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?
Here you go, suck on this, Bob
So, Bob, any good evidence on the BENEVOLENCE of Christians you want to share with us?
Oops, sorry, the ABSTRACT above is found here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lfe_bibl.htm
MRAbot to the rescue!
FEMINIST DISCUSSION OF CONFLICTING ANECDATA DETECTED
MANSPLAINING
In order to address the reality of female privilege and misandry, in all cases the non-feminist man must be supported. Besides, everyone knows women are frivolous.
MAINSPLAINING COMPLETED
POWERING DOWN
Hit a nerve, did I? Heh.
We’re not discussing human behavior? If we’re discussing behavior of humans shouldn’t we talk about all humans? Isn’t courtship and mating something most humans engage in? Or are homosexuals not human according to you? Also, again with the erasing of people who are bisexual (not to mention asexual, etc.)
Actually, no, you’re not entitled to say what you think here. This is not a US government-run website that has free speech protections. There is no right to free speech on the internet.
Even if there was, freedom to speak does not mean freedom from criticism. If you say some dumbass shit in public, I can tell you it was dumbass shit. Your opinion is not sacrosanct.
Also, you’ve not been calling a spade a spade (*checks racism square on the bingo card again*) you’re making blanket statements about how people should behave in marriage according to your personal moral code. You’re also making wildly ignorant blanket statements about all of human history, entire religions, cultures of entire countries, and oh yeah, all heterosexual people on earth. That isn’t “having an opinion.”
Nope. Swinging a fist toward me would constitute attempted assault whether you made contact or not. And I have no problem with you having opinions. But YOU came into this forum and started spouting your ill-formed and crumbling opinions as if they were gospel fact. You could’ve gone quietly on with your day and not bothered to comment here. You chose to comment. Now we’re pointing out how pathetic your opinions are, and you’re getting pissed off that we’re not simply bowing down to your infinite wisdom and demanding we respect your opinions dammit! Do you not know how the internet works?
I do know that my paternal grandparents split up when my father was an infant. Obviously not a happy marriage there either.
Bob Troll: there are Christian feminists, and Muslim feminists.
I’d argue that there are NO countries on this planet where women have full equality with men (and there are complications due to intersectionality—i.e. white middle class women have been given opportunities not available to women–or men!–in other ethnic groups and classes). (That lets MRM dudes claim that women have it better because, wow, racism and classism still exist, and they only “see” the elite women.).
The countries that are closest to equality are the most secular: and worldwide, the US is nowhere FUCKING near those–I mean big woop, 20 whole women in the Senate an historic high in 20fucking212.
The ONE women’s bathroom was not sufficient! They covered this in a news article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/wp/2012/11/14/klobuchar-talks-about-historic-bathroom-moment-for-women-in-senate/).
http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Society/Equality/Facts/Gender-equality-in-Sweden/
drst, no cheating! You can only check the racism square once. *side-eye*
Ah, this moldy old chestnut: I am entitled to say what I think.
And we are equally entitled to say what we think and criticize your speech: free speech does not mean freedom from criticizm, dipshit.
So, therefore, enjoy the smackdowns that you have sought out and so richly deserve!
(Otherwise, why did you come here?)
@Drst: you said it all so much better than i could! *respect*
Oh, look, more proof that women were considered property and were not given the rights of citizenship by all the benevolent Christian men who were in power during the 19th century.
Care to refute that, TrollBob?
@Nepenthe – I actually don’t have a bingo card. I would never double dip, though! Because when I sign on to play Bingo, I stick with it until the bitter end even if I get bored or have no chance of winning! And if I went to work on an oil rig, I would stay because I’m not some flighty woman who changes her mind and thinks she should get to make her own choices! *arglebargle*
Also, if you think that marriages were happier in the good old days, try reading some of the literature written by women then. I’d start with “The Yellow Wallpaper” and “The Awakening“.
Fifth sentence of “The Yellow Wallpaper”:
Working Women and Prostitution in 19th century New York.
The past was so MUCH BETTER! All the people married for TWU WUV!
What propaganda have you been inhaling, dude?
