Categories
$MONEY$ homophobia idiocy men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny sexy robot ladies vaginas

Men Going Their Own Way baffled by lesbians, refuse to believe they exist

Silly lesbian! Girls are icky. Also, you probably don't even exist.

MGTOWers, mostly straight and mostly narrow, don’t really spend a lot of time discussing lesbians. Lesbians, after all, are not only women, but women who like other women — you know, like like. But recently one of the regulars on MGTOWforums.com discovered the concept of “lesbian bed death” – the mythological notion that lesbians in long term relationships barely ever have sex – and, well, a very strange conversation ensued. Shade47 started off the discussion with these, er, observations:

Looks like the super hip lesbos forgot the small fact that in lesbian relations no one ends up paying for sex so it doesn’t happen…

The, “we don’t need men not even for sex.” club isn’t a banging scene these days.

I guess this outcome should have been obvious since you can’t put a hole inside of a hole. I keep trying to picture that and it sends me in a logic loop like a computer tasked with calculating infinity. I just can’t grasp how nothing going into nothing can create the best thing since sliced bread. …

Shade47 is so baffled by lesbians that he refuses to believe that they actually exist:

Do you guys think women are really lesbians or is it just another form of “look at me” attention whoring? I mean they don’t have sex, they don’t reproduce, they don’t achieve financial success like the gay male community does. In fact I’m not sure exactly what lesbians are doing in their relationships. I still don’t believe they are real. In order for two people to come together there must be a very specific purpose and attention whoring is shallow even for women. They usually only shack up for babies and money.

Drauger seconded the notion that lesbians are imaginary:

What do you think would happy [if] you put [two] hateful women in a home together? Bliss? Bitches go fucking shit nuts if some man isn’t giving them attention.

Repeat after me: there is no such thing as a Lesbian, only really confused women. Women are by nature whores that will change their whims depending on the whim, depending on what they perceive society rewarding them for, i.e. whores.

However there are such things as gay men, they are men who have made a defining choice.

Goldenfetus added some conspiracy theory to the mix:

Honestly, I think the entire homosexual scene is about attention – for both men and women. I’m not denying that there are men who are attracted to men and women who are attracted to women, but I do believe the entire ‘gay culture’ was intentionally manufactured to further destroy the birthrate, with the reward for participation being attention and the approval of their elite masters.

Avoidwomen, for his part, not only accepted the existence of lesbianism; he also predicted a big lesbian upswing in the future after more and more men Go Their Own Way:

I expect to see a big increase in lesbianism as more and more men avoid women. We know that women are far more social than men and they really hate being alone, even having cats is considered companionship. As for sex, it’s possible one lesbian couple is a dyke with high T(for a woman) so she pressures the more feminine lesbian for sex and the dyke may actually be paying for sex.

Then he returned to his favorite hobbyhorses: sexbots and “virtual reality” girls:

It will be very interesting to see how much sex men have vs. how much sex women have with their virtual reality computer generated men and women in the year 2020. I bet most men get laid everyday while women try it a few times and not bother with sex anymore when she realizes there’s no money in it. Women will use VR men for his virtual money while men will be with virtual women for virtual sex.

The Great One imagined a slightly different result:

I think that instead of a rise in lesbianism we will see a rise in bisexuality among females.

When females can’t find a man, they will settle for another female (or several pets). ..  These female on female relationships will fall to the side when an available man offers a long term relationship.

Several pets? Hmm. If this guy is right, the future may bring severe cat shortages, sending the price of cats through the roof!

I’m putting all my money in cat futures right now.

Stay tuned for more on MGTOWers and lesbians. It gets even weirder.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

566 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Shora
9 years ago

Oh, okay then! I misunderstood. And you are very welcome 🙂

I do mean it, there’s nothing wrong with sex, or your desires, or you. I being very sincere when I say that I hope you will learn to accept yourself and not be afraid your sexuality.

Raoul
Raoul
9 years ago

@MollyRen “Once again, Raoul makes the common mistake that *all* women are sex workers.”

