>
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.
>"In fact, there's a good chance he has *paid* for the session."Where do you get this theory from? Your ass?There are plenty of female dominants who simply top instead of dominating a man's whole life or relationship. I look into relationships all the time in places like fetlife and see this commonly.I have never paid a pro domme and I never will. These women are a waste of space and a waste of money. They are leeches in the scene, just like the one's who seek financial slavery.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? I know you are directing this post at evilwhitemalempire. But what I want to point out within the BDSM scene, the accusation of misogyny get's thrown around a lot easier towards male dominants than misandry does towards female dominants.I think misandry is totally rampant throughout the BDSM scene and I guess misogyny is too.
>'Where do you get this theory from? Your ass?'The fact that there are a lot of pro Dommes out there who are somehow getting enough sessions to pay their bills. I didn't say that the man was certainly paying, or even almost certainly – just that there was a good chance he was. You are certainly free to disagree with the notion of paying a Domme, but the fact remains that there is a large group of men who are more than happy to pay for their sessions. No one is forcing them to pay – it's a choice they're making of their own free will, after evaluating all their available options and choosing the one that suits them best.
>"what do you think of the male tops?"Do they not creep you out?You think they don't fantasize about rape?You think that in their fantasies (the ones played out only in their heads) that their victims consent beforehand?Do they still not creep you out?
>@nick, it is not true that sub or slave necessarily applies outside of the bedroom either. I think you are confusing 24/7 with subbing. Someone can both sub inside the bedroom and be equal outside of it. Victoria is right, they refer to preferrence for specific types of sex acts/scenes. They aren't even necessarily meshed as simply as she puts it either. A masochist can top while recieving pain. As a switch who has done both men and women, and actually been involved in BDSM scenes that were pure internet based, my experience is that tops disease is far more common amoung men. Accusations of misogyny get thrown out far more often because it is far more common. First, because it is far more common in western culture, period. But also because we live in a culture with expectations that men be the dominant or active sexual partner and that women be passive and submissive. Also, last time I checked, those that thought a male top was misogynist per se (rather than just pointing out common misogynist ideas that were showing up in BDSM circles as well or a specific person's misogyny) tend to have pretty negative views about the female subs as well. And female doms are routinely accused of beng man hating over masculine bitches and male subs accused of being unmasculine for subbing (<-see how that ties into the notion that subbing in sex is for women and domming is masculine?). Most anti-BDSM sentiment out there isn't coming from feminist quarters (not that there aren't anti-BDSM feminists, but "liberal feminism" is far more popular right now that "radical feminism" so it isn't even a majority of feminists who are anti-BDSM).
>> 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. I would not agree to that. Now STFU so I can go back to playing Call of Duty.
>"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."See, for all that Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) ((c)?) comes off as a worryingly rage-filled lunatic in that thread – all "Western women are evil money-grubbing whores who hate all men and only want us for our money, and I shall prove it by giving you a link to my annotated court documents from my divorce, which I happen to have here on my website as evidence for all those other young men who might some day think about marrying someone female, and I will keep doing this until Western women apologise for everything they've ever done!' -, I have to give him credit for one of the most hilarious lines I've ever seen quoted on here. Seriously, I stand in awe.
>Nick, as others have pointed out wanting a female lead relationship doesn't mean you believe in female supremacy anymore than wanting a male lead one means you believe in male supremacy. It's just kink. You can get off on/be emotionally comforted by being lead by the opposite sex, and still believe that you are equal.
>""what do you think of the male tops?"Do they not creep you out?You think they don't fantasize about rape?You think that in their fantasies (the ones played out only in their heads) that their victims consent beforehand?Do they still not creep you out? "They frighten me if they don't know the line between fantasy and reality (which would be a few, disturbed individuals). Otherwise I think they are just dandy. "Creep out" is not the right word in either case.
>Nick-my reason for finding it weird is that it has been consistent. And unlike you, I am not viewing it as a bad thing. Just odd.
>There's a difference between fantasizing about acting out a consensual rape scene and really wanting to rape someone. Many people who have rape fantasies do not actually want to rape/be raped. They want to act out an intense fantasy scenario with a consenting partner. If a male top did actually want to rape someone, he's not only a bad top, he's a terrible human being and I want nothing to do with him. If he wants to act out a rape fantasy, that's something entirely different. Either you are completely ignorant of the BDSM scene and ethics, or you're being purposefully obtuse. You certainly don't seem to understand the emphasis and importance that is placed on consent in the scene. A good top wants his/her bottom to also enjoy their playtime and doesn't want to play with someone who doesn't really want to play with them.
>Thank you, Dave, for this post. Reading comments from Spearhead provided Mrs. Bathrobe and me with hours of mutually shared hilarity. It's kind of a guilty pleasure, though–sort of like gawking at an old-timey freak show, but instead of people with disabilities, the attraction is people with really, really stupid ideas. Come to think of it, this describes most of the internet, as well.
