Well, this explains a few things:
Narcissistic Heterosexual Men Target Their Hostility Primarily at Heterosexual Women, the Objects of Their Desires, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (July 29, 2010) — Heterosexual women bear the brunt of narcissistic heterosexual men’s hostility, while heterosexual men, gay men and lesbian women provoke a softer reaction, according to psychologist Dr. Scott Keiller from Kent State University at Tuscarawas. This is likely to be due to women’s unparalleled potential for gratifying, or frustrating, men’s narcissism, the author concludes. They are crucial players and even gatekeepers in men’s quests for sexual pleasure, patriarchal power and status.
More here. The actual study here (subscribers only).
Yes, like a lot of psych studies, it was based on a relatively small sample of college students (104 undergraduate men, to be exact). But after this post yesterday – and, you know, the entire content of this blog — it’s hard not to think that Keiller is on to something.
Chuckeedee –
In your last post to me you said, “Qutie [sic] apart from the fact that I’m not aware of any cultural phenomenon that entitles every man to have access to your vagina merely because he approaches you in a dominant way. Where are you getting this from? What planet are you living on?”
These comment threads tend to move rather quickly, so in case you have forgotten the point of the original post, it was about a study that found that narcissistic heterosexual men target their hostility at heterosexual women. The study’s author concluded this likely has a lot to do with the fact that women are the “gatekeepers” in these men’s quest for sexual pleasure (among other conclusions). In addition, in the comments threads throughout many of the posts here on Manboobz, I frequently see various MRA types lamenting the ability of hot women to withhold the sex these men desire and believe they have a right to. No, this is not a cultural phenomenon. This is a specific group of men who believe that women are wrong in withholding sex. That the hot women they want to bang should be required to bang them because otherwise life is unfair.
From this original post, my comment was this “My question is, why is it such a shock to these men that I get to choose who has access to my ladyparts? Seriously, at what point in life do you decide that you are entitled to have sex with whoever you want whenever you want? Ugh.”
This is the post you originally responded to with your theory that women want to be dominated and “The taker gets to take” statements.
What I get from your last statement to me is that OF COURSE women should be able to say no to unwanted sexual advances…but women shouldn’t be surprised that these unwanted sexual advances happen because we have created the culture in which these “thugs” thrive. The collective choices of women are bound to catch up with us at some point and some women are bound to get hurt, right?
Personally, I think your theory is internally inconsistent. You should decide whether the desire to be dominated is really an instinct that women automatically respond to (and is therefore present in all women), or is a social construct…because they don’t really work together. In addition, if culture is partially to blame for men who commit sexual violence, and you recognize that this is wrong, then what is with your anger at a movement that aims to change the culture producing this violence?
Oh, and women, collectively, don’t make choices. Individual women make individual choices, as do individual men. Personally, I think blaming sexual violence (or any violence) on the victim because of the collective choices of a group of people is a cop out way of trying to remove the blame that was rightly placed on the individual who committed the violence.
Finally, as for your comments about rape. Yes, innocent men have rights. As do innocent women, guilty men, and guilty women. And generally speaking, we have a justice system that attempts to balance the rights of all of those people. People accused of a crime are afforded many rights, such as a very high standard of proof. Is our system perfect? No. However, the burden of proof to be convicted of rape is the same as being convicted of any other crime. That isn’t really the point though. In fact, rape isn’t the point of this thread at all. This entire page is about narcissistic men who are angry at the women who are the gatekeepers to what they (the narcissistic men) want. And you, throughout your comments to me, seem to be missing that point.
Oh, and no, I don’t believe that everything a man does is an act of rape. In fact, I spend all of my days surrounded by men and none of them rape me. Nor have I ever accused them of raping me. However, rape does happen to many people and it does happen in a variety of ways. I have no intention of delving into a discussion about rape and what is or is not rape, though, because you appear to lack even basic empathy, so there would really be no point.