I don’t draw any gender line here, Molly. My theory (which is mine) is that in late-stage capitalism, people are basically socialized by market forces. So *everybody* has to play the game. If you don’t, you’re going to be left trying to socialize with loseriffic creepazoids, or the fraction of one percent of sane, self-determined, nice folks out there.

This <1% is much easier to find on the intertoobs than in real life. At any given time, its members appear mostly unavailable, because they are isolated from one another by the creepazoids one naturally gets thrown in with once one opts out of the market-socialized culture.

If I'm making any gender assumptions here, let me know how and where, 'k? Thanks.

Kyrie
Kyrie
9 years ago

@Raoul: I know that examples aren’t proofs, but most of the people I closely know are not playing “the game”. They’re definitely nice, hard to say if they’re sane, and I’m not sure anybody is 100% self determined, so maybe they (and I) are loseriffic creepazoids (I don’t know what that is, but that sound awesome. Or terrifying, I’m not sure which)
Maybe the USA (in which I don’t live) is a completely different place, but I hardly think your theory is holding to reality.

For the gender assumptions, what exactly are the rules of your game? Because something along the line of “women make men do whatever they want/pay for everything in order to get access to their vagina” wouldn’t really be gender neutral.

Raoul
Raoul
9 years ago

Simply put, conformity trumps most things, for most people, most of the time.

Sniper
Sniper
9 years ago

Raoul, you appear to be getting your information from the Encyclopedia of Raoul’s Ass. There is no support for what you say.

Simon
Simon
9 years ago

@ithiliana:

If you can tell me that this whole exchange makes you feel good, well, then, that’s different.

But I doubt it does. Oh no, It doesn’t make me feel bad, I was only angry about katz’s comments.

And again, you are so completely wrong about how the past was “simple”: that’s ONE current and very ideologically driven oppressive ideology that exists today (NOT subscribed to by historians–I live with a medievalist, by the way!) that pretty much comes to: “wow, life was so simple before the uppity women and the uppity people of color and the poor and working class white men demanded human rights that elite white men thought were only granted to them.”

What actual place and time do you see as the SIMPLE utopia of human life, btw? You’ve been very vague about that.

Medievalist sounds funny 😉 but yes, let’s take the life in the middle ages in Europe. It certainly wasn’t simple in the sense that it was not easy (because I don’t deny, that technical progress made our lives more comfortable and safe from certain dangers) but the world view of humans was very uncomplex and strictly ordered and that made it much easier for the majority to live:

The world was created by God, maybe a few thousand years ago, and he was on top of the great chain of being. The intentions of the Creator could easily be inferred by looking at purpose you could see in nature. The church was founded by Jesus Christ himself, the monarchs were ruling by divine right. The world was very small, nobody knew that we live in a galaxy with billions of other suns. An intelligent human could acquire all the knowledge of his time (at least in it’s basics). People believed in dualism, there was the immortal soul put in the body and it was equipped with reason and moral sense by the Creator.

Yes, there are still many people who believe a good deal of that, but let’s be real, we have to admit, that all this has been thoroughly debunked. And the new world view isn’t that nice anymore, and I don’t mean loosing your religious faith, no, the very basic stuff, for example today you don’t even know who you are! Really, you don’t know it, if you ever read about the extremely counterintuitive results of the split brain experiments, even the simple idea of a ‘single person’ is now under considerable suspicion.

Add to that, that there was not an array of vague global unsolved problems, like the environment, demographics or a global economy which is dependent on fossil fuels. A series of bad harvests or a plague were no doubt absolutely horrible, but they were a) much more concrete and b) just blows of fate. Today’s problems have the very nasty feature that we don’t even know if they are real (and if we should act now instantly) or if they are just imaginary… there’s always room fort doubt!

Look at the history Nauru, that’s probably the best example for this phenomenon. The single odd Nauruan who constantly felt this nagging feeling “maybe our phosphate will run out someday and then we’re finished” was the reasonable here!

