So someone on Reddit posted a video showing time-lapse video of a girl from infanthood to 12 years old. Naturally, Redditors responded with creepy pedophilia jokes, and one Redditor (speaking for many, judging by the numerous upvotes) took the opportunity to complain about just how hard it is for dudes to not have sex with underage girls. Apparently these girls deliberately develop earlier than boys as part of an elaborate plot to entrap guys and send them to jail.
Thanks to ShitRedditSays for pointing me to this latest bit of egregious Redditry.
Just because women are attracted to men who make good providers, it doesn’t mean we don’t take other characteristics into consideration. My husband is the nicest guy I know, and I have a thing for nice guys. After the initial attraction comes bonding. It’s why couples stay together through thick and thin. BTW, my husband knows his ability to provide was essential.
Honestly people, calm down.
The way you know your ability to be pretty is essential? That sounds like a very sad way to go through life. That’s just my opinion though. And maybe you would be happier commenting somewhere else, where other people were more calm. Since everyone here is so un-calm.
Anything but admit the truth that you’re the only one here who’s sexually attracted to wealth.
I mean, the only thing, at this point, keeping me from saying “Sorry, I was too busy fucking my girlfriend, run that back for me” is that she’s in Denmark. You’re an idiot.
Yeah, sorry Ruby, but my dating history clearly demonstrates a preference for looks rather than wealth/provider ability. At some point you’re going to have to admit that even though this theory appeals to you because it’s true for you, that doesn’t make it true for all women.
Wimminz be so hysterical! Except for special snowflake Ruby, who can be counted on to keep a level head and not take things personally.
Except, there was nothing to take personally, because none of us resemble the women she keeps going on about.
You’re writing as though none of us know — or are — women.
Oh, did you pair bond with your husband after he increased his value to you? Was that before or after he negged you? This is cute.
Hey Ruby, I’d love to increase my apparently quantifiable sexiness in order to snag a provider who’s prolific enough to be able to shower me with bonbons all day every day. In pursuit of that, I was wondering how natural prettiness is weighed against artificial measures taken towards that (makeup, shaving, etc.)
Ruby, please tell us more about what women like. None of us could ever know.
Are women who don’t go for a man’s money defective or just stupid in your (limited) view?
Bee, if by cute you mean painful and pathetic!
Ruby, will he dump you when your looks fade, or will you just slink off to the woods to die of ugliness?
I wouldn’t say “we” since all the women here seem disagree with you. No one here felt attracted to their partners because they were “good providers”. Are they lying and not know how they really feel? If cis women are goldiggers and that how they just biologically are why do so many cis women not feel attracted to the biggest provider in the room?
But the real question is does he know that he married you because you were the “most attractive women he could afford”?
Oh and why do women need a man to provide for them? I mean you being a feminist and all surly you don’t think all women need a man to take care of them right? Right?
(I am still not even sure how your weirdass theory is suppose to apply to me as a bi dude or any other queer person. I guess we are like unicorns or some shit. XDXDD)
hehehe
I guess she didn’t think hard enough about trying to include her theory into her own life!
Ruby, as a gay/bi guy who’s just celebrated my 5 year anniversary (I’m 25 so this is pretty much my longest relationship) with my boyfriend what should I be most worried about losing? My provider-ness or my good looks-ness? Or have we bonded now and this is no longer an issue? How long does it take for this bonding to happen exactly?
Yes but how good a provider can he be if he can only afford pretty and not a beauty?
My boyfriend is richer than me, but he doesn’t provide much of anything. I’m still paying all my own bills.
Is he really a “provider” then?
Oh! Is it because I’m bi that I lack the fuck-a-provider gene?
I can absolutely understand it if someone has good reason to worry that they won’t be able to provide for their family – a chronic disability, for example – or if they just have a deep desire to stay home with the kids or pursue a particular career that doesn’t tend to pay well. It makes sense that someone in those circumstances might be more likely to rank “good provider” among important traits to look for in a partner. But, y’know, that’s entirely gender-neutral. Why on earth female millionaires are supposed to give a shit about their partners’ ability to earn piles of money (and poor men are not) is beyond me.
Ruby is totally impervious to both logic and facts. It would be impressive, if it weren’t so … NOT impressive.
People! We also know that Ruby will be traded in for a new model as soon as her looks fade, like Gawd intended.
(according to her model)
Seriously though Ruby, evolution is only a small part of choosing a mate. You also have nuture: your families values and culture: the dominant cultural values and where you fit in in terms of religion, socio economics. Then you have your personal values, beliefs and experiences. But whart really determines what you do? Now. Exactly where are you, how do you feel about the situation, who is around you, is this a good day or a bad one?
ALL of the previous experiences come together and influence the now, which is a very contextual and subjective and individual experience.
Your evo psych is just a very tiny piece of a very complex puzzle, as anyone in the field researching it will tell you.
They haven’t found that gene yet in queer people because I mean queer people are abnormal and can’t be considered in the worldwide explanation for attraction! They found the length ring/index finger queer gene though!!!
/mocking obvious double standard in evopsych
Nomless: I missed this: Like the butt ugly hairy mary’s @ radfem.
If you, and the MGTOWs are going your own way, what do you care what they look like.
Hell, even if you aren’t, what does it matter to you (or you to Hecuba)?
That’s the short of shit that makes us laugh at the idea that MGTOWs are going their own way. They still care about the people they claim to be, “leaving”.
Sexual assault really has nothing to do with entitlement. It has to do with a desire for power and dominance.
In your statement is the very thing you deny. Those men feel entitled to be dominant of, and to exercise power over women. They use sexual assault to make it easier.
@Pecunium: If you still think I’m an aspie poser, the shrink who gave me my diagnosis back in ’91 was Dr Alan Unis. You can google him; assuming you know how to use it.
Ooph. That hurt. Take a look above, or at the links in the ebonics thead. That you are all offended that I questioned your case zero level diagnosis bothers me not at all.
That you think accusing me of being unable to do research (even so basic as Google) is facile, and futile. As I tell others, you need to be able to make the point touch the target. That you may be able to research the name of an early proponent of the diagnosis doesn’t make the convenience of your claim, nor the problematic dating any more credible.
No Shaenon, the radfeminazi’s actually ARE bitter hairy mary’s and come to think of it, MGTOW are the male equivalent. I just think that this blog should try to balance out and give those radfeminazi’s their fare share of belittlement and mockery.
Why? Are the radfems being misogynist?
Are we mocking the MRM/MGTOWs/Misogynist for being ugly?
If they were, and we were, your complaint might have merit, but they aren’t, and we don’t so you are asking for an exception to policy.
One that would be predicate on Dave choosing to become as the people he mocks is.
In short, to betray the principle of the blog, just to make you happy; which would also give legitimate grievance to the people being justly mocked.
Nice try, we aren’t that stupid.
The people he mocks are.
Damn first draft writing.
@Smoker,
Pretty much those. I don’t give a shit about men (or women for that matter) who get “fooled”.
@ Ruby
That is the saddest thing I have ever heard. I feel bad for both of you.