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.”
Following on from my earlier comment about almost feeling sorry for those who buy into Roosh’s melodramatic hogwash about relationships, I just don’t understand how some people seem to exist in the real world thinking that intimate relationships are a series of passive aggressive digs at a person with the genitals of their preference in order to ‘trick’ each other into doing things they don’t want to do. Do they really not conceive of just mutually liking a person and wanting to make them happy?
It kind of makes me sad, then once more I realise that they’re evil little goblins who should be hidden away in the attic of society.
@ Shiraz:
To be fair, saying that somebody is “genetically predisposed to look for mating opportunities” does NOT equal saying that somebody actually WANTS to have babies. One can picture a situation where evolution has caused women to be attracted to just the, well, strongest or most successful or whatever, guy around and be unattracted to all other guys, because historically, women who behaved this way had a higher ratio of children who survived to an adult age and could further reproduce. This does not imply that women, even on some subconscious level, WANTS to have babies when they have sex. This evolutionary mechanism would work just fine as long as women had the above-mentioned attraction-pattern and there was no birth control around, and as long women actually took care of their babies once they were born. But actually wishing for a baby wouldn’t be required.
The same point can be made about the claim that men are genetically predisposed to sleep around. One can picture a situation where evolution has caused men to sleep around as much as they possibly can with women in a fertile age, because historically, men who did this spread their genes more. Once again, this evolutionary mechanism would only require that men are horny sex beasts ready to fuck anything which is young and female, that there was no birth control around, and that women generally took care of the babies once they were born. No actually WISH to spread his genes is required.
I’m just saying this because I think it’s bad form to argue against straw men. There’s plenty enough to criticise about evo-psych anyway. Like the fact that lots of the claims thrown around in popular media can’t really be falsified. Regardless of how human behaves one can always come up with some evo psych story explaining why that particular behaviour has been selected for.
@Dvarghundspossen
But your scenarios assume that human’s behaviours are purely a result of genetics and evolution and that there’s no socialisation. I don’t think it’s a straw man to mock the idea that any sexual connections that ever occur are a result of your genes and you had little to no choice in the matter, which is what I took from Shiraz’s comment. I’m not having a go at you, i just don’t think it’s a strawman.
“Bareback persistence,” huh? You bastards will seriously twist your words as hard as you can to avoid the simple truth that you’re advocating rape. Although Truthie is an asshole who will ignore this, I’ll spell it out again. If you force a person into a position where he or she CANNOT say no, you have raped that person. Ignoring a person’s explicit boundaries is sexual assault.
The only “obligation” I’d say someone receiving a drink should do is to say thank you. And I shouldn’t even call it an obligation, but instead just say it’s better manners. But a simple thank you is plenty for someone who does a kind gesture like buying you a drink. Someone who believes they’re entitled to sex just for buying a drink are like people that believe that the more expensive a date is, the more they are “owed sex” for paying. They are the same ones who put up a big stink about having their date go dutch, because then what are they going to hold over their date’s head later? Ugh.
I think they have one on taking a shower before you leave the house.
@natfantastic:
Well, pointing out that human beings are heavily affected by culture, and that sexual behaviour vary from country to country and from time to time, is a totally valid criticism against evo-psych.
I just think that “people don’t think about having babies when they’re trying to get laid” is arguing against a straw man – but there are PLENTY of other totally valid criticisms that can be made.
@An Inconvenient Truth: I like the fact that this “girls’ tricks for scoring free drinks” article is making rounds amongst the MRAs. If it means fewer MRA-types will buy women drinks from now on, I think that’s a win-win.
@howardbannister:
I think you can find some advice that’s pretty sensible, but those things will always be gender-neutral and work equally well for anybody. Like, I read an interview with Neil Strauss where he said it’s better to start a conversation by asking a question rather than giving a compliment. It’s simply easier to get a conversation going if you start by asking something.
That’s not creepy, and seems pretty sensible, but should apply equally to all genders and orientations.
I read some other guy who pointed out that when talking to somebody who’s really hot, you shouldn’t make the mistake of just standing there drooling like an idiot, but you should pay attention to what the person says. Also sensible advice. And applicable to all genders.
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth: Shhhh! Don’t give hints!
There’s actually five or six tips off the top of my head that aren’t particularly creepy. But our lad there has an astonishing inability to tell creepy from non-creepy. Heck, on another thread he was just saying that ‘keep sticking it in’ is a good way to negotiate condom-free sex, and he doesn’t see why we would possibly call that rape.
(cuz it’s rape?)
The point of the exercise isn’t to make him examine the tenets of his doctrine closely–he’ll never change. It’s to show everybody watching that he’s a dangerous man who believes that, well, rape isn’t, and he can do what he likes.
I will say that this cultural expectation that a man is buying sex from a woman when he buys her a drink is the reason I never have guys buy me drinks. I outgrew the bar scene ten years ago, but when I did hit the bars, I liked to flip the script and offer to buy the guy a drink. Their reaction to that was a pretty decent early indicator of their general attitude.
@thebionicmommy:
I also think it’s good manners to say “no thanks”, if somebody you’re totally not interested in asks if you want a drink. I know some women think it’s cool and feminist to accept the drink and immediately ditch the guy. I’ve never understood this. I mean, maybe he was an entitled asshole, and in that case you can argue that he got what he deserved, but then maybe again he was a perfectly decent guy who just thought that asking a woman if she wants a drink is a good first move. And in that case, it’s just polite to let him know straight away that you’re not interested, by saying “no thanks”.
