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.”
“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.”
So guys trying to score in bars is really about men looking for women to mother their children? No shit? A woman looking to score is really just thinking about motherhood? *Facepalm*
I hate to break it to you, Owly, but the reason that the colleges don’t use the same standard as criminal trials do is that it is not a criminal trial. It is a hearing to see whether it is safe for the campus community for the accused to attend the school. There are many circumstances in which the evidence is not strong enough for a criminal trial, but it is strong enough for people to not want them on campus.
I have no idea what you’re talking about with the video and the test.
Seriously, is it too much for him to provide a source link so I can know what perfectly reasonable idea he’s mangling beyond all recognition?
@ozy, There’s been some stuff on r/mr about mandatory videos on rape for incoming freshmen in universities. The part about needing to pass a test on them prior to admission appears to be an Owly invention.
Howsmydirktaste does not seem to understand the fundamentals of buying drinks for strangers. From an ex bar tender’s perspective buying a drink for a stranger is a salute to the recipient’s interestingness. Nothing more, nothing less. Having no expectations is pretty much the charm of it. It’s a pleasant gesture between strangers with the greatest social burden being upon the recipient to acknowledge and raise a glass to the buyer if the drink is accepted.
@lowquacks
It did come out, though. There are a few books and a handful of maps and tiles and such.
You don’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is dangerous enough to exclude them from a college, as going to college is a privilege.
You do have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty if you want to exclude them from places that are not a jail cell.
Not being able to go to a specific college is not the same as going to jail.
In other words, what ozy said. 😀
You know, the only time I can remember a complete stranger buying me a drink, the “stranger” in question was “a table full of seven happy, somewhat drunk German tourists” and “me” was “me and the other fifteen members of the mixed-gender chamber choir I was traveling around eastern Europe with at the time.” One of said German tourists was celebrating his birthday, so at their request, we sang him a song, and the table responded by sending us all over a round of the (very tasty) house schnapps.
So, basically, what I’m wondering here is did all sixteen of us have to fuck all the German tourists? Would we have to take turns, so that everyone who received a drink performed a sex act with everyone who chipped in to buy us drinks? Could we have just nominated seven of us as the designated sex-havers and assigned each to a randomly-chosen tourist? Or should we each have performed one-seventh of a sex act on each tourist, since each one of us only got one drink, but they all chipped in to pay for the group of us? This all seems very complicated!
(At the time, we resolved this dilemma by simply saying “Danke!” and raising our glasses to the German tourists, which they appeared to be perfectly fine with, but I realize now that we were intimidating them into buying us drinks with our sexy, sexy, choral-music-performing skills. I feel so ashamed now.)
Cloudiah: Yeah, a lot of schools are trying to do rape prevention education, which I am 100% behind (assuming, of course, it doesn’t pull any “only men are rapists, only women are survivors!” bullshit– which my school at least does not). Teaching people how consent works is important.
I remember watching a comedian, think it was Ben Elton, a few years ago now, who did a gag on this buying-a-woman-a-drink situation. Basically, he asked why guys though that buying a woman a drink entitled them to sex when that wouldn’t happen if they did it as a direct transaction: If I give you $5.50 will you sleep with me? I thought it was a good way of pointing out how stupid and insulting the expectation is.
Having been partnered for a number of years, I haven’t been to the pub solo or with female friends for over a decade. But one time I went, a guy asked me what I was drinking, bought me the drink, then disappeared into the night and I never saw him again. (He was pretty cute too, nice smiley open face.) Under MRA logic, I take it I now deserve to be raped because I never “paid” for that one drink.
So how does buying a drink for sex work when everybody shouts a round? is an orgy required?
anyone else find it funny how MRAs always accuse feminists of always making women victims and denying women agency and responsibility, yet MRAs do the exact same thing with men? Where are these dudes’ agency? I thought MRAs were against the stereotype that men think and are ruled with their dicks (and rightly so) Consistency be damned, as long as they make women look evil!
Btw, David if my IP address is changing its because I’m travelling right now. Just letting you know so you don’t think I’ve been hacked or something 😛
So, I don’t drink alcohol for various personal reason.
I’ve had guys AGGRESSIVELY try to get me to take drinks when I’m out at places. With my spouse (who is usually off at the restroom or something at that point).
It is my personal opinion that most douchebutt MRAs use alcohol to get women into a more suggestible mood (RAPE ALARMS GOING OFF NOW) so that they can get women to go home and have sex with them.
So basically, these guys are complaining that they HAVE to get women drunk so they can be easier to manipulate into sex instead of just jumping on the woman right at the club and raping her right there.
Gross.
First reason I have ever seen for having a drink.
And does it apply when it’s just a pub full of blokes?
It has to apply when it’s all blokes too, otherwise it’s misandry!
But that means TEH GAY and that’s misandry! :O
Gay or not-gay doesn’t count if it’s traditional Aussie mateship. 😉 as long as it’s in the sort of pub where they call out ‘ducks on the pond’ when a woman walks in.
How to tell if a news source is truly, unimpeachably objective and unbiased:
1. The website is called ‘New With Views’ and the URL has the word ‘opinion’ in it.
2. The writer is a ‘father’s rights’ blogger who also writes for World Net Daily.
3. The website has links to stories about chemtrails and the fucking flouride threat, and a banner ad for buying gold.
Great stuff as always, Owly!
Wait, wait, wait. People were talking about D&D and I missed it?! Sadface.
Dear MRAs
If it makes you feel any better, I don’t want men buying me drinks. I get anxiety attacks, and to be frank that one time with the spiked orange juice was enough (I was lucky; all that happened was I failed at Mario Kart and had a terrible hangover).
You say that women make you buy drinks for them, but I have a radical idea: you have free will! YOU ARE THE MASTER OF YOUR PENIS! You don’t have to obey its commands! Be free!
Best wishes, CWS
PS. How did this work back in the cave people days before bars and stuff?
@CWS good question, I don’t know how people partnered back then before there was agricultural and pastoral-based economies and related property ideas. Maybe people partnered up on the basis of choice?
Clearly this dude has been intimidated into flying halfway across the world to
stalk the shit out oftrack down the ‘pretty Irish girl’ he asked for directions over a year ago and has beenentitlement wankingthinking about ever since.There is not enough contempt-vomit in the world to describe how I feel about this creeper.
I studied victimology for a while. It’s the study of why some people are more likely to become victims than others, looking at the media portrayal of victims, people’s fear of being victimised and the police/criminal justice system’s procedures and schemes to make victims safer and happier with the process as a whole.
Although the MRAs could probably get on board with the earliest victimologists, who only studied the first question, and usually concluded that it was the victim’s fault. This included one dude who found that most rape victims brought it on themselves, including some who were under three. When asked about this, he said something along the lines of “well, infants are not usually sexually aggressive”.
…hey Owly, did you work doing research in Chicago in the early 60s?