Simon
Simon
9 years ago

oops…

Simon
Simon
9 years ago

And once again:
@ithiliana:

If you can tell me that this whole exchange makes you feel good, well, then, that’s different.

But I doubt it does.

Oh no, It doesn’t make me feel bad, I was only angry about katz’s comments.

And again, you are so completely wrong about how the past was “simple”: that’s ONE current and very ideologically driven oppressive ideology that exists today (NOT subscribed to by historians–I live with a medievalist, by the way!) that pretty much comes to: “wow, life was so simple before the uppity women and the uppity people of color and the poor and working class white men demanded human rights that elite white men thought were only granted to them.”

What actual place and time do you see as the SIMPLE utopia of human life, btw? You’ve been very vague about that.

Medievalist sounds funny 😉 but yes, let’s take the life in the middle ages in Europe. It certainly wasn’t simple in the sense that it was not easy (because I don’t deny, that technical progress made our lives more comfortable and safe from certain dangers) but the world view of humans was very uncomplex and strictly ordered and that made it much easier for the majority to live:

The world was created by God, maybe a few thousand years ago, and he was on top of the great chain of being. The intentions of the Creator could easily be inferred by looking at purpose you could see in nature. The church was founded by Jesus Christ himself, the monarchs were ruling by divine right. The world was very small, nobody knew that we live in a galaxy with billions of other suns. An intelligent human could acquire all the knowledge of his time (at least in it’s basics). People believed in dualism, there was the immortal soul put in the body and it was equipped with reason and moral sense by the Creator.

Yes, there are still many people who believe a good deal of that, but let’s be real, we have to admit, that all this has been thoroughly debunked. And the new world view isn’t that nice anymore, and I don’t mean loosing your religious faith, no, the very basic stuff, for example today you don’t even know who you are! Really, you don’t know it, if you ever read about the extremely counterintuitive results of the split brain experiments, even the simple idea of a ‘single person’ is now under considerable suspicion.

Add to that, that there was not an array of vague global unsolved problems, like the environment, demographics or a global economy which is dependent on fossil fuels. A series of bad harvests or a plague were no doubt absolutely horrible, but they were a) much more concrete and b) just blows of fate. Today’s problems have the very nasty feature that we don’t even know if they are real (and if we should act now instantly) or if they are just imaginary… there’s always room fort doubt!

Look at the history Nauru, that’s probably the best example for this phenomenon. The single odd Nauruan who constantly felt this nagging feeling “maybe our phosphate will run out someday and then we’re finished” was the reasonable here!

amandajane5
9 years ago

Sigh, is it possible to ban from the internet the people who don’t know the difference between “loose” and “lose” – I can (kind of) forgive the their, they’re, there, and to, too, two, because those words at least *sound* the same, but what is it with loose and lose?

Molly Ren
9 years ago

“If you look how manipulation permeates the whole search for sex and sometimes the whole arsenal of tactics is used to get it, I can’t help but think that this ‘consent – no consent’ distinction is just wishful thinking (also perfectly fits in my ‘desire for simplicity’ theory).”

So… what are you saying here, exactly? Consent is a pipe dream that people only want because they want life to be simple? o.O

red_locker
9 years ago

“So… what are you saying here, exactly? Consent is a pipe dream that people only want because they want life to be simple? o.O”

Creeeeeeeeeeeepy.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

“This <1% is much easier to find on the intertoobs than in real life. At any given time, its members appear mostly unavailable, because they are isolated from one another by the creepazoids one naturally gets thrown in with once one opts out of the market-socialized culture."

…you might want to get off the Internet and find a nice group that shares one of your hobbies? Knitting? Mountain biking? WoW even?

Kyrie
Kyrie
9 years ago

Simon, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. The world isn’t as simple as it was when we had no idea how it worked? I guess so, but then what?
Our problem are not really bigger than they used to be, it’s just that we understand them better which give us more responsibility to solve them.

Would be prefer to be treated like a child? If so, any sect will be pleased to take your money and liberty in exchange of the assurance that they know exactly what’s going on and what to do to solve the world problems.