>Lady Victoria-I have a feeling that Nick is all too often trying to be purposely obtuse.
>@ Elizabeth:Likely he is, but I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to defending BDSM.
>Oh, and my own comments were mostly directed at evilwhitemaleempire, who believes that all female Dominas are secretly (or not so secretly) female supremacists, rather than Nick.
>Captain Bathrobe is my favorite Boobz poster.Nice job, David!Of course I am also David.
>Aw shucks, Sandy, you done made me blush! 🙂 Thanks for the kind words.I suppose this is the "pat on the head" that I'm supposed to have been seeking from feminists (according to one of our MRA friends) by posting here. Well, it was every bit as good as I imagined it to be. 🙂 Thanks.
>I'm sorry David, but is this article suggesting that someone who doesn't feel the same way about relationships as you do, someone who isn't interested in commitment, is somehow a misogynist? I just want to clarify, because really, many of the quotes you displayed seem to suggest that the poster is superficial, but not misogynistic. granted, there are some rather low brow individuals, other angry ones, but overall, I don't see any misogynists, as non seem to indicate all women are as described, merely the women they are dealing with on dating sites or whatnot? Would I bring wrong to identify women on AshlyMadison.com as whores and adulterers? what about my identifying women on sugerdaddyforme.com as gold diggers? Do these generalizations make me a misogynist? if not, is it only because you feel the same way?As for your comment:"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. "You are looking at two different peoples comments and equating them to be coming from the same person or ideal. Why can't one person see the deceit as despicable and another see that same deceit as fair game to perform deceit of their own? Why the assumption of the double standard? The person who said women's deceit was despicable never said that men being deceitful was acceptable, and the guy being deceitful never said that women's deceit was unacceptable. You are aware people are allowed to have differing opinions on things? Not everyone needs to think and react in the exact same way. I feel the need to point this out to you because you are making that mistake repeatedly through this article, starting with the assumption that your way of thinking of relationships is the only right way.Booboo: "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."let me give you a clue what anyone who isn't a feminist identifies a feminist as being… When the term "I am a feminist" is used, the only people a non feminist has to identify with are those in the public eye who identify themselves as feminists, and they generally tend to be the women that are accusing men of all being rapist (in hostile ad campaigns identifying male children as "Potential rapist" hung in grade school libraries), or women claiming that for rape cases, the presumption of innocent until proven guilty should be thrown away, and a man should go to jail solely on a woman's whim unless he can prove she gave and maintained consent (how, with video recording?). or perhaps the women who identify as prominent feminist activists claiming a female minister is "hopeless and unqualified" for thinking the idea of any consensual sex is rape is ridiculous, that boys failing in school need to be looked into, and that boys and men need a voice in government and so opened a department for them under her ministry? Does that really sound like grounds for being labeled as hopeless and unqualified?
>Kratch: "overall, I don't see any misogynists, as non seem to indicate all women are as described"If you don't see any misogynists there, there is something drastically wrong with your eyesight. Here's a hint: When someone uses a phrase like "women are [insert horrible generalization about women]" that is a clue that they just might be a raging misogynist. See if you can find the misogyny in these quotes:"Women’s supposed integrity, empathy, and virtue has been proven time and time again to be a farce." "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." Some other clues: guys who think all women above 40 are too ugly and/or worn out to date, including Jennifer Aniston, guys who brag about dumping women in a cavalier fashion for some ridiculous transgression, guys who regularly refer to women they consider fat as "manatees." That sort of thing.
>"men need a voice in government " This fucking cracked me up. Considering that men make up a majority of the government in every country in the world (Rwanda is the sole exception and the the margin was 56 to 44 percent for the parliment in a country that is 55% female).I suspect that the universe in which Katch lives is a completely fictional one.
>"men need a voice in government " This fucking cracked me up. Considering that men make up a majority of the government in every country in the world (Rwanda is the sole exception and the the margin was 56 to 44 percent for the parliment in a country that is 55% female).And a large portion of those men are like David, incapable of seeing men's problems as anything but their own problems to deal with, even if it's the law or family courts that are screwing them over. just because men are in government does not mean they have a voice. Government officials are required to act equitably and unbiased… well, except for ministers for the status of women and whatnot (different countries have different names), who's actual job description requires being biased towards one gender. the fact there is not a legal counterpart has resulted in a plethora of problems that have been ignored or trivialized, and many others that have developed that wouldn't have if there was a balance in government. the fact you are blind to this doesn't bode well for your own credibility. Let me ask you this… It has been known for 40 years that men are also victims in domestic abuse. Depending on what reports you look at or whether you look at perpetration vs outcome, you will come to different conclusions on to what degree they are victims in relation to women, but this is all irrelevant, men have absolutely NO resources to which they can make use of when they are the victims of Domestic abuse. If men have such a voice in government, why then are only women getting any resources at all? Why are laws being passed that actually defines abuse as a man on women offense and not defined regardless of gender. Why are women who are waking up their boyfriends by slapping them across the head repeated, and then when he doesn't take it like a punching bag, she can justifiably kill the abuser and walk away scott free, no jail time? throughout history, women have always been in the forefront of men's decision making. you may want to pretend otherwise because your modern expectations don't fit into past dynamics, but that's your problem, not ours.
