 |
| 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.
>wow triplanetary, I didn't know feminists had magical powers which allows them to telepathically read men's minds.It happens all the time, right? ROFLSaying that it happens all the time is proving my accusation towards feminist paranoia. Mistrust towards men
>If men claimed male oppression by expressing that many women only see men as financial objects, would they get laughed at? Particularly by feminists?Would we get people like David saying that I have never ran into these women so that means they don’t exist or it’s all the man’s fault for running into these women?There is a totally different standard for feminists when the complaint is coming from the other side of the fence. But wait, feminism is an equality movement 😀
>The objectification is made apparent through cultural expression – TV, movies, books, anything – and through cultural attitudes that are deemed mainstream and acceptable. When men say things like the quotes in David's post, you don't have to read their minds to see that they objectify women. Your bullshit comment about mind-reading is an asinine attempt to dodge that rather obvious fact.If men claimed male oppression by expressing that many women only see men as financial objects, would they get laughed at?Yes, because it makes no goddamn sense. First of all, men have the power in this culture, so male views of women do far more damage than female views of men. This is a point that MRAs have serious trouble understanding. It's an issue of privilege. Those inside the privileged class (which, on the matter of gender, is cisgendered men) can't in fairness piss and moan about the hurtful things said about them by those in the unprivileged class. They do it all the time, however, be the privileged class in question whites, men, Christians, the wealthy, etc. Because they feel entitled.All that aside, however, this "financial objects" business is idiotic nonsense anyway. Let's start with the fact that, in the US today, women are almost as likely as men to be employed outside the home. 47% of the US workforce, to be exact, is women. I honestly don't understand why MGTOWs cling to this silly notion that women are financially leeching off their husbands.Second, in eras past when women by and large weren't employed (actually, I should say *middle and upper class women* by and large weren't employed), this was not by choice. Women were at one time legally barred from owning property or signing a contract in countries like the US and England. They had no choice but to be financially dependent on men. And that was a deliberate construct of the patriarchy. Women fought for the legal rights they needed to be financially independent. If all they wanted to do was leech, they wouldn't have bothered.There is a totally different standard for feminists when the complaint is coming from the other side of the fence.No there's not. The standard is "your claims must make some fucking sense." Claims of objectification make sense – it's all over the place in our culture. Turn on the fucking TV and you'll see it.
>Would we get people like David saying that I have never ran into these women so that means they don’t exist or it’s all the man’s fault for running into these women?If you feel obligated to provide financially for your partner, and hate your partner for it, that is your fault. Yes, a given girlfriend might dump you for it. That's a good thing. Clearly she's not the girlfriend for you.No matter how many women you try to date want to leech off you financially (I'm not even going to make any claims as to what the percentage might be, because it's irrelevant), you owe it to yourself and to them to keep looking until you find one that doesn't.Oh, but I'm sorry, it's hard and takes time and involves a lot of rejection. Excuse me while I wipe away this tear. Guess what? Everyone goes through this, men and women alike. 90% of the women I date don't work out for one reason or another. It's not because 90% of women are awful or leeches or anything – we're just not compatible for various reasons.And that's the case with almost everyone. That's just how dating works. It takes a lot of time and effort to find a partner who's compatible with you, and you're not going to get into the pants of everyone you meet along the way. Those supposed "alpha males" you see who get all sorts of poon are not getting in the pants of every woman they meet, either. They just meet a lot of women.From where I'm sitting, it just looks like MRAs are bitter about all the effort it takes to get laid. But it's not because women are all amusing themselves with depriving you and manipulating you. It's because you have to find someone with whom you can make a connection.So my point is, even if most women WERE leeches (they're not, but even if they were), you'd still be able to find one who weren't if you really wanted to.
>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. He does realize that pretty much all men who've been in long-term relationships with women have seen them without all the makeup, clothes, heels, perfume, and even (gasp!) with their natural haircolour, right? Like, that's not a deconstruction of the illusion- that's what a woman looks like fresh out of the shower after she spent the night at your place. And yet somehow, the men they're with still manage to find them sexy. But it's probably due to their Manly Willpower or something.
>@nicko81m:It isn't paranoia or misandry. It is about personal safety. Sorry, but there seems to be a small minority of men who can't seem to get the idea that looking too hard is almost as bad as touching, and that touching is right out. You might want to read this essay, because she said it way better than me."If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety."http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
>Good link. I can already hear the MRAs coming to whine about how oppressed they are by a woman's right to not talk to them if she doesn't want to.The general MRA complaint is that women have complete control over every social interaction because they can brush you off or try to get you to go away if they don't want to talk to you, and, horror of horrors, you are supposed to comply! What kind of world are we living in when women can decide what they're going to do and who they're going to talk to?!What MRAs aren't quite grasping is that men can do this too. If a woman approaches me on the train and I don't want to talk to her, I can turn and look out the window. See? The woman is not in control of the social situation. We share control.But of course if I ever do that, that will decrease the number of vaginas that I might be able to put my penis in! So really it was the woman secretly exerting control with her wily genitals! ^_^Sexist men want to have control when the other person in the social encounter is a woman. These men will get angry at women who don't want to talk to them or reject their advances. They feel entitled to seize a woman's attention and time whenever they want it. MRAs might deny this is a problem, but you'll see it all the time if you're aware of it happening around you.This sense of entitlement, which is widespread in our culture, is the reason rape is always a looming threat for women. MRAs whine about how they're not a rapist so why should they be looked upon with mistrust? Tough cookies, MRAs. We men are members of a privileged class. The unprivileged class has every right and reason to view members of the privileged class with suspicion.
