A veritable anthem for average looking guys with nothing particularly interesting about them who are pissed off they can’t date women much more conventionally attractive than they are.
Categories
We Hunted The MammothBucking the Backlash
NNY: What might be unrealistic to one person, might be realistic (or even easy) to another. Why should someone lower their standards because a group of people don’t or can’t meet that standard? Even more so when it comes to dating. There is no affirmative action for people dating (nor should there be). People should be free to accept/reject anyone for any reason they choose.
Then why is this dude complaining that the women he’s interested in aren’t reciprocating?
Because that’s the thing. He’s acting all entitled: that they have standards (and he’s not included in the group which makes the cut), is what he’s upset about; while making a point that he has standards.
Hypocrisy and misogyny go hand in hand.
Cassandra, Because you indirectly are. Sure you don’t like the fact that he is making a video complaining about women of LA having too high standards.
See, right there. Let me repeat what you said above: Why should someone lower their standards. If they get to have standards, he has no cause for complaint. If he has cause for complaint (implicit in your allegation), then someone (apparently not him) is possessed of standards you allow to be disapproved of.
it’s all his fault for wanting to date an attractive woman. Not that the women he criticizes might be shallow and rejecting him based on something superficial like his looks.
What? Again, one is allowed to have standards (and he certainly objects to some women based on their looks so, pot/kettle, etc.), or one isn’t. Looks, btw aren’t, ipso facto shallow. If someone doesn’t possses any physical attraction to me, then a romantic/sexual relationship is really unlikely. It’s sure as hell not going to be a casual thing; time and familiarity might make someone who was otherwise not an immediate bell-ringer a possible candidate for sexytimes/romance, but that’s not what he’s advocating, is it?
You basically want him to accept the premise that he should shut up and date a woman less attractive than he wants to accept.
Nope. Our premise is that choices (i.e. his to chase “supermodels”) have consequences; often predictable, and this his complaining about those predictable consequences (i.e. other people have agency, and that agency may disappoint his boner) is stupid, and; in this context, offensive.
I just see it as a difference of opinion.
Nope. You see it as an acceptable double standard.
NNY: Joanna, I highly doubt a supermodel would date a fat slob of a guy.
Kucinich, he’s a short, scrawny guy with far from conventionally good looks (I think he looks a bit like an underfed chicken). His wife is a model.
I don’t care that he gets mocked. I just find it interesting why YOU choose to mock him.
No, you don’t. If you did you’d not be lying about the cause. It might have been poor understanding at first, but there has beeb lots of explanation, which you have ignored. At this point it’s reasonable to assume you have an agenda.
As to the nonsense that beauty has some inherent quality (see your comment about what makes someone attractive in one country will mean they are attractive in all others… the stupid goes way up if you try to say it’s only true for women), it’s rubbish.
If it were true then the standards of beauty would never have changed; nor would they be so different as they actually are (the S. pacific like really zaftig women, Britain not so much even with the homogenisation of the internet).
Jerky: Aaaand what makes you think men don’t have the exact same privilege?
They don’t if they want to ever be in a relationship. As a rule:
a. Women’s problem is finding a partner they are compatible with.
b. Men’s problem is finding any partner.
What? Once again I am being lumped in the, “alpha” category (despite my feminist beliefs making me an obvious mangina). Finding a partner has never been hard; if I didn’t care whom I was dating. Finding one who was compatible, that’s been the hurdle to clear. Even at my most actively poly (five partners, two of them transcontinental, and one in another country), compatibility was the thing which caused those which failed to founder.
I was (for two of the three which failed) the one who broke it off.
And as jerkass was asked before … if men have so much trouble getting any partners, who are women who find compatible partners paired up with?
To make tofu more firm and chewy, freezing it helps a great deal!
On Apples: All of a type are clones. The only differences will be based on nutrition (apples never breed true, and Johny Appleseed was interesting. 1: he was selling apple trees for hard cider, and 2: he invented the franchise model of investment.
pillow in hell: Last week we had tofu chili. The tofu is okay, but I think it needs to be marinated to pick up a bit more flavor before its added to chili. Chili is a bit strange without the ground beef.
for veggie chili I like the soy-based chorizo. It has the right flavor profile, and then one can just use beans; which makes it pretty damned good.
I was less than clear, the differences in taste are based on the nutrition the tree gets. I suppose one could test scions on different rootstocks to see if the flavor can be affected/shaped.
My work carries a tofu press… if you do that, then put it into a dish with about 1/4 volume of the expressed liquid you can marinate it, and still have it be firm. Then it fries pretty well.
pecunium
I have no idea why he is complaining why the women aren’t reciprocating. Maybe he is just ranting. Maybe he is trying to persuade them to change their minds (poorly I might add IMO). Who the hell knows since the only person that knows what is going on in his own mind, is himself.
Again, with this “entitled” non-sense. Fine, we see it differently. I think there is a subtle difference between “You suck for not wanting to sleep with me” (stupid, but not entitled) and “You owe me sex because I said so” (entitled),
Also, when I think of entitled (plus, the actual definition!), I think of someone having a legal or de facto claim to something. Meaning he doesn’t have to ask permission and she has no other choice besides obliging him. If he didn’t have to ask permission and he wanted to sleep with these girls, then he would. There would be no need to create a video ranting about why he can’t sleep with them. The fact that the video exists is evidence that he isn’t entitled to sex. At the bare minimum, he might want to be entitled to sex, but he isn’t.
Everyone is free to have whatever standards they want. However, one must face the consequences of those standards. If I choose to date only black women, moving to China would certainly make dating more difficult for me. I have already said the creator of the video should have worked on himself prior to making any video to make himself more attractive (new clothes, better hygiene, more hobbies, more interests, etc…).
