>
 |
| Damn you, accursed temptress! |
In a discussion of rape on campus over on Love-shy.com, one of the regulars, a college student, complains that people see him as “creepy,” for no good reason. His tale of injustice begins:
Whenever I’m on campus, I’m eyed by the security guards. Not because I’m dangerous, but because I’m MALE.
Being male and a college student seems to be a crime of sorts.
Let’s stop right here. Bullshit. On most campuses, guys make up half the population. Dude, unless you’ve accidentally wandered onto the main quad of Wellesley College with your dick hanging out, or you’re otherwise acting weirdly or suspiciously, campus security guards aren’t going to give you a second look. Either you’re lying, or you’re imagining things, or you aren’t telling us the whole story.
Back to the comment:
What about the women who taunt the men sexually? I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped, but a LOT of women give blowjobs to professors for higher grades, and trade sexual favors, all because they’re HOT.
Uh, ok, that’s not actually true. Unless by “a LOT” you mean “a tiny number.” But it is an … interesting assumption. Also, starting any sentence with the phrase “I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped” is generally a bad sign, in the same way that Richard Nixon saying “I am not a crook” was a bad sign.
On with the rest of the comment:
And since I’m not HOT, I’m automatically seen as a creepy rapist? Fuck that shit. I respect women, I have NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women. I’m also afraid to express myself sexually, for fear of it taken the wrong way.
Thank you, feminist hags, for making me into something I’m not: a criminal!
Ok. Let’s break this down. You “respect women,” yet you complain about them “taunt[ing] … men sexually,” and assume that “a LOT” of them are getting good grades just because they give blow jobs to profs. You’ve “NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women,” yet given a little bit of internet anonymity you’re happy to call feminists “hags,” a gender-specific insult if ever there were one.
I don’t know. Could it be that women — and, heck, maybe even a few security guards — find you creepy because, uh, you’re walking around angry all the time, full of hatred and resentment towards half the population?
Just a guess.
EDITED TO ADD: More on the “creep” issue here.
>Yeah, he's protesting WAY too much. I recently discovered your blog, and I really like it. You're performing a good and necessary service. Keep it up.
>Aight. First and foremost – I'd like to put media blame on the first little issue of "male college student = bad". Lots of movies and news stories focus on the college-kids-gone-wild, not the well-behaved, well-mannered, well-dressed college students making it to class on time and doing well. Just like not every college frat is a drunken mess and not every sorority is made out of big-chested blondes with no brain cells…not every college student male is out to cause trouble. It's just a general assumption (especially if you're traveling alone at night, or in an obnoxious group during the day). Of course on the other hand…dressing like a troublemaker isn't going to win any points for trying to escape attention either. (Not accusing anyone of anything – just pointing stuff out.)I wouldn't chalk up this guy's feeling of being judged to paranoia; it's just that you have to learn to get used to being watched if you fit a certain type. (They do racial profiling in airports, and gender/general appearance profiling on campuses; people are born to judge, and they do it way too well.)As to the more provocative commentary on sexual favors… Personally, I've never met any female who has given sexual favors to get better grades. I've met students who have genuinely been interested in professors, and subsequently rebuffed, but that's a different track, I feel. As for women who taunt men sexually, I'd say that men usually line themselves up for that one – going to strip clubs, say. Is the woman to blame for the man putting himself in a position where he will be "taunted" by her? Further, is the man to blame for wanting to enjoy seeing it? (Assigning blame seems to be so juvenile.) "And since I'm not HOT, I'm automatically seen as a creepy rapist?"Well…no. Generally speaking not hot (or HOT) just means you're on the lower end of the dating pool for shallow women, less likely to end up as a Hollister model, and more likely to have to display higher intelligence and a good sense of humor to find a mate. (Also, do you WANT to be able to give blowjobs to profs for higher grades? Or sleep with a married woman and have her husband come after you if he found out? The whole dating/sleeping/sexing it up with profs just seems like a Bad Idea in general. Which is probably why so many of them are smart about the whole thing and say no in the first place. (I'm getting way off topic, but this particular post also ascribes no self-control to professors; like if a HOT woman approaches one, s/he will immediately give in, offer a higher grade and accept sexual favors. Usually I give them a touch more credit as reasoning human beings.))