>I am out of here very soon. I want to reply to other post in here and post in other threads, but time is shortAnywayatuinsailsDo you think I’m overreactingThis is a quote from the article you presented. In contrast, let's see different…but samehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352835/John-Lewis-Konstantinos-Kalomoiris-sues-sexual-harrassment.htmlAnyway, there is much I want to say in here and other threads but I will leave it until next time.All I can say now is keep the humour rolling feminists.
>No matter how many women you try to date want to leech off you financially (I'm not even going to make any claims as to what the percentage might be, because it's irrelevant), you owe it to yourself and to them to keep looking until you find one that doesn't.To add to the above advice, when you find one that doesn't, keep in mind that she might be looking for someone whose idea of a relationship with her is a partnership, not a lord and serf style arrangement.
> If a woman approaches me on the train and I don't want to talk to her, I can turn and look out the window. See? The woman is not in control of the social situation. We share control.But of course if I ever do that, that will decrease the number of vaginas that I might be able to put my penis in!Gee, I hope you didn't shell out too many $$ for PUA lessons on the "Art of Game", as you obviously didn't listen or take proper notes!! Doing what you have described above will actually INCREASE the number of vaginas that you might be able to put your penis in!
>"The objectification hype more so demonises male sexuality than it does any good."—Nick Exactly.
>"Objectification of women happens all the damn time in our culture."—TriplanetaryAnd yet, if a man doesn't desire/go after women 24/7, there's something wrong with him (he's gay, asexual, shy, low confidence, ugly, no social skills, an idiot, etc.). "These men will get angry at women who don't want to talk to them or reject their advances."—TriplanetaryThen feminists shouldn't slag and label men that don't respond or reject women's advances. Men have the right to turn down women for dates, sex, affection, or what have you as well and don't have to put up with the accusations, labels, and caustic scorn that is exhibited here as well as any where else.
>Then feminists shouldn't slag and label men that don't respond or reject women's advances.What reality are you living in, man?
>"And yet, if a man doesn't desire/go after women 24/7, there's something wrong with him (he's gay, asexual, shy, low confidence, ugly, no social skills, an idiot, etc.)."So true! It’s really too bad that our sexist culture enforces this oppressive lack of options for men and shames them if they do not fit into the narrow box of what men are “supposed” to be like. Things would be better if folks would listen to feminists and gay rights activists when they argue that just as women want to step outside the rigid gender roles that have been handed down, men too deserve the opportunity to embrace a wide variety of possible expressions of their gender and sexuality. Glad to see that's you're coming around to the positive things feminism has to offer for men as well, Wytche. "Then feminists shouldn't slag and label men that don't respond or reject women's advances."No problem. Done and done. If a man rejects my advances, I just accept it and move on. Why is that even an issue for anyone, anyone at all really? It's not rocket surgery.
>> People have the right to turn down people for dates, sex, affection, or what have you and shouldn't have to put up with accusations, labels, and caustic scorn anywhere.FTFY
>@nicko81m:First, let me say that I think you have gotten this a little turned around. I feel for Mr. Kalomoiris. He did everything he could to bring this woman's actions to the attention of her superiors and was eventually forced to quit. He doesn't deserve to be characterized in the press as over sensitive or that he should be happy any woman would pay attention to him as his age.Unfortunately, he isn't going to get a sympathetic ear in the US, because most women in the US face the same tactics that John Lewis are using against Mr. Kalomoiris to try and save their company and to keep from giving him any money.What I was talking about is the paranoia women are forced to use in order to feel safe. Do you think I want to be afraid that some guy is going to say something completely inappropriate when he approaches me on the street? Unfortunately, street harassment is so pervasive in American culture, that they have websites for reporting it in Washington, DC, Boston, Chicago, and an umbrella website (http://www.ihollaback.org/). Here women can post photos of men who have a history of street harrassment (which isn't a crime unless you can track down witnesses and a cop and keep the perpetrator around all at the same time) so other women know to stay away from them.So yes, very sorry for Mr. Kalomoiris. Get back to me the next time a big, hairy biker dude/dudette yells from his/her motorcycle that he/she would love to give you a rough ride while fondling his/her crotch, then talk to me about paranoia.
