>
 |
| An apple a day scares the men away? |
Women’s magazines can be terrifyingly good at reinforcing every bad thing women in this culture feel about themselves. Take, for example, this awful blog post over on Marie Claire, written by a dude, on “why men prefer innocent girls to bad girls.” It’s filled with statements like this, on why guys (supposedly) prefer virgins or near-virgins to more sexually experienced women — aka “bad girls”:
Guys just want to be the leader of that journey instead of the followers. I guess it’s like white fresh snow versus the snow that’s turning black on the side of the road … under the haze of car exhaust. The fresh snow is more of a palette for adventure.
Yep, that’s right. He’s comparing post-virginal women — that is, most adult women — to DIRTY, SOOTY, PROBABLY PISSED-ON, SNOW.
Actually, don’t click on his article. Not yet anyway. Click here instead, to see Captain Awkward’s masterful and often quite hilarious takedown of Rich and his paean to not-very-experienced, not-too-confident women.
>I dated this guy. He's the one who told me I took up too much space, remember him? I know I told you about him. And then he said I was a control freak because I didn't like to ride on the back of his motorcycle, when all I wanted to do was be able to read. (Then I broke up with him and lived happily ever after.)
>Whenever a writer wants to give women breathtakingly sexist and insulting advice designed to ruin their lives, he or she always opens with "Most guys don't want to admit it, but…"As in, "Most guys don’t want to admit it, but they don’t necessarily want to be in bed with a girl who knows more than they do."Or, "We hate to admit it, we usually like to be in control. A bad girl is tough to control — we never know what she’s going to do next.”Okay, great, then I won't sleep with those guys. I'll sleep with that guy over there who doesn't have all the weird control issues.* Why are you telling me this again?*P.S. Mission accomplished.
>Stop hating on virgins David. They are innocent.
>Yeah, I kind of second Magdelyn's sentiment. I mean, not to rain on anybody's parade, but if shaming promiscuous people as "sluts" or "irresponsible" or whatever is bad, I don't really see how shaming those who either can't or won't have a lot of sex for whatever reason as "unconfident," "clumsy in bed," or whatever. There may be no substitute for direct experience, but second-hand knowledge is better than none, and you'd be surprised how much of it you can get off the Internet.
>Was it Cosmo or some other site that had a 4 page ode to "natural" sexy LA women that was pretty much a giant set-up for the author to reveal that his ex-whom-he-never-got-over-but-who-wouldn't-move-across-country-to-be-with-him had lopsided boobs. It was eight different kinds of hilarious, and we all had such a great time making fun of him.
>I read this article, and I found it absolutely pathetic. It's just so…creepy. The guy sounds like a date rapist and a pedophile. The whole idea that "corrupting innocence" is somehow more mutual makes him sound clueless and exploitative. I've always found that it's kind of boring and even annoying when you have to "corrupt innocence," and there's really nothing mutual about it – you're either giving or taking, but never sharing. There's nothing mutual about "corrupting innocence."Which makes me think that, yeah, this guy is just really awkward in bed. He thinks "corrupting innocence" is mutual – so I can only imagine that he's the kind of guy who can't tell when his partner is faking an orgasm, you know? He clearly doesn't know what a truly mutual sexual experience is.And that makes him sound like a date rapist.
>Holy crap, give me a woman more experienced than me any day of the week. Need the kink. This fellow doesn't know what he's on about.
>Don't mind the increased probability of male suicides, no. Feminists are more focused on important things like what other people think of their sex lives. Because thoughts are more important than men.Of course, if a movement organizes which cares more about men blowing their brains out than model's fitness and diet regiments, all hell breaks loose. Because women are just that great.I also love the tag "men who should not be with women ever." Attacking a man's virility – classy, original, and as funny the millionth time as the first.
>Maggie, vaqrant, I'm not slamming virgins. I'm mocking a guy who seems to want all the women he sleeps with to be virgins, and who thinks of non-virgins as the equivalent of dirty snow. As for the issue of confidence, *he's* the one who is saying that he doesn't like women who are too confident. Read his piece, or (even better), Captain Awkward's. Mr. e491etc, I'm not attacking his virility. He shouldn't be with women because his attitudes are insulting to women, and that would tend to make him a poor partner for, you know, women. If a woman had similar attitudes about men, I'd say she shouldn't be with men. As for suicide? Depression affects both men and women. I've suffered from depression for years. I know many others, male and female, who are dealing with depression. I've dealt with suicidal people. If you actually care about this issue, get involved in mental health advocacy. Push for insurers/employers to offer mental health coverage. Lobby the government. Volunteer at a hotline. Don't just use the issue as an excuse to bash feminists.The Men's Rights movement isn't "organizing" around this issue. MRAs don't do shit on this issue. Point me to one fucking thing MRAs have done about suicide besides posting comments on the internet about how men kill themselves more than women.
>Try to keep your apology brief.
>"Women's magazines can be terrifyingly good at reinforcing every bad thing women in this culture feel about themselves."Some additions are in order.Women's magazines written and published MOSTLY be other women can be terrifyingly good at reinforcing every bad thing bold, strong, independent women in this culture feel about themselves.Johnny said… "Holy crap, give me a woman more experienced than me any day of the week."Shouldn't be difficult.
>e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73 said… "Try to keep your apology brief."BUUUUUURRRRRRRRNNNNNN!