>See "the construction of the creep" on feministcritics.org (feminists that don't hate men) So let’s come back to creep. It’s like, the creep should know that he doesn’t deserve to presume interest. He doesn’t deserve to initiate the approach. Like my adolescent sense of misfit, he should know that he didn’t deserve any better than to take any comer.Creep is a judgement in the eye of the beholder. Because the man isn’t going to think he doesn’t deserve to make the approach, of course. And I think this is why men are so insulted when they think they are making an appropriate approach to a woman, and get called a creep. It’s like, they may be perfectly willing to get called an asshole. But they resent “creep” because that means the woman calling him a creep is saying that no woman at all would ever be interested. And that he ought to have known that. He ought to have known he didn’t deserve to cross out of misfit-dom, to end up in creep-dom.This takes privilege to a whole new level of female entitlement. It’s not that the woman doesn’t want anyone to approach her. She still wants the attention of desirable men. She just doesn’t want to deal with the consequence of her high value in the sexual market-place, namely that she has to reject unsuitable prospects. Moreover, she feels entitled to this. And if to meet that demand, less desirable men have to foreclose any possibility of achieving dating/sexual success of their own, she feels entitled to that too.I wonder how much of the hostility directed toward the Seduction Community is predicated upon this idea that these men do not deserve to be approaching women.
>Eoghan, you do realize that the "entitlement" you speak of works both ways, right? Before a man even approaches a woman he is interested in, he has made a judgment about her desirability. And in kind, she is able to make a judgment about his. Both people have an equal opportunity to accept or reject the other person.A man who is visibly seething with anger that a woman has the right to say no when he's already decided that he wants her might be construed as creepy.
>Yes, Andrea, it's amazing how some men are completely oblivious to the fact that there are women who are deemed undesirable, who men consistently choose NOT to approach, and should know that they don’t deserve any better than to take any comer.Much of the hostility directed toward the Seduction Community is predicated on the idea that these men believe that whomever they desire and approach should be compelled to desire them.
>I admit it:as someone who was raised in Europe, I indeed find the WHOLE "approaching a woman to ask her out" situation creepy, except in a very few exceptional situations. but in most cases someone asked me for a phonenumber, this person didn't know SHIT about me, other than how I looked. From my perspective, asking a complete stranger whose appearance appeals to you for personal information is indeed massively creepy. I think I'd only make an exception on this for the guy at the library, but only because I can't remember what books I checked out, but possibly he figured we MIGHT have common interests from the books I checked out… still weird, seeing as we haven't exchanged a word before he asked for the number.Aaaaaaanyway; the guy who badgered me for my number at work OTOH, and refused to take no for an answer? Creepy by both American and non-american standards. Pushing boundaries like that, in a situation where I can't tell you to fuck off, is NOT COOL. But some guys do feel entitled :-/
>Andrea. You don't get the point, there is no culture where a less desirable woman is commonly labelled, deliberately psychologically attacked and constructed as being a borderline sex criminal and social outcast.Pam, " predicated on the idea that these men believe that whomever they desire and approach should be compelled to desire them".You just made that up and have no idea about the seduction community (or mens rights) outside of what this blog tells you.
>these men believe that whomever they desire and approach should be compelled to desire themIs that necessarily true? I'm not sure about that. Many folks in the Seduction Community would say that no woman, indeed, should be compelled to desire any man. If she doesn't desire you, it's because you don't have enough wit, haven't mastered the art of the neg, or, in generally, simply haven't gotten Game. And thus, your unhappy circumstances are your responsibility, not theirs.
>"Many folks in the Seduction Community would say that no woman, indeed, should be compelled to desire any man. If she doesn't desire you, it's because you don't have enough wit, haven't mastered the art of the neg, or, in generally, simply haven't gotten Game. And thus, your unhappy circumstances are your responsibility, not theirs."which implies that any woman can be had, if you just got enough "game". because women are interchangable like that, and because the ability to trick any woman, who would otherwise not be interested, into fucking you is a good thing.wtf?