So Random Brother can’t actually substantiate his claim that ‘not dressing like a slut’ has anything to do with rape. And he can only really substantiate the one claim of his that *I* provided substantiation for. But he wants us to treat his advice as anything other than the confused, idiotic ramblings of a moron, when he can’t even provide good evidence for his claims.
No, I don’t think so.
I do.
and thus, you are able to understand how thugs might fit in with the grander scheme of things,
No, because this is utter bullshit.
You have proved you neither perspective of the mainstream of the science community, not the intellectual capacity to interpret it.
“It therefore follows that you will have heard of sexual selection as a neo-Darwinian interpretation of Charles Darwin’s original natural selection and thus, you are able to understand how thugs might fit in with the grander scheme of things, at least from the perspective of the mainstream interpretation of science. Or don’t you?”
Sure, Chuckedee. Now, just provide the scientific definition of “thug” and be certain to include the pertinent latin name and origin information.
He had me at “neo-Darwinian” 😀 .
@ Ami
RB: I’m going to try this one more time. I don’t know if you are being intentionally dense, or that your idealogical bias prevents you from using common sense, but I shall dumb it down as much as I can. I’ll start with your last statement and work backwords.
Ami stated: If your argument is an appeal to authority b/c the police officer knows rape survivors, then this would be a differing opinion from many ppl who know and work with rape survivors. :]
RB: Who would know more about the RAPIST? The rape survivor, the rape counselors or the police officers who deal with the rapist?
The rape survivor likely knows very little about the rapist. (Date rape situations possibly excluded). The rape counselors know more about rape victims and the trauma they go through. The police officer, however, investigates, tracks, chases, looks into the backgrounds, previous crimes, temperments, habits, living conditions etc, of the rapist himself. Of the three the police officer has the stongest grasp of what would make the rapist tick, because he needs it to find, capture and gather evidence for prosecution. If you want real answers on why rapists tick you need to ask the officer, not the counselors and not the victim. Your appeal to authority fails because the counselors you site have
less knowlege about rapists, than the police. So, again, the police is the authority on the rapist, got it?
Ami said: Using your logic, I’ve known many rape survivors in survivor’s groups and group trauma therapy, also many rape crisis counsellors and therapists in both therapy and through my job. There is no pattern in dress nor body type of survivors. :
RB: Or there is a pattern but
1) No one dare say it because it will upset the victims – is any counselor really going to say to a rape victim “you know by wearing this you brought about a whole lot of negative attention to yourself” – No, she’ll tow the company line and say it can happen to anyone, which it can, but it’s about probability. Certain things increase your probability and other things lessen it.
2) you can’t see the pattern because you don’t know the full details of the crime.
If there is no pattern in dress or body type of the survivors, if looks and dress don’t matter then why are most rape victims between the ages of 12 – 34? Why aren’t 50 year olds and 60 year olds raped in equal number? What you fail or refuse to understand is that while a fifty year old can be raped, she is less likely to be noticed than a 25 year old (and this is the key here so pay attention) ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL.
To put it crudely a rapist might target an attractive 21 year old who’s dressed like a slut, but if she is hanging around a ton of male friends, he may then notice the older woman who is alone and vulnerable and he’ll decide to take her instead. The point is that dressing like a ten cent hooker ups your odds, you likelyhood of something happening. It doesn’t mean that dressing down will prevent rape nor that slutting it up will ensure a rape, it simply means that you increase your probablity of something bad happening. Just like wearing a seatbelt lessens your likelyhood of severe injury in a car accident.
Ami said: And the people who work with survivors and run rape crisis centres, also say that anybody can be a survivor and “not dressing like a slut” does not prevent rape.
RB: Not prevent lessen the likelyhood. Again if you really want to know what works you in rape prevention, you are asking the wrong people.
Random Brother
Oh, of course, RB. Police officers are never biased.
On Mars, that is.
