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.”
Gods. I need kitties after that. And I didn’t even follow those links.
http://youtu.be/ROF0Mcv5XSM
@Historophilia “Also what the hell was this magical “safety rule” that allowed her to make him stop?”
Why do I imagine it’s similar to the following:
PUA safety rule Number 1# If she gets ahold of something she can use as a deadly weapon while you are attempting to ‘seduce her forcefully’, run away for your own safety! Bitches be crazy, yo!
If only women were taught to be assertive, and that is perfectly acceptable to say “No” and get up and leave, and that your safety is more important than hurting a man’s feelings or giving him blue balls.
@thenatfantastic
Ugh, that story, and this quote.
So if he’d told her she was amazing and she’d said “um, thanks? all I did was tell you how to get to the train station”, and he’d then asked her out and she’d said “no”, or “sorry but I’m married” or “actually I’m a lesbian” then he’d have been satisfied with that? Somehow I doubt it, given that he’s framing this as if an approach from him would have guaranteed that she’d be his forever.
The whole thing is creepy for all the reasons you mentioned, but it’s his assumption that of course this complete stranger would go along with whatever plans he has for her if only he’d made those plans clear that really bothers me, because it reminds me of every incident I’ve ever experienced (or friends have experienced) where a man has acted first baffled and then angry that the woman he’s hitting on doesn’t actually exist purely to fulfill his needs.
“Bareback persistence” made me quite literally shudder, and now I feel like I need to go bathe in disinfectant. Thanks for reminding us that PUAs are horrible people, Truthy.
The thing about this argument that gets me is that, if it were true, it would mean that men should not form any kind of instinctive attachment to their children. And yet, these guys who argue that this is how men work will turn right around and bemoan the fact that men don’t get custody of their children enough.
And I wonder how the MRM creeps account for men who manage to love children that aren’t theirs, if it’s all about genetics?
But then love of any sort is beyond their grasp.
Lol no. Was that a neg or something? Sorry Truthy, guess you’ll just have to stay a “lowly beta” for now, because I wouldn’t touch your bait with a 3000 foot pole with a bucket of disinfectant on the end.
I’m sorry that everyone thinks you’re a horrible person, but you deserve it and I hope you fall into a vat of sticklebricks.
Well, yeah, if your confirmation bias is strong enough then pretty much everything will seem like a textbook example of the behavior you expect to see. This doesn’t mean that your interpretation is correct, it means that you need to see a shrink.
By the way, ‘Lol no’ is short for ‘every thing you read into that was wrong because a) you’re a terrible idiot who knows nothing about me, b) people don’t follow ‘textbook patterns’, c) ‘alpha’ and beta are meaningless terms both in biology and in PUA circles, since the definition changes more often than my underwear (and I’m a clean freak) and d) GAME IS FOR MORONIC TWITS WHO HAVE NO COMPUNCTION ABOUT RAPING PEOPLE, AND ARE THUS DISGUSTING ABUSIVE RAPIST MORONIC TWITS’.
There’s also the fact that you mentioned that you barely knew one of the “beta chumps”, and that he had in fact been actively pursuing you.
Therapy, Truthy – you should really look into it.
@PsychoDan: Yeah, as I pointed out before, there are plenty of perfectly valid criticism to throw against evo-psych, and that’s one of them.
All I wanted to point out is that there theories do NOT require that people actually think about or wish for chlldren when they have sex, so pointing THAT out is arguing against a straw man. But there’s plenty of other criticism to be made.
And the other one I hadn’t seen for about six months beforehand, and did not, in fact, ‘pedestalise’ me, but merely wanted to see if I thought we could be more than friends, then backed off when I said no. I didn’t cry on anyone’s shoulder, because I wasn’t sad.
I think Truthy thinks my ex was alpha because I described him as evil. He was evil, but not in the ‘fucking around and negging me’ TROO ALFA way, in the ‘was an average to middling partner then had a severe emotional breakdown after we’d been together for nearly four years and refused to get help, instead taking it all out on me’ way.
But, y’know, confirmation bias.
That’s really, really terrible.
I have a sunnier story. I just found out the other day that my male colleagues are pretty awesome.
For some reason the issue of sexual violence came up in the lunch room when me and a bunch of men were sitting there. I mentioned the discussion that was all over the internet and media like a year ago – some feminist politician had suggested that the rape law should be changed, so that it counts as rape if one partner did nothing to show that zie was consenting. As the law is written now, it takes the use of actual physical force, an explicit threat, or the abuse of somebody who was “in a helpless condition” (which means more or less unconscious on booze or drugs), or a victim below the age of fifteen if it’s gonna count as rape. So the story you describe wouldn’t actually be rape according to Swedish law, if he hadn’t really made a threat, but it was “merely” a very threatening situation.
