Just another day on r/mensrights, dealing with the terrible injustices facing men today in a thoughtful and compassionate way.
Categories
We Hunted The MammothBucking the Backlash
We Hunted The MammothJust another day on r/mensrights, dealing with the terrible injustices facing men today in a thoughtful and compassionate way.
Maybe concealed carry, but every state in the union is 21 to drink.
Doesn’t your wall of text break the Brandon Challenge rules? Lotta “I” in there.
Thanks, Pecunium, for the image of Brandon at a play party.
“I’m here, why is no one paying attention TO MEEEEEEEE?”
What has Boston ever done to you? Why are you trying to curse it with a Brandon? Whatever it was, Boston can make it up without hosting something awful like a Brandon.
Handguns are 21, across the board.
Bostonian…. Boston is already cursed with a Brandon. I like Boston, I was at Arisia, and seeing some friends, just a few weeks ago.
I’m sorry that him being in Boston makes you sad. If it makes you feel better, sometimes Boston has Pecunium.
Actually, it does make me feel better that sometimes Boston has you. I just felt bad for anyone at a play party who would encounter someone like Brandon.
There is that. I can’t see him surviving the screening process at any of the play parties I know of. His boundary issues, and failure to understand what consent means are enough to keep him from staying, even if he could manage to get in.
@Kendra: Because you are either legally an adult…or your not. We shouldn’t have “Legal adult…but can’t drink, own a handgun, or be a prostitute”. Either the state grants you the ability to be treated as an adult, or it doesn’t. Do we really need some stupid caste system for deciding when people can engage in adult activity?
I can see it now:
“Oh you are capable enough to vote, handle a weapon for the state (e.g military)…but we don’t think you are capable enough to have a beer or privately own that same weapon you used in the military”
“Doesn’t that seem contradictory?”
“No of course not…because when you handle a weapon for the state, you are actually a different, more mature person then when you are just a private citizen.”
@Viscaria: I never said all women were old, haggard, jealous harpies. But some women are. Radicalhub has a whole bunch.
Also there are women in the 18-21 year old range that specifically date older men. Then there are older men that like to date 18-21 year olds…seems like they both want each other. Who are you to tell them otherwise?
@Hellkell: This isn’t about valuing looks or money MORE…it is about valuing looks or money PERIOD. Basically just seeing those things as a positive characteristic of someone and not a negative. The order in which they can be prioritized is going to be different for each person.
@Pecunium: umm…no. But having a bunch of money most likely wont hurt your chances with dating or sleeping with women to the extent that being poor will.
Again, this isn’t about looks or money overriding peoples ability to reason or critically think. And it doesn’t exclusively mean that men or women will continue to be around another person solely because they have money or looks.
We are all shallow. You, me, everyone else reading this, every human on the damn planet…is shallow to a certain extent. Some more than others.
Yes, what people like is widely varied. The point is that more people will select “physical attractiveness” more than “morbidly obese”, “ugly”, or ‘foot fetish”.
Again, this isn’t about looks or money overriding peoples ability to reason or critically think
Then why did you say that it wasn’t about relationships, but, “attraction”. Further clarifying that men like younger women (18 year old Madonna vs. 30 year year old Madonna), but women like money (guy with no money, same guy with money*).
And your definitions are tautological… People will choose what they think is attractive, be it youth, girth, lack of hair, unshaven armpits. You are presuming your preference is normative.
It’s not.
What makes you shallow isn’t that you have preferences, it’s that you deny them to be personal, and try to universalise them, and you arguing that anyone who doesn’t share them is an exception. The rest of us accept that people are people, and what they like is what they like, and that there isn’t any, “objective” standard.
You, don’t.
*The male corollary could be money (more specifically net worth). If you take the same man and show him with his net worth (say…$100K vs $1Million), more women would choose the higher net worth.
@Pecunium:Because this is about attraction..,not relationships. It is about what draws people in and makes them think positive things about people, it isn’t about what makes people commit to one another.
You keep trying to define what I am saying as “all men are attracted to younger women”. When my argument is “The majority of men are attracted to younger women”. Also, the argument isn’t “all men are attracted to younger women at the expense of older women”. It is “The majority of men will be attracted and notice younger women more than older women”.
I have a lot of preferences that I don’t say everyone has. Personally, I like girls with red hair. But I can still acknowledge that more men like blondes and/or brunettes.
People are people, but we are all bound by genetics and human psychology. We may all have different preferences, but those preferences aren’t unlimited.
I am not making the claim that there is an objective standard. I am however claiming that more men are attracted to younger women then to older women. That most men that are attracted to older women are also attracted to younger women (but not vice versa).
So back up your claim. Got any studies or anything else that doesn’t come from daytime TV?
Your ass is not a proper source.
Brandon: You keep saying, “As a rule men are attracted to younger women”.
Support it.
As to the attraction issue… you are making the claim that money = sexy, the same way that age does. Actually you are making the claim more broadly, in that the same guy, according you gets more sexy based not on age, or clothes, or getting a new haircut, but rather for having a bigger wad of bills.
I am not making the claim that there is an objective standard.
Yes you are.
objective: adj
1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions are there objective moral values?
2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias
3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.
I am however claiming that more men are attracted to younger women then to older women. That most men that are attracted to older women are also attracted to younger women (but not vice versa).
That’s an objective claim. “More men are attracted to younger women than older women”, to which you add the corollary, (but not vice versa).
That’s three objective claims.
So, got some evidence for that that? Something with a good working definition, and controls to deal with the problem of those who are looking, vs. those who are stable, and so not in the pool of people who will answer surveys about, “what do you look for in a new sexual partner”.