“Or there is a pattern but
1) No one dare say it because it will upset the victims – is any counselor really going to say to a rape victim “you know by wearing this you brought about a whole lot of negative attention to yourself” – No, she’ll tow the company line and say it can happen to anyone, which it can, but it’s about probability. Certain things increase your probability and other things lessen it.
2) you can’t see the pattern because you don’t know the full details of the crime.”
So you’re saying the rape victims are lying about how they were dressed? Still waiting on that study your assertions that “dressing slutty” causes rape.
*Still waiting on that study that supports your assertions that “dressing slutty” causes rape.
And being attacked by a rapist is kinda like running your car into a ditch. It just sort of “happens” without any human intention.
@ Ami
One more thing, the fact that the officer was disciplined doens’t mean that he was incorrect, it merely means that a bunch of your nutcase femnut friends screeched so loudly that it was likely easier for the police to apologize than deal with a bunch of hysterial women.
Random Brother
Nope, pretty sure it does mean he was incorrect.
The only thing I have noticed when it comes to rape is the strain of “vulnerable” of victims. It seems to have little to do with common standards of attractiveness or even dress. It has to do with seeing the victim and deciding that they are vulnerable enough to rape.
That is why I have never been comfortable with the idea that “rape is about power” as in “i want to overpower you as my only reason for raping you” but if you are referring to someone having power to keep the victim from being able to stop the rapist, that makes sense even though I am fairly sure that is not the only reason.
1) No one dare say it because it will upset the victims – is any counselor really going to say to a rape victim “you know by wearing this you brought about a whole lot of negative attention to yourself” – No, she’ll tow the company line and say it can happen to anyone, which it can, but it’s about probability. Certain things increase your probability and other things lessen it.
pretty much any time your theory rests on an unspoken conspiracy to suppress certain information, your theory is stupid, brah
aso its “toe the line”
Also, I have noticed women who wear so called “slutty” dresses tend to be pretty confident women and rapists do not seem to like confident women.
@ Pecunium
Pecunium said:
Snowy: RBis not an apologist, he’s more a a rape denialist. Even, one might say, an advocate.
RB: Right. Very logical. The one person who tells women, to not make themselves targets, don’t get plastered, don’t dress up in ways that bring untowards attention to yourself and to arm yourself is actually advocating rape.
Empty headed hysterical moron.
Random Brother
Sure, RB. While we’re at it, remember not to let the sun set on you in my neighborhood.
What? Why are you so upset? I’m being helpful; trying to save you from a beating. It’s for your own good.
“Snowy: RBis not an apologist, he’s more a a rape denialist. Even, one might say, an advocate.”
This is true. Let me rephrase that to shorter RB: woo hoo look at me I think rape is awesome! BLARGH BLARGH SLUTTY WOMEN BLARGE REPEATING MY HANDLE EVEN THOUGH IT’S ALREADY AT THE TOP OF MY COMMENT BLARG!
Okay, RB, that’s still an appeal to authority, not a substantiation of your claim. The police officer was wrong, based on the best evidence available. His ‘authority’ on the subject is utterly irrelevant. It’s useful when you, as a non-expert, don’t have access ot data, but when you do? the data gets first dibs, not ‘authority’.
Are you attempting to secure a position as King of Idiots? If so you will have to work a lot harder than this.
So “narcissistic” hetero men “hate women”? Where is the controversy? It isn’t WOMEN who are often hated anyway, as much as feminists. Countless posts here–inlcuding mine, if I say so myself–have shown that when women behave in a lovable, desirable, and alluring way, they certainly aren’t “hated”! When human(?)females misbehave, on the other hand, like so many she-weasels, scorpions, and shrikes i.e. feminists, spewing out venom against men and masculinity, shaming us on all of our flaws, and generally acting spiteful, malicious and nasty, they INEVITABLY and DESERVEDLY elicit HATRED from nearby males! We certainly don’t have to be “narcissitic” (feminists calling men “narcissistic” is a joke in itself) to avoid misery, castration, and nastiness from our inferiors!
