So over on MGTOWforums, the regulars are pondering the age-old question – should these committed women-avoiders deal with their continued desire to stick their penises in the women they’re allegedly avoiding by resorting to prostitutes?
In the midst of a lively discussion on the advantages of “going pro” over trying to pick up a “bar hog,” one regular by the nom de internet Xtc sets forth some thoughts that, for a moment at least, seem to transcend the usual MGTOW crudity and bitterness.
“I don’t think it’s really about sex,” he writes. “I think what a lot of people are looking for is love, respect, and intimacy – which you can’t buy.”
Why, that almost seems like an insight!
Alas, in his very next sentence he spoils the moment by returning to the standard MGTOW narrative of female perfidy:
I think what put me off women altogether was the realisation that you’ll NEVER get [love, respect, and intimacy] for real. It’s sad and sobering, but that’s the way it is.
Thinking that the attention of women validates you as a person collapses once you realise they are attracted to the worst qualities in the worst men.
Thinking that the attention of women equals affection, intimacy, or love – collapses once you realise they will leave you in a second if they sense any weakness or if a BBD [bigger better deal] comes along. Then you’ll realise that the meter was running all the time, whether this was clear at the time or not.
Women are like a bitter medicine that you force yourself to swallow because you believe it is doing you good. Once you realise it’s a quack remedy, and the whole thing is a scam, you’re free to spit it out and never partake again.
That leaves you with sex alone, which is really rather easy to come by.
If women really and truly are “attracted to the worst qualities of the worst men,” why aren’t they lining up at these dudes’ front doors?
I may be able to do that this weekend. I’m having a load of friends over at my home-home and I have access to my double bed. 😀 😀 😀
If these MGTOW weren’t so homophobic as well as misogynistic, they could have their own man-only snuggle parties! And if they weren’t such reeking, noxious piles of filth they wouldn’t even have to burn the bed afterwards!
@Evito-
I’m not comfortable with that dismissal. I’m highly suspicious of people I meet and wary around everyone, because I’ve had a lot of horrible experiences with people. I don’t consider that irrational, I consider it self-defense. I feel a lot safer bracing myself for the worst and being pleasantly surprised if it doesn’t happen than I do getting blindsided because I wasn’t prepared. If you personally don’t feel that way, that’s great, but please don’t dismiss everyone else who doesn’t share your POV as “irrational.”
Also, let’s not let them drag us down to their level. This is one battle that really will be won with good manners, facts and good lawyers. (I can recommend a very good English one, whom saw off a ginger menace I was sued by).
Because I know Manboobzers, I leave this for you.
Behold! A new foster kitten livestream:
http://new.livestream.com/FosterKittenCam/TheSpiceKittens
CUTENESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
1) I have to agree with other posters (and David) that oy, he gets so frustratingly close to a really good point! It is indeed a false and harmful idea to assume that “the attention of women validates you as a person”!
…except he then goes on to conclude that that’s somehow because women are eeevil and chase after assholes, rather than because you should never rely on others to validate you as a human being.
2) CWS: best of luck with the party! Snuggle parties are phenometastic! Additions that I have found extra lovely is to have a book passed around a snuggle pile member to read to the snuggle pile, or (if you have display options that would work for that) a fun but not too attention-requiring movie, or foot/shoulder rubs all around!
3) Freemage: woo, somebody else who knows Bitter Lemon! I haven’t seen the stuff anywhere since I moved to the US… though my awesome mom always makes sure to get a bottle or five when I go home to visit.
‘That leaves you with sex alone, which is really rather easy to come by.’
Really? REALLY? Then please, I beg of this guy, alert the other MRAs, all of whom seem to be struggling with bitter, bitter blue balls and angry that women are ‘allowed’ to ‘deny’ them their vaginas. Spread the word! Sex is actually quite easy to come by! It may not be with exactly who you want (in both men and women’s cases, not that they care about women’s tastes because they don’t like sex at all or are megasluts, I forget which) and may come at a price (financially, or emotionally), but it is possible. Seven billion people can’t be wrong.
Also, and I feel like I am just going to comment this on every single thread from here to eternity– If you are a man complaining that the women you like are flawed because of their horrible taste in men, then what does that say about your own taste in women? Doctor, heal thyself.
With the cats, we have victory in our sight! I want the pointy tailed ginger one. Going to call her Tara.
The moment I started that kitten livestream is the moment they started attacking the camera. Cutely terrifying.
Of course, with half these guys, the whine seems to be because no women apparently like them at all. Which kind of implies those women have really good taste in men … it’s the old NiceGuyTM attitude that any other bloke a woman likes must automatically be a mongrel, simply because he’s not the NiceGuyTM.
KITTIEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!
Have any of these guys ever experimented with homosexuality?
I mean, its two birds (or rather, zero) one stone.
