Comment of the day, from an angry antifeminist in ShitRedditSays who seems a bit obsessed with, if confused by, the sex lives of animals. Well, two comments, actually. The first:
It’s hilarious how reliably the feminist creature will resort to insulting a male’s sexuality. When cornered, it is like a vicious weasel, scratching at the only vulnerability it knows, in desperation of its wretched circumstance.
What’s even more hilarious is how likely it is that you all have the sex lives of a fucking snail.
And a followup:
I am no more concerned with a rancid female supremacist’s opinion on my sanity than I would be of a goldfish’s perspective on the world outside its bowl. You live a twisted, fucked up existence, devoid of reason and love. Your whole world is consumed by hatred of men and society, justifying your dementia by paddling about with other complete mental cases in this joke subreddit, all of you thoroughly skull fucked by evil rabid animals that pollute our universities under the guise of “professors” of various social “science” gibberish.
Um, why exactly would an evil rabid animal (even a vicious weasel) want to skull-fuck a rancid goldfish, even assuming it could? Wouldn’t it just go around biting everyone? I would, and I’m not even rabid.
Anyway, what I’m saying is that after having been introduced to MRAism, I notice that a lot of their complaints/observations/batshittery seem to contradict each other. A lot of times when I read their rants, I am genuinely confused.
Societal Contract: They’re pretty cutting-edge with the humor over at Lord Roissy’s, aren’t they? Last time I heard any of those I fell outta my Model A…
Vacuumslayer – There are a lot of contradictions, but I think I can sort of synthesize the “ugly bitches” versus “hotties I must have” thing:
(In Roissy-land, NOT my beliefs): A girl starts out relatively good-looking and pleasant (which is to say, not actually nice to talk to, because she’s still female, but naive enough that at least she doesn’t make trouble), but degrades in value extremely rapidly, reaching complete sexual uselessness at about thirty. Having sex causes her value to degrade even faster, for uncertain mystical reasons; by the time she’s had sex with three people, she might as well be thirty-five.
Therefore, the only thing for a man to do is go around screwing the youngest girls allowable and dumping them before they get the chance to wise up or develop an adult body shape. It’s a resource-intensive process, because by having sex with them he’s ruining them for other men later, which is why competition between “alphas” and “betas” is so fierce–betas have to settle for used women.
It all makes sense (er, for some value of “sense”) if you think of attractive women as unstable radioisotopes rapidly decaying into the “ugly bitch” stable isotope.
This actually, sadly, does explain a lot.
“I get very confused because I guess we women are all big fat nagging bitches…but apparently they still want to fuck us. ”
The contradictions of the Manosphere are many.
Recently Roissy blogged about the “leave her better than you found her” PUA maxim.
The comments that followed were all full of this idea that if a woman goes out on a date with you, yes, just even 1, she is hoping you are “the one”. If she sleeps with you, because of oxytocin, you WILL be her “one” because women cannot separate love and sex.
Therefore do men have a responsibility of leaving alone the “good girls” who are marriage material for betas so as not to make these women heartbroken and bitter so that when a beta comes along who wants to commit to her she is “emotionally open” and ready to accept him with loving arms? OR…
Should a man just pump and dump mercilessly because women have no qualms about “lets just be friends”-ing beta guys while “giving it up” to Alphas?
When someone suggested a little thing like honestly telling the woman, “look, I like you, we vibe well together but I’m not in this for a commitment but if you are open to having a short term dating relationship no strings attached then we can continue to see each other” none of the guys were down for that.
Hmmmmmmmmmm…. I wonder why?
Is it the fear of hearing a woman say, “No problem! I also want to date you while I keep my options open!”
Is it the harsh reality of realizing that YOU ARE NOT THE ONE (most guys aren’t).
How about the fact that a woman IS NOT going to fall in love with you just because you had lousy sex with her?
What is it that these guys don’t want to face????
Ahhhhhhh…. and then there’s the NAGGING thing.
Who are all these women in the year 2011 who even NOTICE a random sock floating about the house?
We are too busy on the internet to notice whether or not you left a sock out or dishes in the sink.
When you need a dish or sock you will pick up them up and clean them up.
Where’s the need to nag?
Who the hell cares about this shit in the information age?????
SC, some of the stuff you post might be more appropriate for the Manboobz forum–the Roissy jokes for example. Just sayin’.
http://manboobz.forummotion.com/
It all makes sense (er, for some value of “sense”) if you think of attractive women as unstable radioisotopes rapidly decaying into the “ugly bitch” stable isotope.
Yeah, that sounds about right. All that separates the creepy MRAs from the really, really creepy MRAs is the age at which they think women start decaying. I think MRAL once generously allowed that women can get all the way to their 30s before turning into hideous used-up crones (of course, MRAL is 20 years old and thinks everybody stops having sex by 40 because old people are gross), while NWO has opined that women lose all value around their 18th birthdays.