And I’m NOT implying here that you somehow owe the guy anything if you do accept the drink, obviously you can decide anytime during the evening that you weren’t interested after all… I’m just saying that IF you know from the START that you don’t want anything to do with the guy, and he asks you for a drink, you should just say “no thanks”.
(If the guy goes ahead and buy you a drink anyway he’s just stupid and that’s his problem.)
Bareback persistence? Bareback persistence?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Troof: “I am better than the OP b/c I personally make sure all my transactional sex is COD.”
nat: “Nobody here wants to hear about your transactional sex.”
Troof: “OH YEAH WELL YOU’RE A SLUT!”
Heh. I don’t drink alcohol, so when I’m in a bar, I’m drinking club soda. It’s kind of amusing to see a guy trying to buy you a drink and then finding out you’re drinking for free (the refills are free, and some places will even give the club soda or water for free to encourage designated drivers) so he’s SOL. Of course, I could envision some of them turning nasty and trying to insist on buying something, but thankfully that’s never happened to me.
Sure, that sounds reasonable. I mean if the woman knows he is buying the drink as a way of flirting, it’s more polite (not mandatory, of course, because manners are not laws) to just decline the drink and let him know she’s not interested. If there’s any doubt, I also think it’s okay to flat out ask him “Hey, are you offering me a drink as a way of flirting or just as a platonic, friendly gesture?” It can be awkward to say things like that, but at least there is less room for people misinterpreting each other. These manners would the other way, too, and for anyone of any gender offering to buy a drink for someone else.
I think the easier way is for a person to go up, say “hi, I think you’re a cutie-pie, can I get you a delightful beverage?”
You all make talking to people you’re attracted to (or people in general, for that matter) sound easy. 😛
Any chance these pigs would do all women a favour and leave us alone? Just go away. We don’t want you, and we’re not that stuck for a drink.
Personally, I’d rather be dead in a ditch than accept anything from these crazies.
Offering to buy a drink is a friendly gesture that expresses interest (not necessarily sexual) in conversation and generosity. My partner and I are sometimes treated to drinks by people in the club we frequent, and it’s clearly not a sexual overture on anyone’s part. But we always get the second round. And if we’re not interested in talking to someone, we politely declne.
Back in the days I was dating, I didn’t expect the guy to buy me a drink, but if he didn’t offer to buy the first drink, I took it as a sign of (1) lack of interest, or (2) cheapness. And of course, I always paid for the second drink if I was interested in continuing the conversation.
@Shade
Well, I figured that if you’ve already got the courage up to make an overture you may as well use that courage to ask them what kind of overture they’d like to drink.
Me! Me! I’m that guy!
The idea behind defiling and preserving was that any wizard could cast, say, magic missile (which was about your weakest spell) and take energy from the environment to add oomph to it. The result was wilted plants, starving or dead animals, and desertification. That’s defiling. Preserving was choosing to forgo that extra oomph. It was a kind of Captain Planet thing, except I don’t think it had an anvilicious conservationist message.
So people being assholes, as they are, and player characters being power-hungry, as they are, the world of Dark Sun is pretty much all desert now, and ruled by the most powerful sorcerers, who are all immortal, and the Dragon-King of Tyr, who’s the only one who actually changed into a dragon.
They didn’t support it with 3.x, but there was a sourcebook and monster book for 4E.
I’ve played shitty homebrew systems before. The most recent was Boring World. Nothing but shallow swamps and four cities, with no dungeons or nothing in between. The Plot would advance when our characters fell asleep and dreamed, while in the waking world we were wandering about on drudge work. And the GM would not tell us anything, but make everything a puzzle that we had to figure out and guess at answers. No fun 🙁
I didn’t even insinuate she was a slut. I just pointed out that she presented a textbook example of female behavior as described by the PUA community: fellating an “evil” man for half a decade while two pedestalizing eunuchs worked up the nerve to express their ‘feelings.’ I bet at least one of those beta chumps provided a dependable shoulder to cry on about how awful her lover was.
Like I said, it’s hilarious.
“pedestalizing”
You do know that pedestalising someone is not a good thing, right? I don’t want a relationship with someone who thinks I’m some kind of amazing god-flower. I do fart occasionally.
Also, Thenatfantastic had said she’d just gotten out of a relationship at that point (for at least one of the guys). That’s not a good time to ask someone out because people need time to wound-lick.
So women are dangerous because they elicit sexual thoughts and feelings in men by virtue of being female-bodied and existing. And how quickly we go from this basic psycho-social complex to “women are corrupting good men”, and “women who let me buy them a drink will maybe sleep with me”, to “women who let me buy them a drink owe me whatever sex it is I am seeking”, and “all women are prostitutes and whores because they will have sex with men who buy them a drink, and that man can’t possibly always be ME”…. aaaand right back to “Women use their bodies to elicit BAD FEELINGS in good men (and trick them into buying them drinks)”.
It ain’t healthy. It’s misplaced aggression caused by being unable to own your own sexuality. If sex is dirty, even if you like it, then being turned on by another person is perceived as an act of aggression in itself — even though the entire “attack” occurs solely by and within the mind of the person who has been aroused.