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?
Blast, last link borked.
Let’s see if this works:
at 11:11 p.m..
Bob: You knew this wasn’t therapy hour or dating advice and your uber-entitled ass turned it into just that.
Speaking of entitled:
Bob, what you fail to realize is that “no” or “I don’t want to” is a complete sentence. This attitude right here? Is why you’re single.
Until you get it in your thick head that no one owes you anything, any woman who runs away from you will be glad she dodged that bullet.
Is he gone?
Bob: “If said change of heart is not preceded by mutual dysfunction, obvious incompatibility and an adequate explanation…”
Also Bob: “When she arrives, she said she doesn’t feel like she can love him the way he wants to be loved and needs to be loved.”
WHOOP THERE IT IS.
I’ll tell you, I also don’t feel like I could love bob the way he wants to be loved. Feel me on this?
But that’s not an adequate explanation, because Bob doesn’t agree with it. “Mutual dysfunction” and “incompatibility” mean “Bob is unhappy”, her feelings don’t matter.
As everyone knows, not accepting someone’s explanation and trying to argue them into a relationship they’ve stated they don’t want is a totally cool and/or successful strategy.*
*Not really.
My favorite part is when I was all “Maybe ‘Guy’ in your story wasn’t paying attention to what girl was really saying…” and Bob was all “Nuh-uh! I -I mean “Guy”- was totally paying attention to everything!”
And then, through over sharing, shows exactly how he ignored the signs of conflict this young woman was experiencing in regards to their relationship and her own future. He was making wedding plans with a woman who was actively, wishing for the rapture and it never occurred to him to maybe slow down.
Bob claims that this has resulted in him being better and more introspective. I think this entire thread calls that into question.
Bob doesn’t want to be loved, Bob wants to be worshiped. That’s a lot to ask.
@hellkell well to be fair, you know, we “don’t know anything about [Bob] or how [he’s] conducted myself in my romantic relationships [aside from the huuuuuge amount of text that bob has written]. So your opinion has no merit.”
heidihi: that is so true. You really can’t glean much of anything from a complete overshare.
I mean, sure, we have the sensitive and specific details of his love life, his ex-fiance’s life (including her feelings on religion and her family situation and abandonment by her biological father and rocky relationship with her step father), his feelings towards this woman (and indeed all women), his grandparents marriages, his thoughts on homosexuality, marriage (past and present), &tc, but we have NO IDEA who this person really is. I mean, what is his social security number? Is Bob Smith his real name? These are two very vital pieces of information that we do not — yet — have.
The ONLY two vital pieces, most likely. BUT VITAL NONETHELESS.
I bet Bob Smith is the Somerton Man.
Speaking only for myself, I care whether men watch porn and whether the grow feathers. Because GROWING FEATHERS WOULD BE AWESOME.
While we’re oversharing, I did this for a long time because it was less painful to pretend I was happy than to face the fact that my fiance was an abusive, raping shitface.
Thankfully he contacted me a year later to let me know he forgave me. Perhaps for emotional violence and time theft!
@Tulgey from the article “Public interest in the case remains significant due to…the possibility of unrequited love”!!!?? I THINK YOU’RE ON TO SOMETHING HERE!
Although i may note that public interest is waning?
@Bob
Before I answer this, Bob, I have to preface by saying that I find your goalpost-moving extremely problematic. For example, you argued early on that a woman over 27 would have to be deranged to turn down a “suitor” who is intelligent and decent. When you got a perfectly reasonable series of responses pointing out that, just like men, women look for more in a potential partner than just intelligence and decency (if they are interested in marriage at all) — like, I don’t know, physical attraction, shared values, common interests and emotional compatibility — you changed your prior statement to say that, essentially, if the man is intelligent and decent AND he was led to believe marriage lay in the future, then it is wrong for the woman to leave. When, again, it was pointed out to you that a man’s expectation does not create an obligation on the part of the woman, you changed the premises yet again to say that if the man is everything this particular woman wants AND they’ve been seeing each other for a very long time AND she’s accepted his proposal, then it’s wrong of her to leave — and to top it off, you accused the other commenters of poor reading comprehension, when in fact, you were changing the assumptions to justify your argument.