So my male colleagues had somehow missed out on this entire debate, but when I explained to them the idea of a consent law they were like “Uh yeah that sounds reasonable”. I said “But there was extreme opposition from loads of guys who thought that it was completely preposterous that one would be demanded to make sure that the woman consents to sex before getting on with it… Everyone was like “Oh, if that were the law, poor innocent dudes could totally rape somebody by mistake! Because it’s SO DIFFICULT to know whether a woman really wants sex or not unless she screams NO I DON’T WANT TO HAVE SEX!”
So all my male colleagues were like “WHAT? Seriously? Did people say that? That it’s difficult to know if a woman wants to have sex with you or not? Like…. what do they mean? Do they ask her, and think she says “okay”, but afterwars they’re like “or maybe she said ‘no’?” [okay and no rhymes in Swedish] Or do they just STARE at the woman without saying anything and then they’re all like “She LOOKS like she wanna have sex with me” and then they just charge ahead?”
Everyone was laughing at how totally ridiculous it is to think that it’s difficult to know whether a woman wants to have sex with you or not.
Okay, this doesn’t really make them awesome, rather makes them normal decent human beings… BUT it seems to be SUCH A TERRIFYINGLY COMMON attitude among men that it’s really hard to tell the difference between a woman who’s consenting and one who’s not, that this reaction from my colleagues warmed my heart a bit.
Which would be my reaction too. Hand on heart, there has never been a point in my life when I haven’t been completely certain that full and enthusiastic consent was given. It really shouldn’t be hard to tell – and if it is, you either ask outright or just don’t do it.
And I suspect I’m not the only one who thinks that having sex with someone who doesn’t actually want to have sex must be a pretty unpleasant experience for both participants. After all, unless you’re some kind of sadist, or someone profoundly incapable of empathy, shouldn’t an unmistakable look of fear, hatred or revulsion on her part be a fairly massive turn-off?
But then again, my partner’s pleasure is an absolutely crucial ingredient for me, which puts me fundamentally at odds with most MRAs.
Pigga, please. Closing a hesitant buyer is not theft.
I would just like to recognize Truthy’s hard work here. It isn’t easy to be this stupid or evil; he really puts a lot of effort in. In recognition of that, Truthy, here is your certificate, suitable for framing.
Taking the money out of someone’s wallet because they didn’t actively tell you “No, you are not allowed to take money from me without my permission” is theft, though, and that’s what pretty much every PUA story boils down to.
(Obviously the framing of women’s bodies, or anyone’s bodies, as property to be negotiated over transactionally is gross and invasive and abusive and wrong, but since Truthster can’t even figure out the simple-ass implications of his own rapetastic worldview I thought I’d better stick to explaining how he’s wrong even if you accept his ugly assumptions.)
This is the stupidest analogy I’ve heard. There are any number of illegal ways to close a sale, so even if they don’t classify as theft, that doesn’t make them any less illegal or prosecutable.
I’m gonna smooth past that “Pigga please” just to keep from being overwhelmed with pity at the thought of you gleefully rubbing your hands over your selfperceived wit.
Aw, Truth, honey. A penis is not a defective car that you can only get off the lot by scamming customers until one of them gets fed up and calls the cops on you. At least, most people’s penises aren’t.
And there are a number of perfectly legal ways to convince fence-sitters to act, which is why Futterball’s blanket condemnation of all PUA sites that address LMR is idiotic.
Honestly, I’m pretty sure there is not a single PUA site on the web that doesn’t advocate some form of coercive, abusive behaviour, but even if there is the fact that Truth-banana is more concerned about how PUAs are getting lumped in with rape advocates than about how there are any PUAs advocating rape speaks volumes about his priorities.
Also, some day the “stop shaming men’s bodies” MRAs should really get together with the “men who don’t fit into my narrowly-defined conception of acceptable masculinity are worthless” MRAs and hash out their differences, because as it is they’re sort of muddling the message.
@Troof:
Link us.
Show us one PUA site that mentions LMR in a non-rapey way. Just one.
I mean, it’d take more than one example to actually convince anybody reasonable that the whole deal isn’t a clear-cut rape-enabling tactic, but I’m doubting that you can find a single one. So I want you to try.
I suppose it’s pointless to ask truthy whether “not technically illegal” should really be the benchmark of one’s morality.
My main hobby is going to public parks and whispering mean things at children playing until they cry. I mean, it’s not illegal. I don’t see why everyone is so fuckin’ judgemental.