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?
“This doesn’t answer my question of why you get to define marriage for other people. This is just a statement of something you think is true. My husband and I would like to be married our whole lives, but we’re both open to renegotiating the terms of that arrangement or the arrangement itself, if in the future one or both of us were miserable. We both signed on to that agreement. Who are you to tell us that our marriage is wrong because we’d entertain the possibility of it ending before death?”
Are you not aware that most marriage vows include the phrase “tlll death do us part” and “in sickness and in health.” Maybe your individual vows were different. Every relationship is unique and the partners negotiate the individual terms. Some marriages are open and the partners are free to pursue sexual encounters on the side. In other relationships, it is understood that any infidelity is an automatic relationship ender. I don’t recall ever weighing in on your marriage and saying it is “wrong” because of what you and your husband have negotiated and agreed upon between yourselves. What I am arguing is that the vast majority of marriages the partners are going into it with the intention of trying to make it last, and if a woman or a man bailed on it without first trying to work things out, that’s shitty.
Bob, your ignorance of basic historical fact is kind of amazing. You really never heard of the Triangle Trade?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203_jubilee2_2.html
http://mtbailz.hubpages.com/hub/History-of-African-Slavery-in-America
“If I want to start a family, however, then I am necessarily by biology limited to a woman that has not gone through menopause yet. Adoption laws make it very hard to adopt if you are over a certain age. Do you understand basic biology and science?”
Do you understand that some people have families of two? Like me and my husband? Other people have foster families, or families made of them and their lovers? Or themselves and their pets? Families come in all shapes and sizes, biology often has little to do with it.
And, as a woman struggling with infertility, i find your entire premise here insulting.
You know, i think that your limit to “starting a family” is not really biology.
@Drst now i have that song from 1776 stuck in my head.
@Evito
“I was banned before I could post anything”
I do not have a forum at http://www.mgtow.com
“Do you think WGTOW is legitimate?”
WGTOW is as legitimate as MGTOW. To most MGTOWs it is something that is new to them.
When there will be more blogs/forums about this subject then there will be more understanding about it.
“Why many MRAs look down on WGTOW?”
It is the result of labelling. As long as people are divided to groups, there will be conflicts and looking down to each other.
There will always be haters and we cannot change others. To me it is good enough if I am happy with my life. Validation from others is just another form of social pressure.
WGTOW and MGTOW means to me that someone is thinking about things like:
Are my values and ideas really mine or am I just repeating others (argumentum ad populum)?
Am I living my life as I really want or am I surrendering my will to the social expectations (to me it means living for others)?
So you’re OK with people negotiating their own marriages (even though you make blanket statements saying that such people should not marry). But ever filing for divorce without living up to Bob’s Standard of Marriage Rescue Protocol makes you a shitty person. Got it. I’m fine with men who feel that way going their own way.
Bob is boring, arrogant, and none too bright. Go your own way Bob. Go like the wind.
For real, it is hilarious how manosphere guys can make any human interaction sound creepy as fuck. Pretending to be an anthropologist of people you know != social interaction likely to be enjoyable for anyone.
This is not true. It has been a very recent development that love was considered even worthy of consideration when picking a mate. That is why someone like Bess of Hardwick was able to become a countess-she shrewdly sized up the marriage market and married up as much as she could.
You have a romantic ideal of the past, that everything was kittens and rainbows but that is not the reality. Even when someone was to marry for love (say in your grandparents’ time), their parents had a final say. And most of the time they would be unwilling to let their child marry someone who was not going to be a good provider/homemaker. In fact that is why there were strict controls over where courtship could take place-like in the potential bride’s father’s parlor. And equally strict controls over who you asked first.
What bothers me about everything you are saying is that you are trying to very carefully say you do blame both genders but essentially put the onus on women to be the main stay of the relationship and if they are miserable because their relationship is failing, they should be the ones to suck it up and endure that misery because damn it, that is not good enough to end a relationship.