Also, can you make it universal, and factor out the issues which aren’t genetic (i.e. the cultural ones). Don’t forget to factor in the cultural norms of times past, esp. when dealing with body types; e.g. Ruebens, Titian, Gibson Girls, the prehistoric Venii of Central Europe).
You are making claims about all of humanity, so you need to work with all of humanity, not just the US/European culture which dominates the visual media you see.
When you say, “more ‘x’ are ‘y’,and it’s hardwired into our genes” that’s the scope of your claim. A cursory look at cultures outside modern America show it to be a false one.
Who am I to what where what the fuck are you talking about, dude? You are seriously confused, or possibly just being extremely disingenuous. I do not care if younger women are sleeping with older men. They can sleep with whoever the fuck they want, it’s their call. Much like it is my call, as a 22 year old, to sleep with my 37 year old boyfriend.
Jeeeeeeesus.
David pwned Brandon!
David pwned Brandon!
David pwned Brandon!
David pwned Brandon!
* * *
A fair number of “I”s sneaking back in there, I notice, and the topic is one that Brandon has rehashed over and over and over again.
I’m betting he slips off the “make it about something other than yourself” pretty damn soon, because it’s clear that while he’s talking about “men” it’s really all about him.
And Pecunium is pushing him hard to realize that, ahahahahahahahahaha
Oh, and:
David pwned Brandon!
Because I’m a goddamn glutton for punishment, I’m going to try this again. You’re saying “there are women in the 18-21 year old range that specifically date older men,” and you’re also saying “there are older men that like to date 18-21 year olds.” Do you think there are 18-21 year old men who want to date older women, or older women who want to date 18-21 year old men? If not, why. What is different about women and men that makes two of these preferences reasonable, and the other two impossible?
Also there are women in the 18-21 year old range that specifically date older men. Then there are older men that like to date 18-21 year olds…seems like they both want each other. Who are you to tell them otherwise?
Who has that they can’t? What we’ve been saying is this is a problematic paradigm and to pretend it’s not, and the motives of all men who advocate and promote the idea that older man/younger woman is benign and harmless, because nature and evolution is disingenuous.
ithiliania: It’s not that I am aiming to do that… it’s just that we are dealing with Brandon, and he’s a narcissist, with the introspection of a rock.
So when pressed on his logic, the apparently inherent, “because I think so” which seems to underlie all his opinions will come to the fore, because he is unwilling to use outside sources/submit his thinking to rational analysis.
Brandon: Do you not see the difference between “older men date younger women because evolution” and “older people of all genders may date younger people if they so wish, and good for them”?
@Pecunium: An objective standard would be “all men like blonde women, 20 years old, with a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 and an IQ of 111”. The whole point of an objective standard is that it is very specific. My argument is more relative. The point is youth is valued by men. Just in the same way “confidence” and “humor” are valued by the majority of women. Sure, I bet you could find a small number of women that like weak-willed, boring men but the majority of women do not want those kinds of men. Now just replace women with men and confidence/humor with looks.
I am sure you will dismiss any source I link to. I can link to sources that help my position and you can link to sources that help yours. In the end, neither of our opinions will change.
Again, I am not making claims against all of humanity. I am not saying “all men” or “all women” or “every human being on the face of the earth”. My argument deals with a subset of the population. The “majority of men” does not equal humanity. With women making up 51% of the population. And to qualify as the “majority of men” one only needs 50% of the men. That means I am talking about roughly 24-26% of the human population. Hardly all of humanity.
@Viscaria: You say you do not care, but Pecunium sees those relationships as suspect. One can not say they do not care but sees those relationships as suspect or with any form of suspicion. Not caring equals indifference and suspicion does not equal indifference. Get it? Seeing something with suspicion is mutually exclusive with being indifferent and not caring about it. By suspecting it, you do care about it.
La la, still ignoring the fact that women care about men’s looks too, that’s not important because it doesn’t serve my point as Brandon The Wise, la la.
HA! “I can link to sources, but it wouldn’t solve anything.” Fabulous dodge, weasel-boy.
You can look at something with a suspicious side-eye and still not really care about, oh Master of Nuance. Only someone as thick as you would come up with that.
It’s the damnedest thing. Every time I try to read Brandon’s posts, I end up nodding off. Weird.
If no one’s minds will be changed… why are you bothering?
Brandon’s argument suggests that the average man would be interested in a weak-willed, boring woman. Otherwise, why specify gender?
He’s bothering because he’s Brandon, and to him, the mere act of him speaking is enough to change minds. Reality be damned.
He’s got a penis and a keyboard, and he wants us bitches to RECOGNIZE.
Pecunium, I had no idea we were the same person! That’s kind of awesome for me, you have a bunch of neat accomplishments. All I can really offer you is a messy house and a halfway-decent singing voice. Well, and a pretty sweet stuffed animal collection.
Brandon: You don’t understand what objective means. I tried to help you, since it seemed you might have been unclear. What it seems now is your ignorance is willful.
Objective means it can be measured against. It’s not the same as absolute. X is better than Y is an obejective standard if both X and Y are measurable.
Most men are taller than women, is an objective standard. Most Americans prefer vanilla ice cream to pistachio is an objective standard. They are testable, and measurable.
So to is, “most men prefer younger women”. I explained to you why the objective standard you are asserting doesn’t work; because the measures to test your standard (Men, as a rule, prefer younger women, and it’s an evolutionarily created trait).
You decided you didn’t wan’t to attempt to engage it. You quit the field.
Your dodge on the issue (that all you need is 25.1 percent of humanity) is ignoring that you aren’t looking at present humanity, but all of humanity, across time. That’s because you didn’t say it was a cultural standard (which you would be in a better position to defend), but an evolutionary one.
Again, you aren’t reading for content. It’s almost as if you don’t care about the responses, because your mind was made up before you started.