challenge for this guy.
>Such brilliant satire, I am actually depressed now. I need some inane comedy. Be back later. -Theresa
>"So you want us to learn how to be "decent people" like…you?"Well, as far as I'm aware Amanda hasn't coerced a person into sex with her against their will. That seems fairly decent to me. Are you objecting to her asking for men like to be 'decent' by not forcing your unwanted sexual attention upon women?
>"Any man who wants to put his dick in a woman who is not his wife, or to perhaps rub it on a Double Whopper at the local Burger King, should be free to do so."With that clause, this website has officially achieved "DO NOT READ WITH A MOUTHFUL OF SCRAMBLED EGGS" status. Where's the Windex?
>The Duke Lacrosse thing was a really bad call and Amanda deserves to be dinged for it, obviously. It's a good reminder that the best thing to do when there are accusations of wrongdoing against a person is to wait. We all have our biases.However, none of that has anything to do with this thread, which is about the sanctity of Man-on-Whopper-Love. Can we get back on topic, please? There are many substantive questions for us to delve into.Like, if I prefer a Thickburger, will my buddies make fun of me? Is it possible for a Junior Whopper to consent? Is rubbing myself on a Big Mac gay? What if I just dip my balls in the special sauce?Have I gone too far?
>Amanda Marcotte made that vile post AFTER the charges were dropped against the Duke Lacrosse players. It wasn't merely a case of her jumping to conclusions before all the evidence was in; the prosecution had already decided that the players were innocent and she decided that her opinion of their guilt trumped that. She is a despicable human being, and not just for that reason either.
>Cold, the Guardian has printed the full allegations made by the women. The breakfast you are referring to was purchased BEFORE the alleged assault. Then they went back to sleep, and it was at that point that he allegedly pinned her down and had sex with her without a condom after she'd made it clear that she wouldn't have sex with him unless he wore one. If it's true that he waited for her to fall asleep in order to avoid her requirement that he wear a condom, then he raped her.
>Cold, it is possible for people to honestly come to different conclusions about criminal cases.
>I think the problem lies in people becoming too committed to one interpretation of events before all the facts are known (as Cold is doing in the Assange case, and as many feminists did in the Duke one). In both cases the interpretation is ideologically driven, so even once the facts are disclosed, it seems easier to question (or even reject) them than the ideology that drove the initial assumptions that were made. I imagine that even *if* Julian Assange was found guilty of the sexual misdemeanor charges, many MRAs wouldn't accept the verdict and would continue to believe that Assange was the victim of a feminist conspiracy. I think this is a natural fallacy of the ideological, but doesn't make people 'despicable'. When I read some ignoramus suggesting victims of the holocaust could have profitably been trafficked into the sex trade–that's when I think 'despicable'.
>I wonder – do you get accused of stalking as well when you go read their blogs and forums?