>I'm with Jadehawk, but not because of cultural matters. I largely dislike the phenomenon of being hit on, and it doesn't matter what the guy looks like at all. The idea that women will melt when an attractive guy approaches them but brush him off as a creep if he's not conventionally attractive is pretty short-sighted, stereotypical and even self-serving in my eyes. "Creepy" is all in the way you approach a woman, a way you act as though her private time and internal life isn't as valuable as your need to hit on her, a way you give off subtle hints about how you think about women, or, sorry to say, how you use tired PUA techniques that signal that you think women are monolithic in their psychology and need to be somehow bamboozled into liking you. Also, "creepy" has some self-preservation notions built in. Think "The Gift of Fear." Some guys give off a vibe that you just have to go with your gut on. Not all guys, but some, and if you're labeled as "creepy" all the time it likely has much more to do with how you're approaching a woman than it does with how you look. It's hard to explain, but considering how many times I've been followed around by threatening guys who didn't take my "no, not interested" as actually having any meaning, I have a pretty good intuitive take on when someone is "creepy." It's in part a matter of safety, and men who think this kind of thing doesn't come into play haven't spent a second considering the very real reasons women can be standoffish. We can be standoffish because we are bombarded with unwanted attention all the time, not just by you that one time, and sometimes it's actually threatening. When it's not it's often just annoying, and it can be truly irksome to be just be trying to go about your business and have people constantly interrupting your life as though you owe them your time due to your gender. Also, I just found this site and have been getting the biggest kick out of it. The comments sections are profoundly sad, though. How can people spend that much time talking about feminism without understanding what it even is? I am a feminist and am not in favor of any of the things some of these commenters seem to believe I am. In fact, I would suggest that a number of the things they hate about the world are things that feminism would very much like to get rid of. How sad to cut off all communication like that and blame all your problems on "feminism" or "feminists."Signed,A lady in a long-term hetero relationship that hasn't involved either marriage or money-taking or using children to ensure state support or any of these things women are supposedly driven by. Women are individuals, just like y'all.
>I'm now having trouble with registering there, so I just lukrk public forums and rarely see any of comments like this one. You probably dig very deep for the kind of krap that fits this blog.
>No Eoghan, women who are not "desirable" are just invisible. Non-entities. They are just as lonely and wanting of companionship as any so-called "incel" but guys in the men's rights community don't seem to have any sense of empathy on that account, they are so busy pointing their fury and scorn on the narrow selection of women they desire.As Jadehawk pointed out, the "seduction community" spreads the idea that women are vending machines. Plug in your money and push the right buttons in the correct sequence and you get your prize. And M expanded on the ramifications of that idea wonderfully. Women are people. We can see that attitude, that anger and resentment, and many of us find it creepy.
>Yes of course Andrea, can you stop trying to suggest that I don't get something as basic as the fact that there are men and women that are considered undesirable? The point is that women that are considered not desirable are not constructed as "creeps" and border line sex criminals because they are less desirable. That is the point that you are missing here.The male seduction community is just men catching up on the psychology of attraction, something that women have have been using for eons, no different just the other side of the coin. Men deliberately appealing to the female attraction triggers is no different from women deliberately appealing to male, except that many women don't like the tables being turned on them in the attraction game. The female seduction community is everywhere you look in magazines, the beauty industry etc. If you can see men being angry because women think its acceptable to label less desirable men "creeps"/borderline sex criminals perhaps its women and not the men that need to change. Perhaps a little less relational violence and more humanity would result in a calmer reaction from these men?
>"The male seduction community is just men catching up on the psychology of attraction, something that women have have been using for eons, no different just the other side of the coin. Men deliberately appealing to the female attraction triggers is no different from women deliberately appealing to male, except that many women don't like the tables being turned on them in the attraction game. The female seduction community is everywhere you look in magazines, the beauty industry etc."pushing buttons is pathetic in either direction, but I'll give women of the past a pass, since the ONLY way at making a good life for themselves was marrying well; when seduction is the only power/"job" you're allowed to have, of course you try to use it well.Feminists have been trying to first free women from the necessity of this, and now the work is additionally on trying to free them from the mindset that it's still a necessity. Because people changing their entire behavior and personalities to what they think will attract the other sex is just sad and creepy."If you can see men being angry because women think its acceptable to label less desirable men "creeps"/borderline sex criminals perhaps its women and not the men that need to change. Perhaps a little less relational violence and more humanity would result in a calmer reaction from these men?"1)Relational VIOLENCE? wow, you're vile. Let me fetch a man to answer that one: http://www.xyonline.net/content/women-world-just-relax-what-possible-reason-do-you-have-fear-men2)No, it's not my or any other woman's responsibility to cause "calmer reactions" in men. You are the ones interrupting my day unasked, why am I responsible to you for anything?3)You don't think women are labeled like that? What the hell do you think the term "bunny boiler" refers to? And no, it's not applied only to women who actually are acting criminally.
