Over on PUAhate.com, a fellow named Virgil challenges the widely held manosphere notion that women start losing their appeal once they hit their early 20s. According to him, the real turning point comes at the ripe old age of 25 or so. Why? Let’s let him explain — and in the process demonstrate how to use the word “c*ntathlon” in a sentence.
Behaviour has to count for something.
Any between ages 18-21 is in her Looks/reproductive Prime but The behaviour in these ages stinks.
Its like a competition to see who can out-cunt the other.
From simple things like skipping lines, to humiliating people in public, to ostracising people.
Its a damn cuntathlon.
We have to have some quality control here okes.
I fully agree that age 24-25 is the tip of the iceberg here folk.
Walk with me.
-she still looks attractive
-She’s starting work and therefore is in a controlled environment where validation is far less.Thus cooling the cunty behaviour
-she’s at the perfect equilibriu$ of grown up behaviour and youthful Looks.
Virgil gets some challenges from the regulars.
JackOfJokers argues that 25-year-olds are still as badly behaved as 18-21-year-olds, and not as good-looking:
Sounds nice in theory Virgil, but the truth is they still get validated fuckloads by desperate office guys, they’re super stuck up, and they definitely look much worse; fat, cellulite, wrinkles, shitty diet, etc.
Mechanical Animals agrees:
If you think girls act much different from 18-21 to 24-25 you are fucking deluded.
Life after high school is exactly that, a continuation after high school.
What does this mean is exactly that, the good looking people keeps living in a bubble of validation way past their academical period.
Life of the sub 8 is a dead end, a merciless damnation. Think about all these beautiful, fucking females. You will never touch them.
The “sub-8” bit is a reference to the notion, seemingly held by 90% of the denizens of PUAhate, that only “male models” ever get to have sex with women.
Genetically Inferior, meanwhile, makes the case for “jailbait.”
15-18 is prime for a female but nobody will admit it
This arouses much ire from the regulars, not so much because Genetically Inferior is being a crepy pedo, but because “at 15 most chicks barely even have any tits developed,” as the similarly named Genetics puts it. “Wake up to reality incel,” Genetics continues in a second comment,
stop comparing tumblr feeds and “jailbait” associated websites of the top percent of teens to the average titless whore. At fifteen you’re merely in grade 10, most chicks have little tits and ass to show for.
Doesn’t start getting good untill 17-18 then peak at 21
I gave up reading the thread at this point as it seemed to have degenerated into little more than a collection of “jailbait” pictures.
The discussion of rape in The Better Angels pretty much said that feminists care more about making some anti-evolution point than in protecting women as anyone can see that the “don’t get raped” advice is good advice and rape is a reasonable reproductive strategy anyway. It is nice that rape is going down, though, because it helps prove his thesis.
@CassandraSays
If they’d actually thought about the implications of what they were writing, Sex at Dawn would be a pamphlet.
@emilygoddess
Thanks. I didn’t mean that “no one should ever press charges and those who do are wrong”, I’ve just said that personally I didn’t feel the need to send the person who did this to me in jail and that only apply to my situation. I don’t have an opinion on how people should react to an aggression because, eh, since I’m not the one involved, I don’t really know what the situation is, each case is different and each person react differently.
Where I want to go with that is a Foucault-like question : who are these people who want to take speak for the victims? They say to the victims how they should react to what they lived and condemn everyone who don’t agree with them to be “rape apologists” or “victim blamers”.
Asking this question is asking where the power is, where are the institutions who produce the “truth” and it’s an important question in our times full of wolves in sheep’s clothing : everyone would agree that the “war on terror” has been used by the government to enforce non-democratic laws, but what about the anti-racist/anti-sexist or for the sake of women and children measures? That’s just an example, in a precedent comment I cited Foucault to say that the mainstream feminism, the one who speak about “rape culture”, about “rape apologia” and “victim blaming” don’t aim for the liberation of women from the patriarchy and even less for equality but is just one the new institutions protecting the same bourgeois “moral order” that existed during 19th century they are supposed to be fighting against!
I don’t know if this post is more clear than the precedents.
The pamplet would conclude with the following.
Monogamy causes war, cancer, and poverty. Is that what you want, ladies? If not, better give it up next time a man asks.
I’ve been reading a lot of papers by John Bancroft. His “Alfred C. Kinsey and the Politics of Sexual Research” is interesting:
“The sexuality of women. In relation to women, it is probably fair to
say that the greatest impact at the time (post WW II) was to show the extent to which
women were sexual beings; much more, it appeared, than the sexual
mores of the time deemed them to be. The findings that 50% of women
had experienced sexual intercourse before marriage, that 62% had masturbated,
and that 26% had experienced extramarital sex by age 40
were startling. It was one thing to document the sexuality of men, but
with women it was a different matter. Hence the repeated allegations
that these were not normal women and that “decent” American women
had not participated. This remains a key issue in the political opposition to sex surveys.”