Timeline of women’s suffrage in the US
Why Look: all the little woman had to do was ask nicely, and benevolent Christian male overlords, said, sure, darling, you can vote!
Becuz we’re BENEVOLENT!
Except not: centuries of fighting those benevolent Christian men.
It takes a special kind of stupidity to TL;DR about how many more options women have these days, and then say that it boggles your mind how women act as if they have options. Why would a woman turn down a proposal from “a suitor” when he’s proven himself to be of good character? Because she isn’t in love with him, and because she has every reason to believe that somewhere out there is a man of intelligence and good character who she actually could fall in love with.
The rest of your comment was whiny and ridiculous too, but even in that context the blatant stupidity of the part I quoted kind of stands out.
As to your attempts to justify that comment, oy. It’s the nature of relationships that most of them don’t work out. Attempting to blame this on women’s “emotional immaturity” is, ironically enough, rather childish of you.
Frankly, I think (and if I wasn’t feeling lazy I could find the stats) that the US would be a better place if more people water until their late twenties/early thirties to get married. The statistics for the success of late marriages are much better than for early ones, and I think thats because a lot of people figure out about themselves in their twenties, and the people they are attracted to in their early twenties may not work a few years later. Also, people tend to be much more financially secure, which helps, especially when children enter the mix.
So if you are against divorce then you should be promoting birth control use and late marriages, as well as education and careers for women, because those make for more stable, happier marriages when they finally do take place.
(I say this as the daughter of two people who married at age thirty.)
Also, ithiliana, I’ve missed you. You’re always so good at eviscerating trolls who like to romanticize the past.
Haha unhappy marriages for everyone!
You know, one of the advantages of women now being allowed to own property is that they don’t actually ever need to get married.
Did anyone else notice the bit where he tried to argue that rape was uncommon in marriages back in the day because raping your wife wasn’t actually illegal and no one would think of such a thing as rape?
Tipped your hand a bit there, Bob.
I think we should have a rule that trolls who don’t start commenting until after the first of December (or the thirtieth of November) aren’t eligible for Troll of the Year.
Yeah, what possible similarities could a religiously-justified state run on indentured labor for industrial interests that funds foreign warlords and considers women to be property have with early 20th century America?
Booooring! This guy is almost as bad as The First Joe.
All I have to say is this.
“Did anyone else notice the bit where he tried to argue that rape was uncommon in marriages back in the day because raping your wife wasn’t actually illegal and no one would think of such a thing as rape?
Tipped your hand a bit there, Bob.”
No, I was making the point that spousal rape was uncommon because the vast majority of men, then and now, were and are not rapists. The fact that attitudes had not evolved to the point where people could recognize that men, in fact, sometimes do rape their wives doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of men don’t rape, regardless of whether there are laws against it or not.
“Frankly, I think (and if I wasn’t feeling lazy I could find the stats) that the US would be a better place if more people water until their late twenties/early thirties to get married. The statistics for the success of late marriages are much better than for early ones, and I think thats because a lot of people figure out about themselves in their twenties, and the people they are attracted to in their early twenties may not work a few years later. Also, people tend to be much more financially secure, which helps, especially when children enter the mix.
So if you are against divorce then you should be promoting birth control use and late marriages, as well as education and careers for women, because those make for more stable, happier marriages when they finally do take place.”
I agree with all of this. That’s actually been pretty much the argument I’ve been trying to make all along. Divorce is less likely when people wait until they get older. People in their late twenties and up tend to be more mature than people in their mid twenties and below. People are less likely to get divorced when they share the same spiritual and religious values or lack of spiritual and religious values, make more money (since arguing over finances leads to conflict, etc), come from similar socieconomic backgrounds and so on.
You may thing/want to pretend that that was the argument you were making, Bob, but that’s not actually what you’ve been saying at all.
I’m still not sure why anyone else is supposed to care about the fact that you think other people get divorced for what you consider frivolous reasons.
So it turns out that “uncommon” can be a relative measure; less than half doesn’t always qualify.
Like if 1 out of 10 cars spontaneously exploded in a fiery inferno, I don’t think you’d go car shopping going “oh well, it’s uncommon.”