>
Discussions of dating on The Spearhead? Pure comedy gold. So here are some more highlights from the Internet dating thread I talked about in my last post.
Let’s start with a comment so delightfully loopy I went ahead and screencapped it, for no good reason. Nergal suggested that women over 40 weren’t worth dating. Another commenter challenged him on this, which resulted in this response:
Now, granted, I’ve never actually seen deflated balloons half-filled with cottage cheese, but I, er, have seen recent photos of Jennifer Aniston topless. And I’m guessing there isn’t really much resemblance. Anyone else thinking of that line in 40 Year-Old Virgin in which Andy compares a woman’s breast to a bag of sand? Seriously, if you’re going to throw Jennifer Aniston out of your bed, do it because of The Bounty Hunter. Or Love Happens. Or The Break-up. Or Marley And Me. Or All About Steve. (Oh, wait, that was Sandra Bullock.)
Meanwhile, The Man On The Street attacked evil women for deceiving men by wearing makeup:
Women’s supposed integrity, empathy, and virtue has been proven time and time again to be a farce. A mask. Just as the phony paint (made of foreskin and feotus’) that many women use to fool silly beta types into believing the false front of beauty.
Herbal Essence — not to be confused with the shampoo of the same name — lamented that “online dating is a female candyland of power trips, validation-seeking, and ego boosts,” and related how he totally put down some dumb broad he met online. I would bet good money that whatever happened between Herbal and his alleged date did not actually go down this way:
I once had a 2 month-long relationship with a girl. She flaked once without explanation (the third date) and I told her very politely but firmly not to do it again. She did it again three weeks later, and I sent her a text that said “You’re dumped.” Two hours later, I had a hysterically crying girl on my doorstep, begging for my forgiveness. I told her “In the age of cell phones there is simply no excuse to disrespect my time like that. Go home.” and shut the door in her face.
Big Daddy from Cincinnati, the author of the post that started the discussion, added a few more thoughts. including this bit of advice:
For the purpose of finding pump-and-dumps, don’t mention anything that sounds like conservative political views in your profile. The ones most likely to let you lick it and stick it will think you are an asshole if you espouse these views, no matter how logical you are in presenting them. Getting nookie is an emotional, not logical, process. Deal with it.
Yeah. I’m sort of thinking that a guy who uses the phrases “pump and dump” and “lick it and stick it” will set off asshole warning alarms in most women even if he doesn’t start blabbing on and on about how much he loves Glenn Beck. Interesting, though, how women wearing makeup is an evil act of deception, but a dude trying to conceal his retrograde political leanings is a-ok.
Firepower wins the award for brevity with this little gem of misogyny:
Playing hollowed-out courtship rituals with single-mom manatees stoked with anti-depressants (mainly SSRIs) is no great calling for a man.
But WGMOW wins some points for managing to compare women on dating sites to two different animals at once:
[M]ost of the women on the “serious” dating sites tend to look like elephants and/or have the intellect of a howler money. But they’ve been schooled by the dating industry to believe that they are beautiful on the inside, and that you, as a man, are shallow if you can’t sense their inner beauty. However, don’t expect one of these monsters to look for your inner handsomeness, only your wallet. Despite the fact that they claim to be strong and independent, they are just looking for a man who can “Support them in the style I’m entitled to.”
Keyster suggested that any man who decides to go ahead and date one of these SSRI-taking elephant-manatee-monkey women should make sure to illegally record their sexual encounters so he won’t be accused of breaking any laws:
[I]f you insist on persuing pooh-tang for fun, ALWAYS have a recording device rolling. Preferrably a video camera. You don’t want your life ruined by a bitter revenge seeking shrew. Remember all they have to do is dial three numbers 9, 1 and 1, and you’re screwed for life. Protect yourself!
I’ll end this little compilation with the always-quotable Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c), who attacks women for … not wanting to have sex with robots. Seriously.
