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.”
This. More and more, it seems to me that the MRM is just a bunch of sadistic men who want to hurt women, who want to abuse us sexually and emotionally, and whose only pleasure comes from this.
NWO: Yep… that guy is suffering; his life has been ruined.
A former Xavier University basketball star, expelled for a student code violation but cleared of criminal charges, will be heading to the University of Maryland. Desmine Wells reportedly chose the Terps over Memphis, Oregon and Kentucky, according to CBS Sports.
Or maybe not, he had four schools recruiting him, even after Xavier expelled him.
Of course you want Xavier to be forced to not expel people; no matter what they think happened. The right of that institution to make its own decisions is null and void, so far as you are concerned, because a gov’t office disagreed with them.
Xavier has to listen to the gov’t, not their own conscience if they want to please you.
PUA?
A good new danger to learn of.
And the dangers never end.
There is one saying doods should pick up chicks in least competitive social groups where “You get paired up with one of these girls and are forced into locking eyes with her” http://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/kill-your-competition-with-this-obvious-tip-vt146782.html
“Forced into locking eyes”
These people are going to get friendzoned because they will not make the intention clear, and will become dangerous.
Easy.
That’s not a site, it’s a post by Roosh, who is well known for advocating rape.
0/10
I’m beginning to suspect that the inconvenient truth that our friend is hiding is that he doesn’t actually know what the word “rape” means. I also suspect that this is a deliberate choice on his part – if he learned what it meant he’d have to admit that he’s devoted his life to trying to make sure it happens as often as possible.
@An Inconvenient Truth
You really don’t understand what non-rapey means, do you?
Cassandra and Myoo, I think he knows exactly what rape is, and has a positive view of it.
That’s not a post by Roosh, sweetie.
You really don’t understand what consensual dominance means, do you?
Yeah, we do. But true to your unrelenting quest to further your exquisite fucknuttery, you and your PUA cohort don’t seem to know jack shit about consensual ANYTHING.
Sorry
douchecanoehoneybunch, they all blur into one big rape-advocating mass to me. Hmm, I wonder why that is…Sure sounds consensual to me!
Truthy, dear, ‘consensual dominance’ means ‘both/all partners have mutually and openly discussed and agreed on paramaters of dominance in specific and exclusive scenarios with safewords, and an understanding of what will happen’ not ‘BUTBUTBUT SOME
RAPISTPUA TOTALLY SAID SHE’D BE INTO ME FORCING HER TO DO SHIT!!!’.I mean, if your definition of consent is ‘an implicit assumption that chicks totally want this’, no fucking wonder you’re a movement of rapists.
Actually I do you sack of shit. And neither terms like “barebacking persistence” nor the tacit approval/support of stories that involve forcefully removing the clothes of and penetrating an unwilling partner have any legitimate place next to the word “consensual.”
Look, fuckwit, we’re all well aware of the studies that show that many men will admit to behavior that is legally (not to mention morally) rape/sexual assault as long as it isn’t called rape. Your bullshit, cutesy euphemisms aren’t fooling anybody.
Sex with you sounds almost as fun as filing taxes.
And you people call PUA approaches to seduction “transactional?”
Truthy, that’s how intelligent, well informed adults have sex yeah.
Intelligent adults know that communication is the single most important factor in having good sex.
So if forcing a woman to do things in bed without discussing that they are okay with her beforehand is your idea of “fun” then I expect that the plod will come knocking on your dorr before all too long.
OH NOES, A RAPIST THINKS IT WOULD BE BORING TO HAVE SEX WITH ME BECAUSE IT WOULD JUST BE TOO DARN DIFFICULT TO DO SOMETHING LIKE MAKE SURE I WAS INTO IT!
Woe is me. WOE.
Oh, no, a rapist doesn’t think sex with me sounds like fun!!! THE HORROR. I mean, HALLEFUCKINGLUJAH.
Would anyone else rather have nothing but “boring” sex for the rest of their lives rather than have sex with a PUA?
This is not difficult.
Person 1: “So, I’m really into tying people up, how does that sound to you?”
2: “Yeah, I’m way into that. Just make sure my wrists are in front of me otherwise it gets uncomfortable. Oh, and you can spank me if you want, but don’t pull my hair.”
1: “Awesome. If you want to stop, say ‘jellyfish’. So, shall we do this?”
2: “Hell yeah!”*
Or we could go with your scenario of “assumed submission” and just have Person 1 rape someone.
Yeah… so I know which one sounds more fun. (pssst, it’s not the rape)
(*Am I missing something when I do my taxes?)
Also note how in my hypothetical scenario above, it applied to one specific scenario (i.e. that sex right there) not ‘just treat a person like shit whenever you see them, it will totally make them want to get in your pants’.
Seriously. Consent. Truthy, can you please provide your definition of ‘consent’ for the class?
And Historophilia, I’d rather do nothing but filing taxes for the rest of my life than have sex with a PUA.
@thenatfantastic Sex with you sounds both safe and delightful! I would like to express my platonic admiration of your values!
I’d rather go to the dentist than fuck a PUA, and I really don’t like dentists at all.
Shit, is filing taxes supposed to be like having fun and consensual sex? I must be missing a deduction or something.
Yeah I am definitely doing my taxes wrong.
It just struck me that what these motherfuckers are saying is basically heterosexual intercourse is not fun if the woman doesn’t seem like she is making a concession to do it.
BARF BARF BARF BARF