Women(?) resent male resentment? Change their behavior, become REAL women, and go on from there!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
PS-Comparing feminists with she-weasels, scorpions, and shrikes…my abject apologies to the aforementioned animals, who can’t help being what they are, unlike women, who HAVE choices and opportunities to behave differently. DKM
@ Medium Dave
Medium Dave said: Hey, good morning, RB! I’m sorry to see that you’ve been reduced to slinging ridiculous ad hom insults in lieu of having something of substance to say.
RB: Quite a fantasy world you have going there. Carry on.
Medium Dave: So let’s get back on track… you’ve asserted that there’s a “new definition” of rape inspired by feminists which basically makes it impossible for men to avoid being rapists, unless they are totally celibate. OK then.
RB: Uh what? Oh, you were trying to be funny. No, no, not your strong suit.
Medium Dave: Since you’re in the US like I am, surely you’re aware that sexual assault, like other forms of assault, is prosecuted at the state level. The federal government only gets involved in cases where state jurisdiction is absent or compromised (i.e. the assault happens on a military base, indigenous tribal land, if an abduction across a state line is involved, etc.). Accordingly, rape/sexual assault charges are pursued under statutes passed by state legislatures.
RB: Uh huh.
Medium Dave: With me so far? OK. So if there’s a new definition of rape under which men (and only men, apparently) are prosecuted, did every state adopt this new standard?
RB: I don’t know where you got this straw man but damn it’s weak.
Medium Dave: When did it happen? Is there a difference between states (e.g., more liberal states like California have tougher standards than conservative ones like Alabama)? If you don’t know the answer, I’d settle for the state that you, yourself live in.
RB: Uh huh.
Medium Dave: For example, I’m in Illinois (a somewhat-liberal state), and this is our standard: State of Illinois Criminal Sexual Assault.
Huh. It’s gender-neutral: The accused commits criminal sexual assault if he or she:
(1) commits an act of sexual penetration by the use of force or threat of force…
RB: Uh huh.
Medium Dave: I see nothing about two or three “extra strokes” being prosecutable, do you? And the code was revised just last month, so there’s no question of it being old language.
So… unless other states are radically tougher than mine (doubtful), I do not see what it is that you’re complaining about.
RB: Enjoy. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1584786-1,00.html
Medium Dave: Oh, and please no “ad homs” because I will just have to laugh at you.
RB: Sorry, part of my contract with Futrelle. But out of kindness I’ll save two for your next post which will of course completely miss the point.
Random Brother
@ Captain Bathrobe
LOL. The question of your “manhood” was settled along time ago there dear.
Random Brother
yo dkm, if you only like women when they behave in exactly the ego stroking way you require of them then you hate women. sorry champ.
@ Rutee
Rutee said: So Random Brother can’t actually substantiate his claim that ‘not dressing like a slut’ has anything to do with rape. And he can only really substantiate the one claim of his that *I* provided substantiation for. But he wants us to treat his advice as anything other than the confused, idiotic ramblings of a moron, when he can’t even provide good evidence for his claims.
No, I don’t think so.
RB: Your claim was based on 12 people. Once I was aware of that I knew you were a typical deceptive feminist skank and your fraud was up, so I discarded the information. So you have no worthwhile scientific proof for what you believe either.
What’s most disturbing is that you’re mentally challenged enough to think 12 people equals a legitimate sample size. Fucking moronic waste of a rib.
Random Brother
David M. Keller, are you admitting that you’re a narcissist? I ask because you re-stated the premise of the study, agreed that it was uncontroversial, and then proceeded to conflate women and feminists. Then there was some babble about scorpions and your personal spank material-type woman -I’m sorry, my eyes kind of glazed over for that part- and then something about REAL women and Peace and Freedom!!
So, you’re a narcissist right? I mean, I’d always figured as much.