>These are father's rights groups, anti-alimony groups, and the like. While I disagree with much of what they do, I agree that, yes, they engage in real-world activism. I said that in my Good Men Project piece; I've said that here before. But there's surprisngly little connection between these groups and MRAs online. I would guess that most MRAs online aren't even aware that these groups exist. I never see them linked to, never see them discussed, on any of the big MR sites/forums online.What this has to do with the issue of suicide I don't know. There is one group in the list that purports to deal with the issue of suicide, the Ottowa Men's Centre. I went to its website, and half the pages there don't load, so it's not clear if it's even a functioning organization at this point.
>Maggie, vaqrant, I'm not slamming virgins. My apologies, but Captain Awkward seemed to be doing so–I should have made that clear. The statement "I’ve got bad news for women with opinions, self-confidence, and a sexual history." implies that women who happen not to have much of a sexual history are lacking in opinions, options, and self-confidence. Suffice it to say this is debatable.That said, e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73, in all seriousness–not trying to be cute or snarky here–can the websites you posted be called part of the Men's Movement? In the case of male studies, which seems legit, in my view, I'm absolutely certain some folks in the MRM are leery about it. There was a big fight between Jack Donovan and Paul Elam a while back over it, actually. If you folks in the MRM are still in conflict over whether or not the Male Studies guys should be a part of your movement or not, I don't really think it's fair to claim their advocacy for the MRM's banner.
>vagrant, again, it's the marie claire blogger who is linking all these characteristics together (and saying he doesn't like women who have them). Capt.Awkward isn't bashing virgins or suggesting that they don't have opinions and/or confidence. Indeed, she suggests that Rich will have a hard time finding a woman who has all of these characteristics.
>The funny thing is that men like this also aren't really fans of real virgins. When an actual adult virgin tries to date a guy they tend to freak out about it. They worry about stealing her innocence or that she will have expectations about getting married. What they want is not a virgin. They also don't want a woman who is overtly sexually experienced. What they want is a liar. They want someone who is sexually experienced but pretends like they aren't. Also, women's magazines are not written for or by real independent women. Compare Ms. Magazine (an actual feminist magazine) to Cosmo. Women's mags use the words of feminism (fearless, independent, career gal) but are all about reinforcing the patriarchy. That's why they spend so much space devoted to how to find/keep/please a man. Or weight loss. Or getting engaged. And, Mr. String, what do you want feminists to do about male suicide? Again, feminists are working to break down gender roles that may lead to suicide. But other than that it isn't in our mission statement. Do you think that PETA should be doing more about male suicide? If anything, anti-gun groups are the ones that will have the most direct benefit to lowering male suicide sicne guns are used most often in these deaths.
>@vagrant, no one is denigrating or making fun of virgins. Everyone is making fun of Rich for thinking that virgins are blank slates waiting to be filled up with his sexy "knowledge" and that they can't be confident or "intimidating." The person most insulting to virgins (or relatively sexually inexperienced women) is Rich himself. No one is making fun of Rich's virility – he himself says that he is sexually inexperienced in this and other blog posts – I don't care about his relative experience or virility, except that he seems to think he can tell women "Why Men Like Innocent Girls and Not Bad Girls" when really on a closer read it's why Rich, an extremely insecure man, likes "innocent" girls – he thinks he can control them. Missy makes a great point – men who write articles like this want women who will feign inexperience and perform "innocence" but who are also willing to have sex with THEM.
>Ah, the old misogynist dichotomy: they want to fuck womenz, but they view sexually active women as scum. These are the people who can sleep with a woman and then call her a slut because she "gave it up" so easily. The dude gave it up just as easily, but that doesn't matter, because women are the ones who are supposed to be pure.I guess these men really do fear a woman who takes control of her own sexuality.
>From the article: I'm not sure if anyone likes promiscuitySpeak for yourself, Rich. Those of us who don't have severe sexual hangups have no trouble dealing with the fact that ours isn't the first penis she's ever seen.Speaking entirely for myself, I'm in an open relationship with a woman right now. She's what you would describe as promiscuous. And frankly, her powerful libido and love of sex turn me on. That's just me, of course. But if there's one thing I can't stand it's these generalizations about "what guys want" or "what women want."
>"Again, feminists are working to break down gender roles that may lead to suicide."—missyb9479 What complete and utter horseshit.
>I would say from the tone and content of his column it is fairly clear why Rich is sexually inexperienced.
>I don't have a problem with people having different standards for the people they would like to date. If someone wants to only date people with little or no sexual experience that's something they will have to negotiate.But I think there is a caveat in this instance. If Rich is abstaining from sex himself and looking for someone to marry and be with forever, then his stance is not harmful in itself. But if he's dating ladies, having sex with them, and then seeing them as people who he would not date . . . because they have had sex . . . with him, that's an unsupportable position. If someone truly believes his penis degrades women and leaves them worse off than they were before they interacted with his penis, then perhaps he needs to spend more time examining his assumptions about sex generally before engaging in specific acts with specific people.
>*hides the whips, whipped cream, seesaw and other implements from Johnny*What happens when Rich meets a girl who is innocent and becomes more confident over time? Is he going to dump her for being more self-confident then he is?
>> The dude gave it up just as easilyThis.
> If someone wants to only date people with little or no sexual experience that's something they will have to negotiate.Of course. But the thesis of articles like this is, "Girls, all guys want X, and if you don't provide X nobody will ever love you." Just yet another way for men to attempt to control womens' behavior.