You women endlessly moan on about how terrible us men are. Yet how much are you spending on creating your ideal robotic men? NOT ONE CENT. Why? Because you don’t want the man, you want what the man provides. Today measured in money. No-one is going to pay a robotic man to work so he won’t bring you what you so clearly want. MONEY.
On the other hand? How much money are MEN spending on robotic women? LOTS. And why are they doing so? Because they percieve that there is a MASSIVE market for robotic women. Why? Because they will be EASILY preferable to the VAST MAJORITY of real women. For a start they will have an OFF BUTTON.
Something tells me that when the sexy robot ladies arrive at last, there will be men on the internet complaining about what a bunch of bitches they are.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
>"Why? Because you don’t want the man, you want what the man provides."Hahaha, completely missing the fact that what a man provides could never be provided by a robot. That is, connection with another human being and love.This quote shows that the poster does not understand the value of other people as thinking, feeling beings. A perfect robot would fit just as well, the only difference he sees is that the robot doesn't have a job (also why couldn't a robot have a job in this future?).
>I thought that us ugly girls were supposed to wear make-up so that we can better ourselves and become deserving of a relationship. But apparently if we do that we're just being lying bitches.Oh, we're also not allowed to get older. Hear that women- get turned into vampires right now before you hit 40 and become unworthy of sexual contact.As much as some MRAs try to argue that this type of talk is just what women do, it isn't. Women don't degrade men like this. In fact, most women together talking about dating will focus on what women can do to help themselves. It's about learning to be happy while single. That's the thing that you'll see over and over again when single women are talking. It isn't male bashing but talking about how to learn to be happy alone. Where are the MRAs talking about this? And I mean talking about being really alone- not alone with your collection of sexbots. That is so creepy. Why would someone want to have a fake relationship with an object? I like my vibrator as much as the next girl but I don't want to dress it up and have dinner with it.
>Interesting thing on the political views…every guy I have met off of AFF was or is a conservative/Republican. It is weird actually.
>Elizabeth You think that's weird. I've been cruising around BDSM sites/forums for a few years. Now before I go further, you are probably thinking me with masculine views in here, I would be a patriarchal master/dom. In fact, I not a dominant nor a submissive. I am just curious to explore different experiences from being on the bottom, not a submissive or slave.Anyway, the point I am wanting to make is that most dominant women I have had chats with either in forums or in private chats and the topic feminism somehow comes up, they claim to be feminists. Even the ones who claim to have an interest in female supremacy. That really makes me think of their true motivations of being a feminist.The one’s in forums who appear to have the most strong views or appear to be highly interested in the feminist scene seem to have an interest in female supremacy in their interest list.
>So you have a certain kink, and you manage to find some women online who are a perfect match for your kink, and then you get mad at them for being feminists?FWIW, there are plenty of subs who are feminists too. The BDSM culture, in working out rules to keep people safe, has been heavily influenced by feminist thinking about consent. So it's not surprising that many women in that subculture, whether they are tops or bottoms or both, would be feminist.
>Who said I got mad because they are feminists, David?Why aren't you making the same type of criticism towards Elizabeth? My point was that the majority of dominant women on them sites mention that they are pro feminist. And to make it raise my curiosity even more, many of them are into female supremacy too."The BDSM culture, in working out rules to keep people safe, has been heavily influenced by feminist thinking about consent."How is this ONLY feminist thinking? Are non feminists or anti-feminists non-consensual?
>Well, you said you questioned "their true motivations of being a feminist."As for consent, people on MRA/MGTOW sites regularly mock or complain about attempts to make sure consent is completely clear. Many MRAs/MGTOW think that the idea that a person can take away consent in the middle of a sex act — an idea that is central to the BDSM notion of safewords — is ludicrous. I think that anyone who doesn't think you can say "no" after saying "yes" would be a very dangerous sex partner, and even more dangerous in the context of BDSM.
>I can't wait for a poster to chime in to say that David wrote all those posts.
>I am just curious to explore different experiences from being on the bottom, not a submissive or slave.Oh, for fucks sake. BDSM circles are generally hostile to feminism and if you feel the need to distinguish between "bottom," "submissive," and "slave" you damn well know that.
