 |
| Technique … not … working! |
The horny straight dudes who decide to go all MGTOW — that is, to Go Their Own Way, avoiding women — often find themselves facing what we might call the MGTOW Paradox — that is, they hate the sexy ladies, but the sexy ladies keep giving them boners. So many of them go to great lengths to figure out how to make women appear disgusting to them. We’ve discussed some of these techniques before.
Here’s another one to add to the list, from Ashmead on the MGTOW proboards forum:
Having read Esther Villars book, one of the stand out sentences was that if you shave a woman’s head and remove all the make up, the only difference is a fatter body (breasts included), wider hips and her vagina. …
Try it – when you see a ‘hot’ female, imagine them without the dyed hair, lip gloss, eye liner, foundation, high heels (longer legs), expensive clothes, perfume etc, really DECONSTRUCT the illusion.
It takes ALL the power away.
And you’re left with…. their personalities… oh well.
Some of the other fellows chime in with their observations. shade47 asks:
how could men take anything seriously that looks like a flabby 15 y/o boy when you shorten the hair and take off the makeup.
avoidwomen concurs, adding:
It’s no surprise then that I find porn repulsive. Women really do look ugly(and almost all the same) in their birthday suit without all their clothes and makeup.
But it is dontmarry who takes the whole discussion to a new level. Strip women of clothes, hair and makeup, he argues, and you’re not just left with women’s personalities:
You’re left with what you started with – just a piece of meat.
Only this time, it’s less visually appealing.
A toilet is still a toilet, before flushing or after flushing.
You don’t thank the toilet for its companionship, or appreciate its personality.
All you need to do is use the toilet. Use it.
So there you have it. Women are just meat toilets.
Somehow I suspect that dontmarry isn’t going to be fending off a lot of marriage proposals from the women of the world.
—
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.
>LMAO, the comment under the picture is great. She is really beautiful. They really put Gloria S. to shame – Fish without a bicycle can't even compare with the toilet reference. Nice.
>You know who else shaved women's heads…
>The comment about finding 15-year-old boys more attractive than women is… possibly more revealing than the commenter intended.It's telling that they go straight from "women really aren't all that different from men" to "women are ugly and gross." Do they think of themselves as disgusting, hideous, hateful bags of meat? No wonder they're so cranky all the time. I guess they console themselves by reflecting that they may be repulsive meatbags, but at least they're not *fat* repulsive meatbags like *some* genders we could name.
>Man, those guy really are kind of like deeply closeted gays. Only in this case they are deeply closeted heterosexuals. And the meat toilet guy? Sounds like serial killer material *shudder* I agree, Natalie Portman looked totally hot with her head shaved :9
>the only difference is a fatter body (breasts included), wider hips and her vaginaAnd of course nobody finds any of THOSE things attractive!
>Shaenon, I think they think they are repuslive meat bags with compelling personalities.
>*snicker*I don't wear makeup or heels or perfume or pretty clothes; I'm a tank-top-and-cargo-pants-and-hiking-boots kinda girl. And I have a shaved head. Looks like I'm naturally adapted to protect myself against this flavor of misogynist. I make myself repulsive to them without even trying!
>I shaved my head to raise funds when my grandfather had cancer. Two feet of blonde hair gone, and guess what? It's the best I've ever looked. I've kept short hair since then.Also, I don't wear makeup. Misogyny shield: activate!PS. Natalie Portman is amazing. This is pretty much my favourite thing on the internet:Natalie Portman Uncensored Rap
>"Women really do look ugly(and almost all the same) in their birthday suit without all their clothes and makeup." In other words, he thinks naked women are universally unattractive? Then perhaps he should try different porn. The sort that only contains naked dudes.
>Your blog keeps me amused. These guys are ridiculous. I thought they were homophobic as hell- but here they are talking about their distaste for women's bodies? Or maybe its just those nasty Western women, you know…
>Women look all the same naked?Have they seen naked women?One of my favorite parts of seeing naked people is all the little differences they have: birthmarks, scars, the way their fat distributes itself, weird protruding bones, hair or lack thereof, tattoos…
>"One of my favorite parts of seeing naked people is all the little differences they have: birthmarks, scars, the way their fat distributes itself, weird protruding bones, hair or lack thereof, tattoos…" OMG that's objectification. You are not seeing them as people, only an object.Condemn this feminist immediately!
>OzymandiasWhen the only women you've seen naked is in porn I can get that misconception.
>Hm, temptation to shave head rising…rising…
>nicko81m– Here is a helpful guide.Not Objectification: "Naked women are cool and have unique features."Objectification: "Women only exist for the sole purpose of making me feel funny in my pants."Kave– Even in porn there are women with large breasts and women with small breasts and skinny women and fat women and "alternative" women and butch women and women with those distressing long red fingernails. Unless you are BLIND, you should be able to tell them apart.
