MRAs, forever exploring new frontiers in victimology! The latest revelation: Apparently men are being intimidated into hitting on women in bars due to the mysterious, malevolent power of their femaleness.
Here’s Howsmydirktaste, putting this theory before the good folks in the Men’s Rights subreddit for some “peer review.”
[S]eduction aims to use a man’s desire against him by giving him the possibly false impression that he may have sexual relations with the seducer. By doing so he may make decisions that he might not otherwise make (buying a drink at a bar, paying for a purse, etc.)
So women are engaged in some vast conspiracy to extort drinks and purses from men they don’t want to have sex with?
I’m pretty sure that unless a woman is holding a sign that reads “I’ll have sex with you for a drink,” that you really shouldn’t assume that she’ll have sex with you for a drink.
Intimidation does the same; the prospect of physical, monetary or emotional pain subjects the subordinate into doing things they might not otherwise do. Both of these options result in the same consequence of the dominant one convincing the subordinate that it is in their best interest to do something that is not in their best interest.
So a woman sitting in a bar looking pretty is the equivalent of a mob enforcer.
Now morally: the main claim against male intimidation is that men, on average bigger and stronger, are being unjust by asserting a natural superiority. By doing so they have an unfair disadvantage.
Well, the claim is that when men act in an intimidating way towards women, they’re intimidating. Merely being larger than a woman isn’t a crime.
But sexually, don’t women have that same power? Men are genetically predisposed to look for mating opportunities in all women, and when a woman presents that opportunity, even the most iron-willed man could fall prey.
Apparently, we men are all at the mercy of our penises, and our penises are at the mercy of ladies looking sexy in our general vicinity.
Women don’t face that same situation; their requisite near-monogamy (because they can only have one child at a time, they are more selective in their sexual selections) means that male seduction does not hold the same sway.
Actually, the problem is that many traditional methods of “male seduction” actually involve real intimidation. And today there are a vast array of PUA sites out there offering updated versions of the old intimidating ways, teaching “pickup” techniques that are basically guides to date rape.
I think everyone here can identify a situation in which they or others have given undue attention or favor to a woman who seems a possible sexual partner. Doesn’t that result in the same affect as intimidation?
I’m going to step out on a limb here and say “no.”
Also they clearly have no concept of that fact that women do not all have the same sexual preferences and do not all think the same.
For the last time we do not have a hive mind!
Setting aside thenatfantastic’s boner-killing hypothetical scenario, I invite you to kindly remove your rape-goggles and enjoy this hot-off-the-presses illustration of seduction done right.
That is not what ignoring someone’s consent is doing and you know it. Even the most skeesy salesperson knows that you can’t just fucking take the money out of the person’s wallet and hand them the merchandise and call it done. That person has to hand the money over themselves for it to be legal.
Persisting when you encounter “countless objections” is taking the money out of the person’s wallet and throwing the shitty used appliance at the customer after the customer has said “Uh, no, I want to shop around for a bit.”
As others have said, not that a woman’s body is property, but for fuck’s sake, if you view it as a sales pitch then this just shows that PUAs are also really shitty salespeople.
To put it another way, when I was a temp and applying for jobs left and right, I read an article by a former salesperson turned hiring manager who said that it’s not a bad idea to “close” your interview, the way a salesperson would try to close a sale and ask your interviewer what you need to to say to convince them that you’re the right person for the job. I by no means think this is a magical job password, but last year when I was interviewing for my current position, I figured they already knew me since I’d temped for them before and had nothing to lose. So I asked “what do I need to say to show you that I’m the right person for this job?” they replied that they couldn’t give me a solid answer since I wasn’t the only one interviewing, but the fact that I asked that showed I was really interested and they really liked that. I got the job. So yeah, I “closed” that sale, but I did in a totally non-douchebag way. The PUA way would be to just show up for work at that office the next day and refuse to leave until they hire you (or escort you off the premises). I mean, they’d already talked to me on the phone a few times and even invited me to their place! That’s practically like saying they wanted to make me boss of everything but weren’t going to say so because well, you know, they didn’t want to seem desperate. /sarcasm
One method implies that you are aware that the other person has needs too (which is good for sales since, duh, the other person is buying) the other shows you don’t give a shit about anyone else as long as you get what you want. Which if nothing else is a really terrible attitude to have (and probably a really good way to ensure that that company won’t consider you for another position ever again).
Legally closing a sale is convincing someone without the use of force, threats of violence, or blackmail. Ignoring someone’s protestations is using force, period, and often it’s an implied threat of violence.