>nick, a lot of women claim to be feminists but don't care about the exploitation of human beings. When approached with certain women's issues they are very resistant to clear cut information about inequality even when manifesting as abuse. Some let an empty "progressive" agenda come first. When someone says they are a feminist, one never knows what that means until it's explained. There are many women who understand what feminism has done for women and so feel it's disrespectful to claim they are not feminists, but aren't personally sitting around pondering the issues enough to speak on them. Also there are feminists on websites that will attack people that research the sex industry and LOVE mras, because they both feel the same way about exploitation. There is one MRA on youtube that swears up and down he does not care about rape, and we thought with his first video he was trolling, but he came out with a second one just like scarecrow did with his blog, reiterating that he really does feel that way. There are "feminists" who scream, don't you DARE say I am not a feminist, who support him and consider other feminists who discuss exploitation enemies, and yes, this really goes on. The point here is, we never know what that means,when someone identifies as feminist, really. There are lots of feminists that would question my feminism, because I do have a streak of theism in me that will never go away, I think.
>i'm constantly amused by things like this – on the one hand, women are bitchs for going to college and paying my own way – we should go "back to the kitchen" and etc…but then we're "evil" for staying in the kitchen and being supported by our husband/boyfriend/whatever.look, if you insist that "your" woman doesn't work, you don't get to be angry that she's "living off of you". i swear, the lack of logic would be sad, if it wasn't so funny 🙂
>What's the point of singling out SSRIs? I mean I know lots of people who stigmatize use of psychoactive medications, but do SSRIs say something different in the minds of those stigmatizers than other antidepressants? Color me bemused.
>@nick: A lot of the BDSM model of consent has been taken from feminist academic work on the issue of consent. Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c)doesn't think that investment in computers and other labor saving machines replace "man"power? Or does he not think that any money is being spent to create those things? Or do they not count because women don't want to have sex with them?
>Sophia: "BDSM circles are generally hostile to feminism"I'm no expert, but most of the people I've run across who are into BDSM are feminists. triplanetary: I was wondering that about SSRIs myself; several commenters brought them up. Maybe it's the only kind of antidepressant they've ever heard of. Or maybe they have some sort of side-effect fetish; some old-school tricyclic antidepressants make breasts bigger (for guys too). Of course, they can also cause paralyzed intestines, black tongue, "change in skin pigmentation and star-shaped opacities on the eyes."http://www.crazymeds.us/tca.html
>@David:The relationship between BDSM and feminism can be kind of complex, but the basic idea is that feminist thought is unnecessary in an environment where power roles are spelled out and agreed to ahead of time. Also, a lot of feminists are hostile to BDSM, due to what they percieve as the fetishization of inequality.
>"Well, you said you questioned "their true motivations of being a feminist."David, I think it would raise most people’s curiosity if a woman claims to be a feminist and also claims to be into female supremacy or want female led relationships. There is obviously a huge contradiction here that makes the person look silly.I think any feminist who identifies as a sub/slave or dominant in a relationship is silly as feminists have aggressively ranted about patriarchy/male led relationships an awful lot.Being a top or bottom is one thing but being a sub/slave or dominant is another as it’s totally not about equality in day to day life in most aspects throughout a relationship.About what MRA/MGTOW people say, I don’t believe many would have that insane view. I do think there are a lot of really young guys on there that like to flame random offensive BS for their own kicks. There are also some older men who simply have some messed up views. But that aside, places like that are a target for shock jocks who say things they don’t really mean. I am not an MRA nor MGTOW. I do browse through them sites rarely though.
>What a ridiculous notion, women buying sex toys instead of dating men! Can you imagine such a device? I bet you can't find anything like that at your local sex shop. Especially not lining an entire wall or more…the mere thought makes me vibrate with laughter. My point is super subtle!Anyway…the "foreskin and foetus" quote is another t-shirt contender. Seriously, what the FUCK?!?