Personally, I just see the video as a poorly executed satire. So I don’t really take it all that seriously.
How exactly are those consequences predictable?
Kucinich is a bad example. For one he isn’t fat, two he isn’t a slob. He is also fairly wealthy, has a high social standing (being a politician and all) and is well known. You don’t see a random 30 year old long haul truck driver dating a supermodel. That was the point I was trying to make. Not some rich, well known politician that is dating a supermodel. Hell, that is borderline cliche.
Did you actually not read my posts. I have mocked the guy a few times. Hell, I even think I insulted him once. I even said above in this post that his thinking is stupid and he should work on himself before ranting on about the “Women of LA”. I am hardly taking the guys side. I am just not hating on him like the majority of the commenters here. I’m basically calling him stupid when everyone else is calling him a scumbag. So apparently, if I don’t dislike him as much as you (and the other commenters), I am somehow approving of him? There is a grey area, I don’t see things in black and white terms. There are more choices than just good and bad.
I am certainly not getting into a debate about beauty since you have already made your stance very clear. It would be futile.
Dude, you’re the guy who made the videos; why should we care what you have to say?
“I think there is a subtle difference between “You suck for not wanting to sleep with me” (stupid, but not entitled) and “You owe me sex because I said so” (entitled), ”
It’s the same thing. The first is saying she SHOULD be sleeping with him and that there’s something wrong in her actions for not doing so.
Taking a narrow, legalistic view of what entitlement means in the sense of male entitlement is missing the point completely. He does feel he’s entitled to have whoever he fancies: that’s why he’s complaining. He’s whining because those women have the option of saying no. You need to expand your understanding of the term.
katz – oh, it’s the fuckwit creep himself?
Hey, dude, stop dressing like a dork and acting like a creep and treating women as if we owe you a fuck, and who knows, maybe you’ll get somewhere!
Kitteh, well, he slipped into first person a few pages back.
Yeah, I remember that now.
Fucking hell, did Brandon start making videos? Tedious explainer is tedious.
Oh hey, do we need a dictionary?
Entitle, verb
1: to give a title to : designate
2: to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something
Entitlement, noun
1a: the state or condition of being entitled : right
b: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
So, how is it again that feeling entitled means he has a right to have sex with her?
Which, btw, is not only not a thing, but rape — you are never actually entitled to sex, you can only feel entitled to sex…well, unless you rape someone, I guess then you can claim you committed rape because you were entitled to sex…but it’s still rape.
First — *executes the rogue comma, instates a period as the new dictator*
Second — your first statement there, the “you suck” one? See the definition above for entitlement. The second one? The rapey one? Entitled, and “having sex” because “I said so”? Hello rape charges!
So yeah, your “subtle difference”? It’s the difference between the noun form of the word, and the verb form.
Finally, fuck this noise, potential historical zombie outbreaks = way more interesting (hey, at least that’s funny, which is so much more than NNY has going for zir) Oh and I finally caved to skinny pants and picked up at pair at Salvation Army, because every good pair of expensive knee high leather boots needs pants that show them off…and cost $5
Yo, whiny dude! If this is how you usually react when people challenge things that you say it’s no wonder you can’t get laid. Even if you were more attractive your personality would put off anyone who wasn’t blind drunk.
(PS, the part about wishing you could get women drunker? Creepy, very creepy.)
Dude really does sound like Br@don, though. Maybe he moved out west?
Serious question, wtf is with the nonsense about how feminists think drunk sex is rape so any sex on any amount of booze/drugs, no matter the circumstances, must be rape by feminist standards? I’m not the only one here to have encountered this shit right?
Wtf is hard about the idea that if there wasn’t sober consent, there ain’t drunk/high consent? And that is there is sober consent, then drunk/high consent can be a thing, at least in theory (and potentially in practice, ymmv, etc)
Sorry, I just want to go “oh god not the bees” today.
It’s deliberate misdirection, imo. People only trot out that argument when they’re imagining a situation in which they know very well that the person they want to fuck would say no if sober. They want to incapacitate their target and have a way to claim that it wasn’t an act of deliberate manipulation, and “well zie chose to get drunk!” is a useful way to direct attention away from their own sketchy behavior.
If you’re in a situation where you aren’t sure whether or not someone really wants to fuck you because they’re too drunk, you can always just wait until you both sober up in the morning and find out.
And if your retort to that is “but then I won’t get laid!”…go to hell, do not pass go, but collect those $200, you’ll need it for legal fees.
I’d meant from the general “feminists are too uptight” crowd through, not the proto-rapists. I get why proto-rapists pull that shit, wtf I don’t get is why people get all “well I could never be a feminist, I enjoy a glass of wine and sometimes I want sex afterwards” — like, good for you?
Then again, the bullshit and misdirection is strong in the entire anti-feminist crowd…
I’m cranky, the bullshit from my father was extra bullshity today. I mean, my brother and I had to explain the difference between Cajun and French — he’d managed to forget about the entire country of France! (While ranting racist about Cajun cooking)
Racist about Cajun food? So, like, fuck that jambalaya, it’s just too damn tasty?
More like the TV said something about French cooking and he went off about how it’s all crawfish, how’s that food?!
Kind of hilarious if you ignore the crawfish isn’t food part (Vodou and Wicca are the same thing dontcha know…he just should STFU on all things remotely Cajun, or otherwise near/around/pertaining to New Orleans)
…and Haiti, and the rest of the Caribbean, and South America, and Africa, and Asia, and the South Pacific, and India, and the Middle East, and the Balkans (that was more a geography mistake than racism), and apparently France…
Actually, maybe he just shouldn’t speak at all…