>"Glad to see that's you're coming around to the positive things feminism has to offer for men as well, Wytche."—SSIt doesn't. In fact, I would say that the shaming language has increased in the last couple of decades alongside feminist entitlement attitudes. I know women that are card-carrying feminists that employ the "if you are over 30/40, male, and single, there's something wrong with you" tone both in public and online. There's many other things as well, but that goes without entering a vast diatribe about it.FYI, this site is just a symptom of bashing men for anything that doesn't fit in the narrow spectrum of gender feminist approval.
>I know women that are card-carrying feminists that employ the "if you are over 30/40, male, and single, there's something wrong with you" tone both in public and online.This is a deliberate misrepresentation. The issue that feminists keep running into is that there are a lot of men over 30 who are single but don't want to be single, but continually refuse to acknowledge that they might be at least part of the problem. Instead they blame women and/or feminism. That is a problem.If a man is over 30 and single because he wants to be single, and doesn't have all the fucked up notions about women that MRAs and MGTOWs have, there's nothing wrong with him. One of the big clues that a single, older man is not a puerile, sexist manbaby is that generally such a man will have female friends.The problem is with older men who want to date but, for any number of reasons, have never successfully done so. I feel for such men – or rather, I would if they were 5 or 10 years younger. But if they manage to hit 30 (or especially 40) without committing to some personal growth in order to be more socially functional, it's usually because they blame women for it. And that's ugly.
>"This is a deliberate misrepresentation."—triplanetaryThis is deliberate bullshit. You're pawning off and avoiding the core issue. "Instead they blame women and/or feminism. That is a problem."Of course, feminism is never to blame for anything.
>"And that's ugly."—triplanetarySo are the comments from women who mock single men in the 30s/40s. Nice try, but you can't deny the sentiment that's out there from embittered women who constantly slag men as "selfish" and "irresponsible" for not settling down. Among other things. Hell, it's even become fashionable to view them as mentally ill or even potentially dangerous. Who has the bad attitude, again? And why would a man be shamed into a relationship with someone like that negativity?
>Wytch,Do you have close real life female friends?If you are unable to have a friendship with a woman what makes you think you are able to have a sexual relationship with a woman cupcake?As far as how bachelors are perceived the same goes for spinsters. Just that word should tell you sometime but it won’t because you lack the ability to empathize, hence your lack of relationships.There is a solution to your problem of course. Stop being such an ass and people will start liking you! If you do have a sincere social dysfunction I encourage you to get help. Help is out there for you cupcake if you only try.
>In fact, I would say that the shaming language has increased in the last couple of decades alongside feminist entitlement attitudes. Correlation/causation?I know women that are card-carrying feminists that employ the "if you are over 30/40, male, and single, there's something wrong with you" tone both in public and online. There's many other things as well, but that goes without entering a vast diatribe about it.1. Citation needed. The plural of anecdote is not data. 2. Who is issuing these cards? I would like one! FYI, this site is just a symptom of bashing men for anything that doesn't fit in the narrow spectrum of gender feminist approval. You know who doesn't fit in the "narrow spectrum of gender feminist approval"? Misogynists. Especially ones who are outright assholes about it. Otherwise, anything goes. Wytche, the fact that you personally have encountered feminists who are judgmental jerks about men being single when they're in their 30s and 40s simply means that you've encountered some feminists who are judgmental jerks. You use this one small incident as an excuse to ignore the actual philosophical underpinnings of feminism, which do in fact offer men increased opportunities for self-expression of gender/sexual identity. I'm a feminist and I'm over 30 and I'm single–what the hell business do I have judging anyone else who's single and over 30 or 40 or whatever? In order for you to make a case that there really is a strong strand of feminism that places importance on men getting married once they're past 30, and shaming them if they're not interested in pursuing women 24/7 like they're sex robots, then you're going to need to present some sources besides "These MEAN feminists I talked to once!" Like, for example, a link to a published article, or a book title. Because actual, real feminists view the idea that men are universally tireless, ravenous sex-starved beasts is oppressive to men, just as the idea that women universally don't like sex and only "give in" to it when they want something else (money, emotional attachment) is oppressive to women. Both may apply in a few cases, but neither applies in all cases, and insisting that they do is sexist. Like I said, this isn't rocket surgery. Too bad it still seems to be over your head.
>Penultimate sentence in penultimate paragraph: "is" should be "as."
>Of course, feminism is never to blame for anything. I blame feminism for Sarah Palin's success. CURSE YOU, FEMINISM!!!!
>So are you going to claim that many feminists don't make a big deal out of objectification? That wasn't the claim that was made at all. The claim that was made was the sexuality is not equivalent to objectification, and that even feminists know this.To make a big deal out of something, you have to believe it's a common problem right? No. You simply have to believe that the repercussions are substantial enough to warrant your attention. This could be an issue of frequency, but it could also be an issue of magnitude.