>It's absolutely not the case that women can approach men in whatever way they want. Men can't approach other men in any way they want either.I've had women come on to me in ways that were, in fact, creepy. I've had men come onto me in ways that were VERY creepy. Yes, it's in the eye of the beholder. But when you make someone uncomfortable, YOU are responsible for the consequences. What is missing when a woman comes onto a man in a creepy way is the element of physical menace. I have NEVER, EVER feared for my safety because a woman I didn't like wouldn't leave me alone. Most women have been afraid because a man wouldn't leave them alone. Is that fair? Maybe not, but it's a natural consequence of the fact that men are physically more powerful than women.
>Did my previous comment get eaten up? If not, I apologize for reposting it.which implies that any woman can be had, if you just got enough "game".Not quite true. Most PUAs would admit there are some exceptions to the general rule, they're merely rare. If you were to say "most" women can be had, if you've sufficient game, that would be an accurate assessment of their position.the ability to trick any woman, who would otherwise not be interested, into fucking you is a good thing.Not dressing like a slob is "tricking" women? Acquiring wit and a good sense of humor is "tricking" women? That's an odd definition of "trickery," one that, amusingly enough, even many of your fellow feminists would disagree with.Finally, if our host may forgive me for doing so, I can't help but note that PUAs have heard your description of their technique as "trickery" so many times they've formulated their own response to it. I can't like to his blog here, but Ferdinand offers the most cogent summation of it:The general contention around this ‘sphere is that the biggest reason certain women hate and fear game is because it allows men to turn the traditional alpha-beta-omega hierarchy of sexual attractiveness on its head. When men can aspire to be alphas, or just raise themselves out of their station in life period, a fundamental pillar of female power is toppled. I'm sure you'd have a witty refutation of this, but it is interesting food for thought, IMO.
>vagrant, your comment was caught by the spam filter. (and now it's uncaught)As for Eoghan, he was banned from this blog a while ago, which means I normally delete every comment he posts here. I didn't delete the comments above from him because, well, I didn't see them until after they'd gotten responses, and because he was generally behaving. Then, just a little while ago, he tried to post a comment that went way over the line. I deleted it, and he is banned for real again. So just ignore any comments you see from him in the future, as I will be deleting them as soon as I see them.
>Jadehawk's comments are fantastic here. I agree with Raul Groom too. Eoghan, all that "beauty industry" stuff is forced on women and girls from practically the beginning of consciousness and tells them they are beneath contempt if they don't try to measure up, and if you were really serious about understanding human nature and the societal and structural pressures that we are all under, this would be as plain as day to you. And as I said before, being called a "creep" rarely has anything to do with a man's looks. I'm telling you this as a woman who is hit on constantly here, and if you're not just *all* about grievance you'll actually listen to that. Sex and attraction is about interplay, not about attention being owed to you by women you find attractive just because you find them attractive. They're people too, and their rejection is not just about some awful hideous shared female psychology. It might be because they are not attracted, it might be because they're in a relationship, it might be because they're busy thinking about work and you barged into their life with the attitude that you are owed something because they are women who fit your personal idea of what is attractive. And if you have the kinds of attitudes that you've shown yourself in these comment sections to have, TRUST ME, it shows in how you talk to women. They can tell. At least I know I can tell. It's not hard to distinguish someone who thinks of you as a full and autonomous human being from someone who doesn't, trust me, my friend.