>Nick has a lot of funny ideas about feminists.
>OMG that's objectification. You are not seeing them as people, only an object.Enjoying the sight of a naked woman (or man, obviously) is not necessarily objectification, and feminists don't generally think it is.Unfortunately, the term "objectification" is sometimes been co-opted by conservative, moralistic, sex-negative forces in our culture to condemn any portrayal of women as sexual beings.Now, the quotes in David's post, the ones that claim that without their bodies women have nothing going for them – THAT is objectification.
>Ozymandias said:"Not Objectification: "Naked women are cool and have unique features.""Objectification: "Women only exist for the sole purpose of making me feel funny in my pants."Unfortunately a heterosexual male most of the time is falsely accused of objectification just for having his sexuality. Male sexuality is nearly illegal these days in political correct rules.triplanetary said: "Enjoying the sight of a naked woman (or man, obviously) is not necessarily objectification, and feminists don't generally think it is"Are you sure about that? Why do feminists make it into such a big deal than? If only a small minority of men do it, feminists wouldn't feel the need to shout in their angry little soap boxes about.The thing is that feminists seem to accuse all men or the majority of men or a very large number of men all because of their sexuality. Even when a man shows no sign of thinking that women are only good for sex, just him showing interest in the female body will have accusations slapped on him left, right, and centre.The objectification hype more so demonises male sexuality than it does any good.
>Professional porn seems to have the same woman with different wigs on. Maybe it is just me or I am blind. *walks into the door on the way out thinking it was open*
>What's the feminist perspective on lesbian porn? Are women oppressing each other? OMG!Why is it only evil or oppressive when it's men having sexual feelings of appreciation towards a human body?
>Elizabeth– Maybe I'm uncommonly good at finding weirdass porn? Nick– Kindly start arguing with the people actually in the discussion, as opposed to the imaginary feminists in your head.No one is accusing anyone of objectification for having a sexuality. "Politically correct" rules mostly tend to cover things like not pressuring people into sex/a date/whatever, not using positions of power to coerce people into sex/a date/whatever and requiring an active 'yes' instead of merely the absence of 'no' (or, God help us, a 'no' and a short skirt) to do sexual things to people's bodies. Note the nongendered terminology: women who break these rules are equally condemned by sensible feminists.Basically, it all boils down to consent. If expressing your sexuality requires people not to consent, you have a problem bigger than the Internet can solve. The sex-positive feminist position on lesbian porn (I'll let the radical feminists speak for themselves) is the same as their position on any porn: critiquing it if it enforces unrealistic beauty standards, gender role expectations or ideas of sexuality, or is otherwise problematic, but mostly okay with it as long as everyone involved is– that's right– consenting. Again: no one wants you to not want hot women. That would be stupid. People want you to acknowledge that women have worth outside their hotness, and critique messages in the culture that imply that women's only value is their pussy. That's all.
>Considering the vast array of porn out there, I would say no…I think that humans are pretty weird (which is actually normal) when it comes to sex.
>nick, there is no "feminist perspective" on porn. Some feminists hate it, some are indifferent to it, some like it. Most feminists I know enjoy porn, or at least some varieties of it.
>"as opposed to the imaginary feminists in your head."LOLSo are you going to claim that many feminists don't make a big deal out of objectification? To make a big deal out of something, you have to believe it's a common problem right? Like most of the male population only see women as sex objects?"Again: no one wants you to not want hot women. That would be stupid. People want you to acknowledge that women have worth outside their hotness, and critique messages in the culture that imply that women's only value is their pussy. That's all."I think the majority of men acknowledge that there is a lot more to women than sex. That's why relationships and marriages exist.Anyway, shouting it out to men all the time as in believing you have to remind men every 5 minutes; only shows extreme paranoia and mistrust towards men. Which all relates to misandry
>What's the feminist perspective on lesbian porn? Are women oppressing each other? OMG!What's most curious about this question is your assumption that the actors are the only people involved in a porn movie. The fact that a porn movie stars two women doesn't mean there aren't men behind the camera.As such, the standards for lesbian porn are going to be largely the same as those for straight porn, and as David says, those standards are a matter of personal conviction. Feminists can be pretty divided on the subject of porn.Anyway, shouting it out to men all the time as in believing you have to remind men every 5 minutes; only shows extreme paranoia and mistrust towards men.That semicolon is bothering the hell out of me.But anyway, feminists aren't shouting about objectification all the time because they mistrust men. They talk about it all the time because it happens all the time. You took my last post to mean that I was claiming objectification doesn't really happen much. That's not what I said. I said that appreciating a person's body is not necessarily objectification. Objectification of women happens all the damn time in our culture.