>
 |
| 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.
>It's a very well known effect that certain women are completely and utterly invisible to menReally? Genuinely not trolling here, but this is the first time I've ever heard about this 'effect.' If it wouldn't be too much trouble, might you describe it in further depth, or direct me to further reading at least? Again, genuinely not trolling, just curious.
>I believe Jadehawk is talking about the selection bias I mentioned above, in which only women who meet certain standards of femininity and hetero desirability are even counted, while women who may not meet those standards are ignored altogether as not worth anyone's attention. Some MRAs talk about how women unfairly only go for the "most attractive" men and how awful that is, but the women they're talking about are only a subset of women they have decided are even desirable enough to approach or think about in the first place.
>if you're genuinely interested, I'll search for some stuff for you tomorrow. I really need to stop posting and get some work done now
>Thank you very much, Jadehawk. I'm sorry for the imposition and I appreciate your patience.
>Sorry, spamfilter has gone bonkers and is filtering half the comments. They're up now.
>And thanks, everyone who was spamfiltered, for your patience.
>One thing I think is important that gets left behind a bit in some of these discussions – the "Nice Guy" conceit is a really natural phase for a guy to go through when he's young and just figuring out romantic attraction. The problem is if you get stuck there. The worst thing you could possibly do if you're a young guy (guessing here, vagrantsvoice) is get mixed up with older guys who have stabilized on this immature view of romantic life.
>Suffice it to say I can think of one person would argue humanity in generally is indeed naturally awful and selfish. And I don't think Thomas Hobbes was an MRA or MGTOW…But that's not what MRAs and/or MGTOWs are arguing, is it. As you stated a few posts ago (the bold emphasis is mine), "A common contention among MGTOWs is that women hide their fundamental vileness and amorality very well,…", the "natural awfulness and selfishness" of men not being an issue at all, save for when describing that small subset of men that women naturally and hypergamously (I'm using this word in the context in which MRAs/MGTOWs/PUAs tend to use it), flock towards.Continuing on with your statement about the common contention of MGTOW's (which I do realize is not necessarily your POV), "…and that seemingly 'sweet' girls will prove how superficial they are under the right kind of inspection." What do they define as 'sweet'? Submissive? Obedient? People-pleasing to the detriment of their own wants/needs/pleasures? And what, exactly, is "the right kind of inspection"?
>Is that necessarily true? I'm not sure about that in response to my these men believe that whomever they desire and approach should be compelled to desire them reply to Eoghan:No, I don't believe that that's necessarily true of the Seduction Community, I was being a bit of an a-hole toying with Eoghan's statements. But far from Eoghan's "…have no idea about the seduction community (or mens rights) outside of what this blog tells you" directed at me, I have opinions that are drawn directly from lurking and participating at MRA/MGTOW sites (granted, I haven't spent a lot of time at PUA sites), and what is most obvious to me and frustrates me the most is how obtuse they are about the contradictory and hypocritical nature of many of their contentions. For example, many a time I have read their comments denouncing feminism in particular and women in general for not being "feminine" (i.e., 'sweet girls', submissive, compliant, obedient, etc.)anymore. They want women to "hide their fundamental vileness and amorality very well" (in essence, to mold themselves into something that they are not in order to be pleasing to men), and then, when the mold inevitably breaks, decry the fact that women kept it hidden from them. One of the things that feminism is attempting to do is to break women out of that mold before it is formed… but guess what, men (no, not ALL men) push back against that, because not only do they WANT the fakery and phoniness, but they want it to be REALITY when it's NOT! Many a young girl's most natural state of being is a "tomboy"…. but don't worry, she'll grow out of it or be broken of it, societal heteronorms will make sure of that, because we need to have a gaping chasm of differences between men and women, lest they not be attracted to each other, even if that gaping chasm is based on lies and deceit.
>"I look forward to Davids "expose" of the male seduction community in which he misses the blatantly obvious fact that for everything he digs out about it, women were there doing/selling it or some variation of it, first."It's very odd to me that you can't see how childish this attitude is.
>This blog is kind of childish. Do you think that somehow forces you to be childish?
>For those here who aren't quite as far down the rabbit-hole as Eoghan, but who share his resentments – can you see that Eoghan's worldview is choking his happiness? Can you see what will happen to you if you emulate him?Choose another path. You'll be glad you did.
>Pam, one of your posts got spamfiltered and it's up now. I realize this is frustrating, especially when the spam filter eats a long substantive post, and appreciate your patience.
>As for the Eoghan thing, he's banned here (for numerous reasons). I gave him yet another chance the other day, and he used it to post a nasty post that got him rebanned. So please just ignore him. I've deleted all his recent comments in this thread.
>No problem, David, I kinda figured that that's what occurred, and knowing that comments sometimes end up in the spam filter, I tend to copy/paste into Word or Notepad the more lengthy posts that I make, just in case they end up lost in the ether rather than just sitting in the spam filter.
>I like how Eoghan, in a discussion of male creepiness, refuses to take 'no' for an answer.
>Oops. Anyway, thanks for the welcome and see ya round.