That said, I want to answer what I quoted above. Let’s start by saying that being broken up with hurts. It just does. You could be the worst person in the world, and you still will feel bad about being dumped, if for no other reason that it hurts your pride. Therefore, it is completely unreasonable to make the person who is being dumped the objective judge of whether there was an adequate reason for the breakup. Moreover, just because an adequate explanation exists, that doesn’t mean the explanation is emotionally comforting — quite the contrary, it may very well be dead-on-balls accurate and hurt like hell. That’s why my advice to anyone breaking up with their significant others — on those rare occasions where it is solicited — is NOT to get sucked into an argument over the reasons for the breakup, for the sake of both parties’ emotions. Naturally, there are also huge problems with characterizing the breakupee as an objective judge of whether there was “mutual dysfunction” or obvious incompatibility. (Incidentally, why mutual dysfunction? You mean if you are the only dysfunctional one in the relationship, your significant other may not leave you? Interesting.)
Next, let’s address that whole “emotional negligence and emotional violence” bullshit. You, Bob, do not present your true self to a potential mate; you conceal your flaws for as long as you possibly can, or you sort-of-but-not-really-reveal your flaws in a self-serving fashion, designed to get the other person to like you despite them. I know with absolute certainty that you do this, because everyone does it, including people who whole-heartedly believe that they are 100% open and honest with their mates from the get-go. I think most people do this instinctively, and it takes a long time — months, even years — for the facade to become completely transparent, and for the person underneath to be revealed with all of his or her warts. It takes a long time to get over the initial intoxication of love to really register the little things that bother you, and for those little things to coagulate into patterns that tell you that maybe marriage isn’t a good idea. It takes time, especially for women, to sort out what’s what while being under insane pressure from officious friends and family members to marry someone, anyone, immediately. Sometimes it takes being really, really close to the person for a substantial period of time (which is why I am a big fan of living together before getting married), and sometimes, people truly let their guard down once they’ve become engaged and they believe everything is now set in stone.
This makes your whole “emotional terrorism” bit extremely problematic. Because you know, disappointment really hurts too, when you reveal yourself to be something other than the person that your SO fell in love with. If leaving you for what YOU don’t consider to be a good reason is “emotional negligence and emotional violence”, then your effort to put your best foot forward for months and years should fairly be deemed fraud and emotional manipulation, and you amply deserve this non-violent “violence”. Realize, also, that your admonition that women should be especially careful what they get into lest they hurt an “innocent person” (as if men don’t live with their girlfriends for years, stringing them along and then dumping them without a satisfactory explanation) also has the effect of declaring that any woman who dates you should be held responsible for not seeing through YOUR deception quickly enough to make the breakup as easy as possible for YOU. Dude. Seriously. Can your view of relationships can get any more fucked up?
Or maybe, it just takes time for people to get to know each other, and sometimes, things just don’t fall into place. It’s really unpleasant, but it’s no different than, say, being unable to get pregnant despite doing everything “right” (as far as you can tell). Some things depend on a myriad variables, so don’t be surprised when they don’t “take”.
But please, please, don’t come back with “But suppose the man is perfect in every conceivable way and is just a paragon of virtue and every good thing anyone every thought of ever. And then the woman just up and leaves him at the last minute at the altar. Wouldn’t you say she’s an evil bitch?” Because as others have pointed out before me, that’s just blatant intellectual dishonesty. Keep that up, and you’ll confirm my suspicion why it is that you got dumped.
@Tulgey Logger: I love the Taman Shud case! I also suspect some kind of a love triangle was involved in that case, but there are other factors that suggest the involvement of espionage and/or organized crime. It really think it’s the most awesome and most frustrating murder/suicide mystery ever. With any explanation that you can fashion for what happened, something always will not make sense. It’s sort of like trying to assemble something umpteen different ways, and invariably ending up with surplus parts.