Life is easier when you believe that the earth is flat and standing still, that the star are only dots painted on the sky, that the weather is controlled by god(s), that bad things only happen to sinful people, that everyone is straight (or gay, at worst),…
However, basing your decisions on false data will surely lead you to bad decisions that will hurt yourself or other. If you continue to ignore reality, you’ll sleep easily but will also continue to make bad decisions. Don’t fool, yourself, the world is complex and having your eyes closed won’t make it any simpler.

ithiliana
9 years ago

@Raoul: Simply put, conformity trumps most things, for most people, most of the time.

Wow, I can mostly agree with this: human beings like other primates are social in nature, and we need approval of our group/a group.

But, contrary to what you think, I think that in the industrialized nations (keeping in mind we’re MINORITY of the world population), technology a la the internet allows much more opportunty for socializing with others (and I don’t ONLY mean romantic/sexual relationships) than was the case before.

That is: I grew up in small town Idaho as a geek and a GIRL and a queer who didn’t know it, and I was isolated liek whoa with no other options.

Now I’m in rural Texas as still all of those things, and I have a great online social life with people who are not (for example) evangelical Christians (I’m an animistic pagan), and now all foaming phobic like NWO, and into sff (even here on manboobz sff rocks), and it’s not about game. It’s about finding a community or two of people in which I can feel “normal.”

ithiliana
9 years ago

p.s also, that desire to conform has not ‘evolved’ or come about with post-capitalism–it’s been there all along.

ithiliana
9 years ago

@Simon: but the world view of humans was very uncomplex and strictly ordered and that made it much easier for the majority to live

ahahahahahahahah. No. I live with a medievalist historian.

The “Middle Ages”(in Europe — there were medieval periods in China and India–i.e. all the other world civilizations) lasted about 1500 years, involved major social changes, and major religious changes and there is no fucking way that anybody who actually KNOWS anything about that incredibly complex period (which is rarely taught because, everybody wants to dismiss it as the Dark Ages in which nothing happened and them BAM THE RENAISSANCE blossomed) thinks it was “uncomplex and strictly ordered” and “easier for the majority” (WHO WERE PEASANTS) to live.

Just, no.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You are wrong. And I saw some mention of the “Great Chain of Being” but dude–remember that a good 95% of the population did not read or write, and there is NO FUCKING way to know what they thought of this “theory.” My partner studies social history, i.e. the peasants, not the elites.

NOT simple in the way you’re talking here. Just looking at all the complex of theories and issues around the Black Death and its causes and the results (major shift in labor relations) could tell you that. I cannot prove this to you beyond saying take a bunch of GOOD history classes, but 18 years living with a medievalist has taught me something.

ithiliana
9 years ago

@Simon: oops, should have read more.

But simply put: you are engaging in presentism. You compare what you think of the world today, compare it to what you THINK of the middle ages, and make this incredible simplistic, naive, egotistical (OOOO our problems are MUCH more complex and so are we) claim.

ithiliana
9 years ago

@Simon: read this very basic info:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/European_History/The_Crises_of_the_Middle_Ages

then tell me if you really think it was all that simple.

There are reasons why so much of the rhetorical discourses around the Early Modern witch burnings (NOT medieval), McCarthyism in 1950s US, and the AIDS panic in the US are similar: human beings when faced with scary stuff love the “simplistic” choice of blaming it all on cultural minorities and burning them (or some equivalent) to make life simple again.

The only thing is, of course, the simplistic dickbiscuits are always wrong, and it’s never simple or pleasant for the targeted populations.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

ithiliana: I guess Simon thinks there weren’t any gay people in the middle ages. Or any economic disasters. Or wars. Or any religion besides Christianity…

ithiliana
9 years ago

@Molly Ren: I’m sure he thinks exactly that!

My partner just got through the regular ‘debunking’ of the Crusades (meaning, gee, they weren’t all glorious chivalrous knights who WON) in her medieval history course.

It’s always funtimes!