>missyb9479: “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.”Maybe not so much these days, but in the early years of the feminist movement, angry feminists were far more degrading and damaging then angry MRA’s are today. Even today, you don’t see government-sponsored posters on the walls of grade school libraries with images of young girls labelled “potential gold diggers”. There have been posters of young boys labelled “Future abuser”. In colleges, you don’t see posters of pregnant women labelled extortionist, you do see rapist on images of men. Which would you rather be labelled? A manatee or a violent criminal?
>"Women’s supposed integrity, empathy, and virtue has been proven time and time again to be a farce." The generalization that women are empathic, virtuous, innocent, pure, nurturers has been proven false repeatedly. Every week there is a new article about some female teacher that has “seduced” her underage student. Not a day goes by that I don’t see a women prove one of these attributes false, but I can go weeks without seeing one of them proven true. This person’s assertion is no different then claiming the accusation of men being violent is also false, except that the false perception of women is a positive one and the false perception of men is a negative one. Is it really misogynistic to acknowledge what you believe to be a false perception? I still see both misrepresentations perpetuated by people time and time again."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." Which part? The women moaning endlessly or the not building robots? Or perhaps it’s the accusation that what women want from men isn’t something a robot can provide? I’m not to particular on the whole replacing women with robots concept, not that this guy is advocating that (in this quote. Just acknowledging that a handful of men are vying for that goal), but the question valid, regardless of how disturbing. If you’re referring to the generalization that women are constantly moaning about how terrible us men are, then you don’t spend enough time with single women… that’s your problem. There are ample enough examples of that generalization being perpetrated on this very website, enough so to justify the generalization. You can claim it’s not a true generalization, but to claim it’s misogynistic is well beyond reaching.If your talking about the question about robot men… it’s a question, and he answers it correctly, no money is being spent on developing robot men… This isn’t misogynistic.As to the accusation of women wanting something a robot can’t provide… aside from some of your followers agreeing with that statement, it likely comes from this kind of study, that suggests that, as of 1990, 40% of women wanted to “marry up”, up 100% from 1950. If the trend continued, that would put 60-80% of women wanting to marry up… not something a robot can provide. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8237298/What-women-really-want-to-marry-a-rich-man.htmlSo you’ll need to be more clear, where is the misogyny? Remember, just because you don’t like it, or find it vile/disturbing, doesn’t make it misogyny.“guys who think all women above 40 are too ugly and/or worn out to date, including Jennifer Aniston, “Being shallow is not misogyny.guys who brag about dumping women in a cavalier fashion for some ridiculous transgressionBeing shallow is not misogyny.guys who regularly refer to women they consider fat as "manatees."Being shallow and vulgar is not misogyny.You really need to look up the definition again.
>"A manatee or a violent criminal? "Um, neither. Why do you think one justifies the other?Also, the point of the future abuser campaign was NOT that all boys are destined to abuse. It was that children who witness abuse are more likely to abuse themselves. The shock of the campaign comes from the boy's innocence.
>Kratch-that was then, this is now. Also, most of the law I have seen regarding domestic violence is that whoever is the most dangerous is carted off to jail. That young woman who slapped her boyfriend in the face was wrong-but the reaction of punching her face with a fist shows he is not only wrong but of greater danger then she is. Perhaps to you this is not the case and the slap is exactly equal to a punch. Men are also encouraged to speak up when they are being harmed by a female-they are given the right to ask for protective orders, to seek legal redress when she hits him, and to be upfront with the judge regarding it. There are shelters where he can seek refuge. Also, the reason that women get those resources is because women banded together and they worked their butts off for it. I know a LOT of state legislators. They are generally lazy creatures who usually focus on their own pet projects. They have to be pushed and pushed hard to get things like funding for shelters and those funds are constantly in danger of being cut.Men could do the same thing-no one is stopping them.
>"Um, neither. Why do you think one justifies the other?"irrelevant: missyb9479 said "Women don't degrade men like this". She was wrong. The question was rhetorical. "Also, the point of the future abuser campaign was NOT that all boys are destined to abuse. It was that children who witness abuse are more likely to abuse themselves. The shock of the campaign comes from the boy's innocence."Is that how the 8 year old boys are going to see it while plastered on their library walls? Don't be naive. It was an attack on the self esteem and moral of boys… or was the whole effort to inspire girls by showing them as successful athletes and professionals forgotten when making this campaign. really, ask yourself how showing girls as successful is a good thing while showing boys as "potential abusers" is also a good thing (except in the minds of man hating feminists)?