One of the commenters on that forum thread posted something that made me feel bad for him:
Until he said:
These poor fellas could find true love if only us wimmenz still went to Ms. Beadle’s Finishing School, apparently? *sigh*
@drst: Being wary of others after being hurt because maybe the next person will do it too is totally understandable. What is irrational is being hurt and then deciding that half the adult population are 100% evil and only out to use you.
@Tracey – even before the finishing school bit, he’s talking nonsense, as if “finding love” is something that happens instantly, every time, or can’t happen at all. No wonder he’s on his own if he has such an unrealistic expectation.
I see what Evito said a much different way. I have had bad experiences and because of them I am cautious about new people. Unlike MRAs I not preemptively filled with rage at the prospect of people with qualities like those that have hurt me (in their case a whole sex;women/girls) existing and having freedoms.
There is a huge difference in being naturally cautious after being hurt(protecting yourself) and pre-emptively attacking. It is defense vs un-warranted offense in my opinion. Sort of like Al-Quida attacking on 9/11 then Bush declaring war against Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Oh, what Noadi said.
,blockquote> These poor fellas could find true love if only us wimmenz still went to Ms. Beadle’s Finishing School, apparently? *sigh*
Of course men don’t need to go to finishing school as they are already perfect.
My friends in high school seemed to do this. It was nice. Non-sexual cuddling is the best. For 6 years on New Years we would all go to a friends house (yes, her folks where rich and she had 2 houses) and eat and have a party. And when we got too tired we would all crawl into a queen sized bed together. It was amazing. I miss being able to that. It seems the older I get the more sexualized cuddling gets.
Oops on block quote…..
I wish my friends were into that sort of thing; I used to cuddle with my college friends but the people I hang out with now are just not cuddly like that. Last time I hugged our closest friends was when one of them got engaged and when the other one got in a motorcycle accident (he was OK but I was very worried).
@drst
Like others have pointed out, I wasn’t “dismissing” anyone. Having exaggerated self defense in order to protect one’s emotions/sanity is understandable. I am like that also…I GREATLY dislike being touched (except by the 2 people I completely trust). Hugs, cuddling, back scratching, massages, hand holding, etc all feels “bad” to me. It literally makes the hair on my neck raise, and I’ve inadvertently bared my teeth at well intentioned/overly friendly customers. I get where you’re coming from about needing to be wary.
However, there is a difference between the natural, learned wariness that people like you & I have…and the all out paranoia of certain MRAs who believe every woman they meet will be a raging beast-girl, and thus refuse the very possibility of being “pleasantly surprised”.
@noadi & @sidestinkappleye – I agree with you, but that’s not what Evito said. Blanket declarations that reacting to having been hurt in the past by feeling, you know, hurt and vulnerable is “irrational” is not “it’s okay to be wary as long as you don’t go overboard.” I see a difference and I wasn’t comfortable with the phrasing, especially since “irrational” is a really problematic word, one often used to dismiss the opinions of women by default, and it also implies that rationality (as defined by some other person, always) is somehow the only correct way to be human, because any time you don’t behave the way some other person thinks you should, you’re not being “rational”. It’s judgmental at best.
@Evito – here’s my issue: I know a lot of women, myself included, who get told we’re overreacting by being constantly on guard about our physical safety. I’ve been told I’m paranoid. I’ve heard a lot of women being told that they’re overdoing it and that by being defensive and/or hostile, especially when approached by strangers in public, we’re “refusing the possibility” of meeting a “nice guy.”
I disagree with the MRM demonization of women and the tendency of many of them to decide after being burned once or a few times that all women are the embodiment of evil. But I’m uncomfortable with this line of reasoning, especially using language like “irrational” and “paranoid” (hello internet diagnoses!), because I’ve seen it deployed against women as a way to derail discussions and even shame women who are trying to protect themselves. Turning that around onto men, even MRAs, isn’t productive.
I mean, how do you define “natural”? Is it based on your personal experiences? What if someone else’s experiences don’t match someone else’s, who’s right? I’m not disagreeing with your fundamental point, but your language makes me uneasy.
I’ll drop this now rather than overtake the thread.
drst: If we’re to take your last post at face value it would imply that we shouldn’t judge the MRM as being wrong or irrational because sometimes that’s used as a silencing tactic against women. Since I’ve seen you post here enough to know otherwise do you think maybe you are reading into what Evito said more than was meant? Because assuming everyone is out to get you because one person hurt you IS irrational and paranoid (not in the psychiatric disorder sense but in the “extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others” sense). It’s not “turning it around” on men, it’s being accurate. Sometimes language is used inaccurately to silence others but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be used when it is valid.
@drst
I think we’re using different language to say the same thing…I’m just being overly blunt in the way I speak.
Quite often, and especially online, I’m accused of being insensitive, angry or cold. I truly don’t mean to be, I simply have a very literal way of using vocabulary. When I use words like “paranoid” I’m not trying to dismiss anyone’s feelings or create turbulence. I’m honestly saying that being paranoid is not healthy!
However, I am going to stop this as well, since it is making a stir.