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.
And the circle is complete!
RB, all you have to say is “Uh huh.”? Are you afraid to tell me where you live? Isn’t that kinda… wimpy? Weak sauce, brother.
“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”! ”
In other words, when women aren’t people, but *are* whatever you want them to be, you love them. The moment women assert personhood and personality, you hate them. And you want me to consider this as not ‘woman-hating’, but ‘feminist-hating’. No, no, I don’t think so.
“RB: So you have no worthwhile scientific proof for what you believe either.”
Even if that only made us equal, and it doesn’t, because weak studies substantiate weak claims perfectly well, you still have no evidence of your claims beyond an appeal to authority. That doesn’t substantiate your claims either; the correct answer to a complete failure to substantiate by both sides of an argument (And that’s not what happened here, but I’m playing along) is actually not to conclude that ‘common sense’ or ‘authority’ is right. It’s to not have a conclusion.
@ Medium Dave
Med Dave said: Oh, of course, RB. Police officers are never biased.
On Mars, that is.
RB: And your proof of his bias is, oh wait he doesn’t agree with you. It can’t be that you’re wrong, oh no.
Mediumdave: And being attacked by a rapist is kinda like running your car into a ditch. It just sort of “happens” without any human intention.
RB: Not even close to getting the point. Ask someone smarter to read it to you.
Random Brother
@ Captain Bathrobe
LOL. The question of your “manhood” was settled along time ago there dear.
Random Brother
I feel like the protagonist from The Prince of Space, repeatedly reminding the bad guys that their weapons have no effect on me…
Oh man, I wish I could behave like so many she-weasels. That’s my new goal, for sure. Thanks, Mr. Meller, sir!
it is really adorable how frequently rb resorts to ‘have you considered the possibility that i r smart?’ and also apparently thinks that is a stunning burn
it almost makes me miss that first salvo of bluster from the other day where he sounded like don rickles took a couple blows to the head and then became a carnival barker on a meth binge
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!
More about castration? Jeez, ‘ol Sigmund would have a field day with these guys…
There is no one smarter than me! So there! I win the thread. Up to now.
@Sharculese
Sharculese: 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”
RB: Yeah, cause no one ever supresses information or doesn’t say what they think and no one is ever told by their bosses to not tell the client xyz. Nope never happens, never.
Random Brother
RB: Who would know more about the rapist, one cop, or the chief of police? If you want to say the cop, fine; you have to show why that cop is given preferential weight?
RB: Maybe there is no pattern but you can’t admit it to yourself, because that would call the whole, “common sense” foolishness that you are pretending to have scientific support for into question.
That might be a bit subtle for your manly brain, but it’s looking pretty likely from here.
And… further down we see just how strongly that failure of manly logic runs. There is no way the cheif of police might actually know what he’s doing. Nope, it was “screeching” from “femnuts”.
RB is all knowing, and never makes mistakes.
So, about all those black men in prison… the cops are right on that too. Because the disproportionate numbers of arrests, and convictions, must mean they commit that much of the crime in the US.
And you are a rape advocate, not because you deny the facts of rape (which you do) but because you said that as soon as the guy whips it out, and sticks it in, she’ll be all over that action.
I realise a lot has been said, but you said that, do try to keep up.
RB said, 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.
And your sample size = 1 (i.e. yourself), until you can come up with a study, DoJ report, something. Where is NWO when we need him. He could teach you a lot about actually making the people you are trying to mock/insult do some actual work.
Yeah, cause no one ever supresses information or doesn’t say what they think and no one is ever told by their bosses to not tell the client xyz. Nope never happens, never.
do i need to explain the difference between sometimes and always to you? this is really a concept you should have mastered by now…
Sharculese: I considered that he were smrt, but events soon put paid to the idea.
Clever went by the boards shortly thereafter.
rb if i were you id spend more time on finding evidence to back up my wild hypothesizing and less time on forced sarcasm
sarcasm is for closers.
Here, let me give it a shot Sharculese! I remember this from watching Mr Rogers! Sooooometimes I don’t feel like combing my hair I don’t feel like washing my face sometimes I don’t feel like going to sleep but sometiiiiimmmeeesss isn’t alwaaaayyyyssss!
@pecunium & snowy-
lol
@ Medium Dave
Medium Dave said: And the circle is complete!
RB, all you have to say is “Uh huh.”? Are you afraid to tell me where you live? Isn’t that kinda… wimpy? Weak sauce, brother.
RB: We already have enough degenerates in this state, we don’t need anymore. Oh, BTW, where’s the dazzling defense of your “ain’t no such thing as extra stroke rape.”
Oh, oh, that’s right, you were wrong. Thanks for playing.
Random Brother.
Pecunium, I recall that when I challenged Pierce Harlan’s pious invocation of the “black men get falsely charged with rape, ergo so do white men” fallacy, he had a brain fart and went right to the racist well. These are the guys who are on RB’s side. 🙁
LOL, RB, I showed you language from the actual statute, and you responded with a sensationalistic article from a popular news magazine. You’re telling me that the latter trumps the former? Tell that to a judge. 😀
I can picture it now:
Defense Attorney: Yes, your Honor, I know what the actual law says, but according to this article fromNewsweakly dated December 4, 2009…
Judge: Come again, counselor?
Attorney: I’m saying that this magazine article written by a journalist should supercede the written law.
Judge: Are you shitting me?
Attorney: No! I know what the legislature passed and the governor signed; I’m just saying that…
Judge: I rule that you’re an idiot. And you’re disbarred for being too fucking stupid to live.
Pecunium + Sharculese: You are awesome. That is all 😀
RB, I’m still waiting on your study about sluttily-dressed women (whatever that may mean) being more likely to be raped. Be sure to include the (no doubt huge) sample size and (no doubt scientific) methodology 😉
I know that a Judge can’t actually do that; we’re talking about a fantasy universe, after all… :p
RB: Unwanted penetration is unwanted penetration. No means no.
Lets say I tell a cabby to let me off at 5th and Lex, and he refuses, takes me to 6th, because he didn’t want to stop.
The says that’s kidnapping (that or unlawful detainer).
The law doesn’t say (and if it should, you have to explain why), “No means no if it happens before intromission, but once penetration starts it means, “baby, you ought to think about stopping.”
mediumdave: He could have the att’y dismissed, referred for sanction, and a new att’y appointed for the defense.
“The law doesn’t say (and if it should, you have to explain why), “No means no if it happens before intromission, but once penetration starts it means, “baby, you ought to think about stopping.””
It did, in case law, until last year. Because no man could control himself once penetration is achieved.
And they say feminists are the misandrists.