No, you’re discussing these issues, and the fact that you segregate “homosexuals” from everyone else as if discussions about marriage and long-term relationships can only apply to straight people is *drumroll* homophobic! As is your erasure of bisexuals and everyone else who doesn’t fit your rigid gender construct.
Except you’re not. You’re making blanket statements over and over about what everyone should think about marriage (“people shouldn’t bail on marriage without going to counseling!” etc.) based on your personal opinions. You’re backpedaling like mad now that it’s been pointed out to you that your entire premise for this argument is that your personal feelings on marriage should be how everyone feels (just like since your grandparents married for love most other people totally did too). You can’t have this both ways. If what other people do in their long-term relationships is nobody else’s business you can’t set yourself up as judge and jury like you’ve been doing here.
And you’re here arguing with us and defending misogyny, marital rape, marriage as ownership of human beings as property, etc. You may not like it, but you’re definitely an MRA.
@heidihi – of course! That’s where I first heard the term, probably.
“Do you understand that some people have families of two? Like me and my husband? Other people have foster families, or families made of them and their lovers? Or themselves and their pets? Families come in all shapes and sizes, biology often has little to do with it.”
Yes. Different strokes for different folks. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that. Do you understand that the common nomenclature for “family” is a nuclear unit of a man and woman having children together.
“And, as a woman struggling with infertility, i find your entire premise here insulting.”
I personally would like to get married and raise children with a woman. Other people want different things and that’s fine. That you find that premise insulting is not my concern or problem.
@Thinker
Has it ever crossed your mind that it’s because MRAs are part of a hate movement? Like, I wouldn’t be surprised if white supremacists looked down on a given ethnic identificationb etiher.
I’m pretty sure that “I can’t have been using a term in a way that excludes millions of people’s experiences becuase this is how society in general uses that term” is the weakest argument that I have ever read.
“Nothing popular can be problematic!”
Lol, for real, lol.
@Bob
Any comment on whether you think countries where women are considered the property of their husbands have higher abuse rates than countries where women are not?
Bob: “Do you understand that the common nomenclature for “family” is a nuclear unit of a man and woman having children together.”
Actually are you aware that the common nomenclature for “family” is “my mom and dad and siblings”? If/When my husband and I have kids, our grouping shall be known as a “clutch” AS SHOULD YOURS.
I CAN TAKE PERSONAL STUFF FROM MY OWN LIFE AND APPLY IT ACROSS THE BOARD TO EVERYONE TOO! 😀
And Bob, i still think that your limiting factor to starting your own clutch is still not biology.
“No, you’re discussing these issues, and the fact that you segregate “homosexuals” from everyone else as if discussions about marriage and long-term relationships can only apply to straight people is *drumroll* homophobic! As is your erasure of bisexuals and everyone else who doesn’t fit your rigid gender construct.”
You’re incredibly stupid. My point of view when it comes to homosexuals is that I want them to have the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals and they should have the same freedoms to pursue happiness as heterosexuals. i don’t think homosexual courtship and mating rituals are relevant or germane to the discussion at hand and that’s why I didn’t mention them.
” If what other people do in their long-term relationships is nobody else’s business you can’t set yourself up as judge and jury like you’ve been doing here.”
I am allowed to have opinions about what other people do. if somebody behaves in a way that I find repulsive, immature, etc, I can call a spade a spade. I don’t get to enforce my moral code on somebody else, but I am entitled to say what I think. It doesn’t matter what I think because other people are going to do what they want regardless of how I feel about it. Who are you to say that I don’t get to have an opinion about behavior i consider abhorrent? I can swing my fist wherever I want as long as it doesn’t connect with your nose.
“You’re defending misogyny, marital rape, marriage as ownership of human beings as property, etc. You may not like it, but you’re definitely an MRA.”
And you can’t read and suffer from a severe lack of cognitive understanding to make that leap.
“Any comment on whether you think countries where women are considered the property of their husbands have higher abuse rates than countries where women are not?”