>Oh, and vagrant: it's true that not every aspect of Game is trickery, but there's no question that a lot of it involves deception and psychological manipulation. Many if not most "openers" talked about by PUAs are essentially flat-out lies; "negs" are manipulative, etc etc.As I mentioned before, I'll be doing a post on this at some point.
>Oh, and Jadehawk, M, Andrea, Raul (and any other newcomers I've missed), thanks for the cogent comments and welcome to the world of man boobz.Somehow forgot to post this before, but there's more discussion of the "creep" issue here:http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/10/scary-man-sters-and-super-creeps.html
>some people need to seriously get over the idiocy that is the greek-lettering-for-males. You're not a wolfpack, no matter how manly that sounds. Plus, women can support themselves financially just fine and if they want "high-quality genetics", they'll go to the sperm-bank and buy some. And there's no unified standard for what's attractive to women, anyway, outside of magazines and Romantic Comedies.I had an "alpha male" boyfriend once. Booring. Since then, I've preferred guys who pay less attention to their looks, and instead have something interesting to say (and incidentally, if you take all your "interesting things to say" out of a manual, isn't going to last very long, if it's going to be interesting at all). In fact, the current boyfriend is a "beta" and a self-admitted "creep" because he has a tendency to say honest and impressively outrageous things (sample conversation: "oooh, your hair is soo cool" "yeah, I haven't washed it for several months" "ewwww!!!"), but he's very intelligent and fascinating to talk to. and sexy in the scrawny punk sort of way. Because that's what I find attractive. And other women find other things attractive, even for one-nighters (personal experience: the closer in appearance to a troll, the better in bed), so most guys who don't reek from halfway across the room and drool at the sight of a woman will find a woman who finds them attractive.Except when all you go for are the women who put a shitload of effort into conforming to the conventional beauty/behavior-standard, because they figure if they are going to put that much effort into their looks, they deserve someone who does the same. Alpha females looking for alpha males, in your ridiculous terms. But if those are the only women you're after, it's your own fault when you get rejected, and you don't get to complain that she has such a high standard (for appearance), because obviously so do you.
>Yes to everything Jadehawk said.
>Some people need to seriously get over the idiocy that is the greek-lettering-for-males. You're not a wolfpack, no matter how manly that sounds.As the proprietor of the Chateau once asked, Isn’t it just like a nerd to get hysterical over the appropriation of a narrow-sense scientific term to conveniently illustrate broader truths about men and women?That said, if you yourself find 'betas' attractive and 'alphas' not, good for you, though the more misogynistic Gamers would say you're probably either being dishonest or simply incapable of perceiving what you actually want–in their view, women are generally stupid, irrational, and absolute experts at deluding themselves, so that the ones who say they don't like "bad boys" actually prove they do. That is extreme, however, and probably not worthy of consideration. However, even the more moderate PUAs would say that you're simply an exception, and as I said above, *most* women go for "alphas." You still haven't explained how there's any trickery involved in mimicking these 'alpha' behaviors–as I asked above, is there anything wrong with not being a slob or gaining a sense of humor or wit?(Before you get angry at me, keep in mind that I don't necessarily agree with anything I've quoted or linked to above. I'm merely saying that these are the counterarguments I've managed to find. My own beliefs are somewhere different, though admittedly perhaps not too far off)
>you can't "gain" a sense of humor and wit by using someone else's idea of humor and wit. Like I said, moulding yourself to fit a stereotype to the point where you stop being yourself is sad and not something that should be encouraged in either sex."However, even the more moderate PUAs would say that you're simply an exception, and as I said above, *most* women go for "alphas.""Except not. Most women who themselves are "alphas" go for alphas. You're making a large cohort of women invisible with that statement."You still haven't explained how there's any trickery involved in mimicking these 'alpha' behaviors–as I asked above, is there anything wrong with not being a slob or gaining a sense of humor or wit?"you said it yourself: you're "mimicking": not your style, not your humor, not your wit. Plus, as David mentioned, a lot of "the game" is manipulative, not at all a question of gaining some self-confidence. That it serves misogynists so well at hiding their personality long enough to trick a woman that she can safely be naked in the same room as him is a VERY big point against this sort of "game".
>and david, thank you for the welcome. Found your blog via pandagon 🙂