The majority of men in the class sit around pouting.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

I remember reading in a children’s history book about sieges how they’d put rotting cows in catapults and then chuck them over the walls of the town. Imagining being stuck in a city while rotting meat was rained down on you (before reliable ways to clean water or remove waste) kinda ruined the romance of the Middle Ages for me. 😛

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

Molly Ren: Me medieval history prof once said something like “I’m sure all of you have sometimes thought how wonderful it would be to live back then, how romantic.” I almost sprained something, I was laughing so hard. Yeah, dying of the plague is soooo romantic.

ithiliana
9 years ago

@Molly Ren and Kathleen B: the romanticizing of the “Middle Ages” began in the 19th century and is still going strong (SCA, anyone!). And I’m all for a good fantasy, but yeah, the material realities of the time are nothing to yearn for. And it was all so simple and lovely, why did so many social changes which led to the Early Modern changes occur during the high Middle Ages?

Pecunium
9 years ago

Charles Darwin was asked along on the Beagle because the captain was afraid he would do as his uncle had done, and blow his brains out.

Some years later, he did.

I guess there was a lot of Early Victorian Feminism, just ruining the world already.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Medievalist sounds funny 😉 but yes, let’s take the life in the middle ages in Europe. It certainly wasn’t simple in the sense that it was not easy (because I don’t deny, that technical progress made our lives more comfortable and safe from certain dangers) but the world view of humans was very uncomplex and strictly ordered and that made it much easier for the majority to live

No.

Just No.

For just one example, in one small part of the world let me recommend the book, “Montaillou, The promised land of error” about the ways in which Catharism (after its “extirpation” in the Albegensian Crusade”) affected live in the Languedoc region of the border between France and Spain.

People are complicated. Their lives are complicated. We just don’t see the complications they had, because we are los in ours. It’s the same thing with every generation thinking they invented sex/music, etc.

The “middle ages” saw some of the most advances in technology, political theory, and understanding of the practical physics of the world we have ever seen.

It was far from “simple” and people’s lives were at least as complex as they are now (moreso in some ways, doing business required being able manage different currencies, units of measure and barter. one had to trade at one market for things which would be useful at the next market, and do that for each market from home, and back again).

I comment “The Letters of Balthasar and Magdalena”, or, “The Paston Letters (both of which are late medieval collections) for the ways in which the lives of the middle classes were complex.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

Charles Darwin was asked along on the Beagle because the captain was afraid he would do as his uncle had done, and blow his brains out.

Some years later, he did.

Weren’t ship captain’s not allowed to socialize with their crews, too? I’d heard that Darwin was invited along in part because he’d be basically the only person the captain was permitted to talk to for several years. Pretty sure feminists didn’t make up those weird crazy-making nautical rules, either. :p

(Mostly I just wish Darwin had read that fucking German bible he brought. Darwin, LEARN GERMAN. There is a dude named Mendel. Learn to read his shit! IT IS COOL. XD)

shaenon
9 years ago

(Mostly I just wish Darwin had read that fucking German bible he brought. Darwin, LEARN GERMAN. There is a dude named Mendel. Learn to read his shit! IT IS COOL. XD)

It’s not Darwin’s fault. Nobody read Mendel’s work until decades after Darwin had published Origin of the Species. Think of all the poor teams of scientists who struggled to figure out the mechanism of natural selection as described by Darwin, finally came up with a workable theory of genetics, and then, oops, turns out this monk did it like 80 years ago. Sorry, de Vries, sorry, Correns, you’re out of the history books.

And personally I prefer a “complex” society to one where I’d be stuck at the bottom of the human pecking order for life because God said so. Not that strictly hierarchal societies are really simple anyway. I just read Eco’s The Name of the Rose, which goes into a lot of real-life medieval politics in detail, and damn, that stuff was crazy complicated. The character who anachronistically argues for democracy and equality makes it sound a whole lot more straightforward than the existing system.

Simon
Simon
9 years ago

@Shora:

Oh, okay then! I misunderstood. And you are very welcome 🙂

Thanks, but I’m really leaving, it’s because you all write very fast and since next week I won’t have the time to post here for a while.