Amused – you win an internets. With cupcakes and icing. Please enjoy it.
“You said “no one ever goes into marriage with the expectation that it’s not forever.
Ignoring that in Rome people could just walk away from a marriage (the famous story of Caesar’s wife, whom he divorced because a social event she was at was, so he deemed it, less than savory in in the appearance). All they had to do to dissolve it was say, “I quit”, and it was over.”
You seriously think mating patterns in ancient Rome are germane and relevant to the institution of marriage in North America in the 21st Century?
“Ignoring that… there is the ketubah in Judaism. One of the requirements for getting married is the framing of the terms of divorce. That’s right, before a couple can be wed the division of goods, property and children has to be spelled out, in writing, and attested; in front of witnesses.
So no, it’s not true that no one enters a marriage with the idea it might end. A major religion of the world mandates it.”
I think it’s pretty pedantic and doesn’t even need to be mentioned that relationships are risks, they can and do end at any time, and you can’t control what another person does or doesn’t do. If a person decides to leave, there is little to nothing you can do to stop them, and if you’re a mature adult, you let them leave and don’t try to arm-twist or manipulate them into staying. You may not like or agree with their reasons, you may in fact detest them, but if their heart is set on leaving, it is folly to try and stop them. Having said that, virtually nobody goes into a (non-green card) marriage hoping it ends in divorce. Virtually nobody goes into a marriage and doesn’t hope that it will work out and last. I would not want to get married to somebody who thinks of our marriage in terms of “It’s fine for now, we’ll see how it goes.” I want to get married to somebody who is in love with me, believes I would make a good husband and father, and wants to try and make a go of a lasting relationship. And you’re accusing me of goalpost shifting?
“his thoughts on homosexuality,”
This has been one of the more amusing facets of this thread to me. Here we are having a discussion about these misogynistic male subcultures and where they originate from, male-female relationships and male-female romantic patterns, and I get accused of being a homophobe because…I never expressed antigay bigotry? I thought it went without saying that gay people enjoy sex and companionship as well, and because I failed to post this pedantic disclaimer, I am a homophobe that thinks non-straight people are subhuman scum? And when I was accused of being a homophobe because I didn’t talk about homosexuality at all and never expressed any antigay bigotry, I went ahead and stated that I think gay people are just fine in my book and I don’t care who they fuck, and that still makes me a homophobe?
I’ll go ahead and say it again: I support gay rights and I am not offended by homosexuality. And because of the pitiful and pathetic way people on this site try to debate, that apparently makes me a homophobe.
I also enjoyed how I made the pretty obvious observation that Saudi Arabia is a socially regressive society that treats women terribly, and that….makes me a racist? I don’t recall ever saying that Muslims are intellectually, emotionally and physically inferior to non-Muslims, but pointing out the obvious that Muslim societies treat their women terribly by Western standards of equality makes me a racist apparently.
@The Kittehs’ Unpaid Help: Thanks! 🙂
Bob: “Virtually nobody goes into a marriage and doesn’t hope that it will work out and last.”
Do you see this as a problem that “virtually” no one does this? Because if you had your way, that’s EXACTLY what all the wimmenz would have to do.
Honestly, Bob, did you want your GF to marry you anyway? Despite not loving you? WHAT DID YOU WANT TO HAPPEN?
No, I think the argument is that she owed it to love him. It was her moral obligation.
I mean that’s probably the answer we’re going to get, Amused, but i really really want to know, from his own words, in plain language, without all this shifting and accusation of inadequate reading comprehension and all that stuff he’s pulling.
Bob. In your own words, in one sentence: Having heard that your girlfriend cannot love you and does not want to be married, what would your optimal outcome have been?
Bob, aren’t your arms tired from all the jerking… I mean, goalpost shifting?