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.
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)
(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.
@Shora:
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.
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.
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
Sorry, needle got stuck there for a second. I’ll be better about cleaning the LPs from now on, promise.
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.
@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.
Honestly could not stop laughing at this article. Comedy gold right here.
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?
I love the pulp artwork.
Artists!
Also wigs probably! In some cases.
@darksidecat:
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…
“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.
@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.
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.
I think the Captain’s name was Fitzroy, and he went on to govern New Zealand.
Okay, Darwin’s off the hook; I will proceed to scold Mendel. 😀
@Kyrie:
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.
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”.
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.
I made Simon angry! What’s my prize?
I made him sad! I think I win this round.
If he sticks the landing, I think we all win.
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.
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.