>And so what did my long post have to do with the topic of "creeps"? It's that wanting for an unreality to be a reality that makes some women view some men as "creeps" or "creepy". Man X is attracted to woman X and asks her out. Woman X is not attracted to man X and declines. Man X does not like the reality that woman X has declined, and so continues to push and push and push until woman X finally relents and agrees to go out with man X, mainly because she needs him to stop taking up her time with his pushiness. Man X is elated that woman X has agreed to go out with him, as that means that she desires him as he desires her. Man X and woman X go out on their date, and by the end of the date, woman X is no more attracted to him than she was before she agreed to go out with him. She declines when Man X asks her out on a second date. Man X flies into a rage… how dare she lead him on like that, making him think that she liked him when all she really wanted was a free meal at a fancy restaurant and on an on and on.No, it wasn't woman X's "hypergamous" and entitled nature that made her view man X as a creep/creepy, it was man X's persistence in bending reality to fit the reality that he desired. And woman X has been through this scenario before and thus is creeped out when man X does not accept her initial response to his request.
>I like how Eoghan, in a discussion of male creepiness, refuses to take 'no' for an answer.ROTFLMAO!!! Really, how apropos is THAT?!
>thevagrantsvoice:my quick search was somewhat stymied by the fact that most of the meaty writing on the subject is about invisibility of certain women in the media, and invisibility in economics, (and while the former is connected to the issue at hand, it's only indirectly so) and so the dating/hotness/pussy power stuff is harder to find. So, I'll leave you for now with two articles about disappearing the unfuckable women, some charts from okTrends, and the intro to a book (which, as a whole, unfortunately godwins itself later-on) in which the author notes that dating-invisibility from a first-person perspective:atricle 1article 2chartsbook introand just for the fuck of it, this article, which unfortunately (but understandably) lacks some very relevant visual data, but is still interesting to look at in general; and for topic relevance, note how many men message "ugly" women, and how many women message "ugly" men :-p
>Pam is speaking truth in her comments. If any of the MRAs or MRA-sympathetic guys reading this want to understand what's going on in these kinds of situations, you'd be well suited to consider what she's saying rather than what a bunch of bitter dudes are saying *about* "female psychology" they haven't truly bothered to try to understand. Trust me, you will be better off for it.
>fighting against a shitty reality and for a better one is what progressives, and feminists especially, do.*shrugs* For those of us who aren't feminists and/or progressives, then, your worldview merely seems quixotic and impractical, and not something to be taken seriously, in that case. Reality is what it is. You bend to it by surrender or by force, but you bend to it one way or the other.That you have to become something you're not to get promoted is not positive, no matter how you look at it.Under this rubric, virtually any form of self-improvement is "becoming something you're not." If I want to get a job as a computer programmer but know nothing about programming, am I becoming "something I'm not" by hitting the books and learning some Java? If I want to become a fireman but lack the physical strength, am I "becoming something I'm not" if I start working out and building up my strength? And in any case, being confident and assertive does not preclude being competent. What would you rather have, a manager who knows what he's doing and is dull, unpersonable, and irritating, or a manager who knows what he's doing and is fun, witty, and easy to get along with?how many long-lasting marriages/partnerships do you know that started out as clubbing flirts, rather than people sharing interest?Even married men recognize the importance of Game–Roissy's blog is full of people who claim how the art of learning the neg, push-pull, etc. saved their 10+ year long marriage. Check out Athol Kay's blog for another example of this, though again, don't tell him I sent you (I don't want to get involved in more e-wars).
>the game is inherently misogynist, for the reasons I stated at the beginning (women=monoliths; women=pussy vending machines; etc)But Game doesn't claim these things. Most Gamers will admit that there are exceptions, and even for guys who love their wives/girlfriends for reasons beyond their pussies, they acknowledge the importance of Game in keeping their lovers happy. You can't really argue that Game is inherently misogynistic, at least not in any way anyone who's not a "feminist" or "progressive" would find meaningful.I suggest to you that high-school and the frat-culture skews the perception of peoplePerhaps I must defer to you on this point–I'm not a professional people-watcher, and I haven't been alive for that long either. However, in that brief span of time, and in all the places I've been–not merely high school and in college, but at restaurants and cafes, retail stores and movie theaters, libraries and craft shops–tells me the Gamers may not be all that far off in their view of the genders.
>Reality is what it is. You bend to it by surrender or by force, but you bend to it one way or the other.And that is exactly what makes creepy men (or creepy women…but the focus of the OP is on creepy men, so I'll stick with that) creepy. It's not their looks, their finances, etc., it's their unwillingness to accept the reality that a woman that they are attracted to/desire is not attracted to/does not desire them. But it's not the woman's fault that she is not attracted to him, it just is what it is.
>"Even married men recognize the importance of Game–Roissy's blog is full of people who claim how the art of learning the neg, push-pull, etc. saved their 10+ year long marriage. Check out Athol Kay's blog for another example of this, though again, don't tell him I sent you (I don't want to get involved in more e-wars)."Whether something has improved someone's marriage or has simply given one individual a feeling of control over their spouse is a big question here, as you're only hearing from the side of the man, and from the side of the man who is so out of touch with reality and how interpersonal relationships are nurtured that he's seriously consider "the art of the neg" to be a positive thing to introduce into a marriage."Negging" has at its heart the idea that toying with another person's insecurities can help get you what you want. This is not only profoundly misogynist — as it was developed as something to use *on* women to get them to do something they wouldn't otherwise want to do, ie entertain your attentions — it is just profoundly jerky. If you respect other people as individuals you don't try to use their insecurities against them. This *cannot* make a relationship stronger, I am sorry. It is the very definition of bad interpersonal relation.