All this talk about how “women love to be dominated” has the distinct air of douchebags who assumed that the women they raped “dominated” just wanted him to “take the lead” because coming to terms with the fact that they’ve probably raped someone (possibly multiple someones) is too difficult for their delicate sensibilities.
The account of the douchemover who hand penetrated his date without consent where he details her shock sounds a HELL of a lot more like an account of a woman who submitted because she was scared because the guy obviously would not stop, rather than the account of a woman who was just dying to be dominated by a manly dominant man. That is the real inconvenient truth for you, I suspect.
Oh, did Nat kill your boner? One can only hope that this will force you to think with your brain instead for a while.
*sews boner-killing patch to feminazi boiler suit*
Can you tell the class why two people talking about sex and consent like grown-ups kills your boner Truthy? Enquiring minds wish to know.
Troof, please stop; I am starting to feel genuine pity that you think that being enthusiastically propositioned is unsexy.
Seriously, you really think communicating about sex is a turn-off? That’s … sad.
When you stop having to convince a partner that having sex is fun and they genuinely want to continue doing it, does that kill your boner too? Do you need to switch out partners before they get stale?
Anyone else finding Truthy’s insistance on hiding his links with tinyurl really fucking creepy? Why would I click on some creepy dude’s link when I don’t know where it goes?
I mean, chances are it just goes to some fucked up PUA shit (which is bad enough), but who knows?
Trutho Punchout just really, really wants to rape someone; that’s why consent is a boner-killer for him.
Also, not going to any of your tiny URLs, creep.
He he, ninja’d by ShadetheDruid!
I wonder if this “talking ruins everything, sex is only good if you make broad assumptions about what your partner wants and do it without their consent” rule carries over into other areas of life, too. Like, does Inconvenient Douche just inform his friends that they’re going to see a movie tonight and they better show up? Does he get mad when they talk about making plans and doing something that everyone would enjoy? The mind boggles.
I actually bit on the tiny url’s. They all lead to Heartiste. Almost every link AIT has posted on this site goes to Heartiste. It’s almost like he’s trying to tell us something…
Wow. Usually little rape apologist shits like you don’t come right out and say that women actually wanting to fuck them is a turn-off.
Troof, NO ONE here (or probably elsewhere) gives a good goddamn about your boner.
I read Truthy’s link (Heartiste AGAIN!). It’s discussing a half-hour long video in which a PUA ‘seduces’ a woman from Eastern Europe.
Here’s some choice quotes:
That’s totally not creepy at all. The video apparently ends the date with her going back to his apartment. Heartiste says of this:
Nope, not sleazy or rapey to say that any woman going to a man’s apartment WILL be having sex.
Note that in this video the PUA is a MoC, and the woman is Eastern European (Heartiste says at one point “she’s confessing her (rational) fear of ghetto black guys to… a black guy.”). Ever mindful of the reciprocal disgustingness of his audience, Heartiste puts the anal fissure on top of this shit-sundae of a post by finishing with this gem:
Charming.
Assuming he has friends, which if he’s at all like he is here, is assuming a lot.
@Gametime
No, he just accosts people on the street, pushes them into his car and drives them there. Silly.
“Chocobar?” NO ROISSY, YOU DON’T GET TO SKEEVE ME OUT USING CHOCOLATE, YOU FUCKER.
And then negs them until they pay for his ticket, as well as theirs. And popcorn.
That’s consensual cinema-going, they’re totally into it. Some
rapistdude on the internet told me so.He has to use a false name and set up a safehouse, though. It was totally consensual but these precautions are just in case his cinema ‘companions’ think otherwise.
I watched some of the video Truthie linked to so I’ll comment on a few things.
Heartiste’s over-analyzing makes it sound skeezier than it is, which is bad, since it is already skeezy in and of itself.
The guy apparently got someone else to film the street shots and the woman is clearly unaware that she’s being filmed. Then they go back to the guy’s room(I assume) and there is still filming going on. No mention of she having agreed to being recorded. Add to that the fact that he is constantly trying to push her boundaries and that it is an advertisement video, so he is just using the woman as a prop to sell his PUA scheme. It is extremely creepy.
[quote]I’d rather go to the dentist than fuck a PUA, and I really don’t like dentists at all.[/quote]
I don’t like dentists either but if it was that or fuck a PUA
@Dvärghundspossen: I totally want to move to Sweden now.
I’d rather walk on a high windy bridge with inadequate railings than fuck a PUA. And I’m terrified of heights.
Hey, this could be like the list of Things That Should Happen to Elam that was going a little while back. 🙂
@Nerdypants: Well, remember that I wrote that I was so happy about the reaction of my colleague’s, simply because so many other guys were like “It’s next to impossible to know if a woman consents to sex or not!” when the matter was heavily debated in media…