Also, women automatically turn ugly and bitchy the moment they get married (unlike men, who universally stay handsome, svelte and delightful). But a woman who doesn’t get married is a shameful whore or a bitter cat-lady or ball-busting career woman. So really, you’re going to degrade no matter what; it’s just a question of what horrible thing you choose to degrade into.
I’m a married career woman with a cat, so I’m like three horrible things.
Late to this one, but couldn’t you also read this as saying that a male’s sexuality is like a vicious weasel? Now I’m imagining some sort of enraged toothy dick huddled in a corner, lashing out wildly in desperation at everyone around it… So I guess I’m basically imagining an MRA on the dating scene. Hawt. 😀
Except for MRAL’s parents, who never had sex. Never!
Here it is
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/leaving-her-better-than-you-found-her-not-likely/
Where is Brandon? He champions no marriage because it restricts freedom. But there are women who are into open marriages and open polyamourous relationships.
That’s what these guys at Roissy’s don’t get. They are plotting in the above link how to date and sleep with a woman for a good few months without having to commit to her. Um….. about proposing an open relationship?
And that’s the catch folks – these guys DON’T WANT AN OPEN RELATIONSHIP.
They want to be “free to see other people” while the woman just sees them alone.
That’s why they are afraid to talk about it.
13 said that men also become handsome, svelte and delightful upon g.etting married Shaenon
Additional fun sciencey fact, fish are probably uniquely safe from rabid animals. Rabies used to be known as “hydrophobia” due to the habit of rabid animals to avoid water and stop drinking water. Fish is probably dead bottom of the rabid animal attack list.
I wonder why rabid animals stop drinking water?
Can we get MRAs who to stop blogging?
How much can we pay the MGTOWers to actually go their own way?
I like that we are correcting for scientific accuracy the bizarre mixed metaphors of some guy rambling on the internet.
@Social Contract
Don’t try to understand Roissy/Heartiste/whatever his name-du-jour is. His ravings just don’t make sense.
If a women has sex, she an evil slut and society will break down due to lack of morals, and if she doesn’t have sex it’s because she hates beta males, and lo and behold, that too will lead to the breakdown of society. Or something.
“What’s even more hilarious is how likely it is that you all have the sex lives of a fucking snail.”
Pure flattery to these neohermaphrodites.
Neohermaphrodites… Don’t really think it has the makings of a band name. Try again.
What’s the difference between neohermaphrodites and regular ones? XD
They’re new and improved! Or something. XD
Why is the go-to MRA insult “you’re not your gender!”?
I feel like there’s some really fascinating psychology somewhere under the surface there.
Neo-hermaphrodites can bend The Matrix to their will.
I am a neohermaphrodite! Your point, sir?
“Pure flattery to these neohermaphrodites.”
Neohermaphrodites? Really?
Hmm…this gives me a cool Sci-Fi idea…
I think he meant something on the order of, “proto-hermaphrodites”.
Which is about as bizarre as my springing a second head, with eight eyes, and serpents’ heads for hair; and almost as likely.
“Therefore, the only thing for a man to do is go around screwing the youngest girls allowable and dumping them before they get the chance to wise up or develop an adult body shape. It’s a resource-intensive process, because by having sex with them he’s ruining them for other men later, which is why competition between “alphas” and “betas” is so fierce–betas have to settle for used women.”
I like the explanation as to why PUA’s (and related tribes) frame the struggle between AlphaMales and BetaMales in such totalistic terms…it’s b/c they’re supposed to be fighting each other for access to a (steadily diminishing) pool of still-usable women. Very plausible. It certainly accounts for the pressure these men feel they are under to date ever-younger-and-younger women: if you think that sex ruins women and if you also think that age ruins women, a non-ruined woman turns into a comparative rarity, and, if you are a nooky-seeking male, the only way of bettering the likelihood of your access to the ranks of the yet-unruined is to “dip deeper”; IOW, to trade ever further downward in age. If you can’t go over 25 — if that’s unthinkable — you’re going to have to consider going under 18, or under 17, or under 16, or whatever.
One can also derive the PUA/MRA/MGTOW belief that male/female relations are a zero-sum game from this same conviction. (Alternatively, it could be that the PUA/MRA/MGTOW belief that male/female relations are a zero-sum game arises out of this conviction; in either case, the two beliefs fit together really well.) If contact with men ruins women for other men, there’s no such thing as a woman’s learning how to deal with men by means of trial and error. With a woman, says this dictum, it’s all error. The more a woman knows about men, the worse things get both for men and for her. Hence, optimally, segregation between the sexes should remain as close to absolute as possible, with men only venturing into female territory sporadically and at great risk, then retreating before the cooties and the cat hairs can take hold.