Yeah, if you’re attempting to conflate a place like Saudi Arabia that has never evolved past the 15th century with early 20th century North America, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Bob: The first flaw in your arguments is this assumption that the person who files for divorce is the one who caused the breakup of the marriage. That’s completely illogical. Quite the contrary, the party most aggrieved in a marriage is the one most likely to file for divorce — while the party who derives the most out of it while contributing the least also has the least incentive to file. So the fact that most divorce filers are women doesn’t tell me that women are primarily responsible for marriages breaking up — it tells me quite the opposite, that a great number of men engage in the much-praised “risk-taking” behavior in their marriages without considering the consequences.
You say that most women rush to divorce because they are “bored”. To begin with, this is conjecture, something you pulled out of your nether regions (or simply repeated what others have said) — it’s bias. But if you want to engage in stereotypes, sure, why not, I can play that game too. Divorcing your spouse because you are “bored’ and want adventure is certainly more respectful and more humane than torpedoing your family’s finances by buying a sports car, leaving your home and taking a barely legal mistress, while still expecting your spouse to continue the job of taking care of the home and the kids and blaming her for your own choices — because you are “bored” and want adventure. And of course, if your wife files for divorce because you are trying to be a teenager again and fucking someone else, it’s her fault for breaking up the marriage — right?
Okay, if you’ve had enough of stereotypes, let’s address your accusation that women file for divorce without trying to talk to their husbands about what’s troubling them. A few months ago, I was on a crowded train where a couple of teenage boys (we are talking early teens here, 13-14) were trying on a pair of very fancy noise-canceling head phones. And while doing so, they were commenting back and forth about how good these are to put on whenever your wife starts yapping her mouth. Now, these boys looked too young to ever have been in a long-term relationship, never mind a marriage, but already they are parroting this misogynistic narrative that women inconvenience men with too much talking. MRA’s CONSTANTLY slam women for “nagging”, for “drama”, for burdening their husbands with unpleasant conversations. There definitely exists a culture of not listening to women and exhorting any woman who aspires to be a good wife to just shut the fuck up. But then, if she files for divorce, all of a sudden, she’s at fault for not speaking up? Please, guys who long for traditional marriage, make up your minds.
Finally, your ridiculous statement that unhappy marriages were more rare in the past than today? What is your basis for concluding that? Because there were no statistics on marital happiness 300 years ago? John Milton’s impassioned argument in favor of liberalizing divorce laws certainly demonstrates that unhappy marriages were ubiquitous among his contemporaries. And Boccaccio strongly suggests that the overwhelming majority of marriages in his day were unhappy. As for the Victorian times, while it’s true that people back then had no Facebook or TV to distract them, they had opium dens, brothels and drinking houses — for husbands, at least. Not to mention that the idea that you can create a happy marriage by forcing the couple to spend every minute of their free time together is ridiculous.
And another thing about “boredom”: this is often a dismissive term attached to dissatisfaction with domestic drudgery that falls overwhelmingly to women — the cooking, the cleaning, the constant thankless picking-shit-up after a grown man, possibly grown men PLURAL. Try being a lackey and a secretary for 15 years in an utterly thankless environment, and you too may throw in the towel — especially if you had to give up something of value early in your youth in order to occupy such a lowly position in life.
Shorter Bob:
I’m not defending the ownership of women; I’m just saying people were happier when men owned women.
So you admit you’re a racist?
“So you’re OK with people negotiating their own marriages (even though you make blanket statements saying that such people should not marry).”
People should not sign up for things they are not capable of pulling off. I wouldn’t agree to go work on an oil rig because that’s not something I think I would enjoy very much.
“Shorter Bob:
I’m not defending the ownership of women; I’m just saying people were happier when men owned women.”
So my grandfather owned my grandmother? You’re comfortable categorizing their marriage that way even though you know nothing about them?
off topic poster, will put in poster thread of course
http://i.imgur.com/WIOB4.jpg