I do mean it, there’s nothing wrong with sex, or your desires, or you. I being very sincere when I say that I hope you will learn to accept yourself and not be afraid your sexuality.

Thank you! I guess I’m one step further that I at least now want to be able to accept it.
I’m urged not to tell something about my family but one more time: everything which my parents ever said about sex was bad (though they weren’t especially religious), very bad, my mother made bitter jokes about the horniness of men all the time. I remember someday I read something about the castration of sex offenders and that was horrible for me, because I really (believe me) thought “… and that’s the same stuff your *** pump into your veins, too.”. Yes, it was that bad. But I’m quiet now before I become too depressing for the others here.

Skyal
Skyal
9 years ago

Simon, I’m sad but not surprised your parents were like that. I suspected as much reading your posts. It’s hard, but possible to over come that kind of early conditioning. I hope you succeed

clairedammit
clairedammit
9 years ago

It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see It will be very interesting to see

Sorry, needle got stuck there for a second. I’ll be better about cleaning the LPs from now on, promise.

Eneya
9 years ago

Simon, all of my crushes have been “wow, that person is really smart and intelligent” proceeded with “oh, wow… I feel attracted towards this person”. OK, I am not everyone, so it’s just my experience. But one can have sexual relatiobships with people and the sexual is not a veil which blindes us or makes us do things because of the sexual solely.
Yes, there are people who enjoy sex for the sake of sex.
There are also people who like adrenalin as well… so… different people and nothing more.

I still think it will be best to speak with someone… a sexologist or someone else, in your own language, because at least it will clear some stuff out for you and locate some issues.
How about it?

Also… the only way the world could have been simpler in the past if people were… well… simpler. There are no huge spikes in intelligence or brain matter or anything like that indicating brains getting more complicated, thusw e getting more complicated, so that idea fails miserably.
Hell, 2, 000 years ago people lived as complex lives as today. You can check so many examples, books/texts/art…
Life has not been any more simple in the past. That’s just romantising it.
I now think with love for my childhood how much easier it was.but I also have journals of mine from that time… and it actually wasn’t easier… it still was complicated but my memory has glossed over the details.

Example.

ithiliana
9 years ago

@Simon: “The Great Chain of being” my medievalist friend tells me was EARLY MODERN concept; the medieval concept of the relationship between parts of society was more that of the body: i.e. the ruling class the head, the peasants the feet, etc. (VASTLY oversimplified). More organic, less herarchial–all parts necessary.

GCOB NOT medieval, OK?

p.s. Early Modern is term most historians today use for what used to be called “Renaissance” fyi.

Leila
9 years ago

Honestly could not stop laughing at this article. Comedy gold right here.

Kes
Kes
9 years ago

Is anyone else intensely jealous of the outfits worn by ladies on the covers of pulps? They always look so polished. And their hair! How do they do it?

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

I love the pulp artwork.

And their hair! How do they do it?

Artists!

Dracula
Dracula
9 years ago

Also wigs probably! In some cases.

Simon
Simon
9 years ago

@darksidecat:

Your statements also make no sense from most moral antirealism positions.

And from which one makes it sense? Because I think I am at least a moral antirealist.
Are you male or female, by the way? You are mostly addressed as male, but not always…

Kyrie
Kyrie
9 years ago

“Are you male or female, by the way? ”
That’s a question we often ask, although it is a very personal one. (What do your genitals look like? Do you have boobs?)
I’m struggling to find how it is a relevant one in a debate over moral.

ithiliana
9 years ago

@Simon: More advice. Don’t ask people on the internet personal questions.

And especially when it has no particular relevance to the discussion at hand.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Bagelsan: The captain could talk with his crew, but there was no way to be at all casual with them. Since he (and I am forgetting his name) thought that level of isolation was what drove his relative to suicide he advertised for a person who was interested in nature to come along (no expenses paid) as a companion/naturalist.