>missyb9479- it'd be no good. Everyone knows that female vampires turn into lesbians. (TVTropes link redacted, because I'm not cruel.)
>Niko– The whole point of non-crazy-person feminism is that people get to choose what they want to do, not simply conform to gender roles. Therefore, you can want to be a dominant or a slave, and still consider yourself feminist– because you chose the power-dynamics relationship, because it gets you off.
>Wow…that robot sex guy could write for The Onion. Hilarious!
>"BDSM circles are generally hostile to feminism and if you feel the need to distinguish between "bottom," "submissive," and "slave" you damn well know that."Uhhh… whut?I've spent more than a few years in 'BDSM circles' and have yet to see proof that's true. If I've learned anything, it's that the BDSM subculture is like any other group – comprised of diverse people. They tend towards feminism, just because most of the participants, having worked out their kinks, have rejected at least a few heteronormative assumptions about sex. Also, there's an emphasis on all parties having a good time, safe sex, communication and respect for boundaries – which are all things which feminists advocate. That being said, I've run across a few women I wouldn't classify as feminist, a few men who were creepy misogynists and people of both genders who needed a therapist more than they needed a spanking.Some feminists may disagree with the notion of BDSM because they think it's exploitive. But, again, that's the funny thing about feminists – they're also people. People who can do things like agree on a few core principles but disagree on the details. Why, I've even known feminists who have had the complicated viewpoint that they disagreed with BDSM on a theoretical basis, but didn't think they had the right to prevent adults from engaging in consensual power exchange. This particular feminist disagrees strongly with the notion that BDSM is anti-feminist. I personally think that any sex act between consenting, passionate adults who are enjoying themselves is an act of love – no matter what it might look like on the outside.And also, 'bottom,' 'submissive' and 'slave' all have different connotations. 'Bottom' is a pretty much catch-all term, the person who pretends to surrender their power. 'Submissive', 'slave' and 'masochist' all have more specific definitions about what that power exchange looks like. You can be a submissive without being a masochist, be a masochist without being a slave or be a slave without being a submissive – but they're all technically bottoms.
>All these bizarre, self-defesting notions about dating. If only they had someone to help them out. Someone who knew what he was doing. Someone like…SGT. ROCK!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfrQDQfbRJY
>Lady Victoria von SyrusTo me, a bottom is someone who only likes to be dominated in the bedroom in a sex game. Other than that, he/she is equal to the other person. Outside the bedroom or within the relationship, no one has the upper hand or no one leads.
>Lady Victoria von Syrus said… "They tend towards feminism, just because most of the participants, having worked out their kinks, have rejected at least a few heteronormative assumptions about sex."They tend towards feminism because they are female supremacists who see BDSM as a way of acting out what they want to act out in real life but can't because feminism hasn't 'progressed' that far yet.You feminists would eagerly agree that guys who play first person shooters are acting out what they'd like to do to folks in real life. But when it comes to a woman into BDSM it's all fantasy.
>'You feminists would eagerly agree that guys who play first person shooters are acting out what they'd like to do to folks in real life.'No, video games are all fantasy, too. I don't have a problem with violent video games – I personally enjoy the Wolfenstein and Left 4 Dead franchises (and Grand Theft Auto – though it's not a FPS, it's certainly got a lot of flak for being violent). When I've had a bad day, nothing cheers me up like wasting a few hundred zombies. What you don't seem to understand is that the male bottom in a BDSM scene has consented. In fact, there's a good chance he has *paid* for the session. He wants to be there. Likely, he has negotiated his fantasies, desires and boundaries with his top. If he wants to stop, he uses the safe word and everything stops. There is, in BDSM, a presumption of equality – all participants have equal needs and desires, regardless of gender or what the scene might look like after it starts. It's a game – that's why they call it play. Out of curiosity – if you believe that all women who are into topping men in BDSM are female supremacists acting out their 'true desires,' what do you think of the male tops? What about when a man tops another man, or a woman tops a woman? What if the principals switch roles halfway through the scene?