And reading German wouldn’t have helped. Mendel’s work was unknown. If there had been anyone who did know, it would have gotten back to Darwin. He maintained a vast, and vigorous, correspondence, which is why Wallace sent him the abtract of his theory, which Darwin was shocked by (in that it was so close to his own) and gracious enough to co-publish with him, when he had every possibility to just rush a paper out and claim it for himself.

He was a splendid person, so far as I can tell from my reading.

Magpie
Magpie
9 years ago

I think the Captain’s name was Fitzroy, and he went on to govern New Zealand.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

Okay, Darwin’s off the hook; I will proceed to scold Mendel. 😀

Simon
Simon
9 years ago

@Kyrie:

“Are you male or female, by the way? ”
That’s a question we often ask, although it is a very personal one. (What do your genitals look like? Do you have boobs?)
I’m struggling to find how it is a relevant one in a debate over moral.

I just wanted to know it, so that I use the right pronouns. I think darksidecat is female and I’ll address her now that way.

darksidecat
9 years ago

And from which one makes it sense? Because I think I am at least a moral antirealist.

Then you have been doing it wrong. If you are implying something is good or morally better than something else, or the reverse, you aren’t properly applying a moral anti-realist position. It is a pretty common trap for those who claim to be moral anti-realists. Consider, for example, your arguments regarding simplicity. Is ethical simplicity good? If so, why and how? Is someone wanted to sexually abuse your sister bad? If so, why and how?

I was assuming, given your positions about social majority opinions, that you might be some sort of cultural relativist, which is a moral realist position in a way (for example, if what is good is what the majority thinks is good, that implies that morality is a real thing, it is just a relational issue, like “hot” or “near by”)., but is sometimes not grouped as such in certain quarters.

On the sidenote about my gender, I am genderqueer and do not identify as either a man or a woman. My preferred pronouns are gender neutral ones, ze and hir (as a replacement for “he and him” or “she and her) or the singular “they”.

darksidecat
9 years ago

Edit to clarify, cultural relativism regarding ethics is a subjectivist ethical realism, whereas things like utilitarianism are an objective ethical realism. I.e. the things which are considered factors in the former vary between groups but the things which are considered factors do not vary between groups in the latter.

katz
9 years ago

I made Simon angry! What’s my prize?

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

I made him sad! I think I win this round.

Pecunium
9 years ago

If he sticks the landing, I think we all win.

Marie Curie, Jr. - the big ol' lesbo
Marie Curie, Jr. - the big ol' lesbo
9 years ago

Simon: Sorry, but why should I be a misogynist?

(I forget, sorry:) Good question. I can’t think of a single reason, dude. And yet you are one. Probably because you’re very stupid and easily led.

Simon: “Very stupid and easily led” ==(sufficient reason to assume you are a)==> MISOGYNIST

That’s what she meant in this context, don’t try to wiggle free by saying it was just meant as “cause and effect”.

……………………..
Me:
LOL – Simon, try it again. Misogynist ==(sufficient reason to assume you are)==>”Very stupid and easily led”

You have it exactly backward. Basic logic here, Simon.

Look, I have had it up to here with the idiocy of way too many people on & off this thread. Although, unfortunately, I am alone tonight, I am going to protest by masturbating while thinking about making out & having sweet, sweet [lesbian] sexytimes. [somewhat too specific reference readacted by DF]

I also encourage all the women on here to masturbate while thinking about sweet, sweet, lesbian sexytimes and/or actually have sweet, sweet, lesbian sexytimes.

It is, after all, the only logical response.

Straight Man Says
Straight Man Says
8 years ago

i am a straight man that had been married at one time myself, and it is very hard meeting another good woman for me today since they are so very nasty now. and there are certainly more LESBIANS than we ever had before hurting us innocent men. low life loser women now certainly exist, and there were much more good woman years ago that were very committed to their men as well. whatever happened today is beyond me. even the straight women that i have noticed are so difficult to start a normal conversation with, so you can clearly see what i mean by so many LOSER WOMEN TODAY.