“It was evident from his own research, and has
been confirmed in various ways since, that major changes in sexual
behavior had been underway through much of the first half of the 20th
century. This was perhaps most notable in the sexual lives of women,
linked to major changes in the role of women in Western society, which,
while apparent in the first half, accelerated markedly in the second half
of the century. The increases in higher education among women and in
^These examples, originally contained in various newspaper articles, are cited in
women in tbe work place, both leading to greater independence of
women and increased control by women of their reproductive lives, were
all associated with a reduction in the social repression of women’s sexuality
and a lessening (though by no means disappearance) of the double
standard of sexual morality.”
@CassandraSays
Don’t forget that monogamy is also responsible for most relationship disagreements…somehow. (Jealousy maybe?)
@ Shiraz- Thank you for those Kinsey statistics. It points to a thing which always bears repeating; women are complicated, and have a variety of different ways of experiencing their sexualities. Some are active, some are receptive, most are a mix of the two. Same with guys. What you can know from a bell curve is not the same as knowing what’s going on in any one individual’s head.
I also can’t help but wonder, given your second set of quotes, whether 1950s sexuality was a marked difference from the past in that it was MORE prudish, given the tight restrictions on gender roles during that time, and whether we are drifting towards a sexual ethic similar to what might have existed during other periods in history when women had greater economic and social freedom (see, the 1920s).
@Brz- There is a VERY BIG difference in giving rape/ assault victims the room to feel how they feel about their assaults. It is quite another for you to take your own feelings and apply them to other people.
Both me and my sister are victims of assault. I got on with my life, felt little trauma, and had no interest in prosecuting the guy. My sister pursued legal action, and needed intensive therapy to deal with it. Both of our reactions are completely valid ones. If I were to tell my sister that she should just “get over it,” it would be re-traumatizing. And if she were to repeatedly ask me if I didn’t have some lingering trauma that needed working out, it would be patronizing. We love each other, and we’re gave each other permission to work through it in our own way.
After something happens to someone that is, at its core, a violation of agency, the greatest gift that can be given is room to deal with it in your own way. Everything else is just gross. THAT is why the feminist movement is so picky about “victim blaming.” It puts “shoulds” onto someone who really just needs space to heal.
@Shiraz
In Straight, Hanne Blank argues that modern science “discovering” sex, Kinsey and all the rest, played a big part in creating an environment for women to talk about sex and their own sex lives. (She specifically looks at how this helped create our modern view of heterosexuality, but as our view allows for, in fact requires, greater female sexual agency than the beginning of the 20th Century, I think that it is the same principle as the effects seen in Kinsey’s work.) Without women being able to talk about sex, I don’t think you get quite the same reduction in repression and of the double standard.
No problem, M Dubz.
Actually, yes, I think the ’50s was a backlash decade. There was an impressive amount of female sexual liberation before that, but when post-WWII came around, ads and popular culture seemed to double-down on the Stepford Wife bullshit. I think advertising and other media was trying to get women to forget Rosey the Riveter.
Yes. I second that, Gal.
Oh, so stuff like smallpox and tuberculosis and malaria and arthritis and so on are dependent on someone being monogamous? Or STDs are dependent on that? Or other species are somehow disease-free? None of this makes the smallest bit of sense. And polyamorous people are/were magically free of toil? Someone tell me how fucking numerous people instead of one has the slightest effect on the need to get food and shelter. Nor has he explained how he (I’m guessing this is a bloke) knows how humans suddenly went from poly to mono about 8000 BC. Seems a tad arbitrary, not to mention ignoring that not all societies are the same, not to mention that he’s a dipwad, not to mention that he can shove his head right back up his arse if he thinks pushing mono = violent and inferior is going to convince me to fuck someone I Do. Not. Want. To.
It sounds like more of the same old, same old – the whole side of the supposed sexual revolution that just put more pressure on women to have sex when they didn’t want to, because otherwise they were uptight and not cool chicks, or whatever. Bullshit with flowers is still bullshit.
Yeah Kitteh. Free love and all that. The ’60s wasn’t that cool in regards to female liberation. The ’70s, however, much more impressive. Especially 1973.
I think of the 50s as the time period where people desperately tried to pretend that society hadn’t already changed. Inevitably, it couldn’t last.
Coincidentally, I was born in 73!
@The Kittehs’
You are half right. A women co-wrote the book.
The 40s-50s was also a big time for the idea of sex culminating in a mutual orgasm.
Re the Kinsey stats – I wonder how much material there is to compare with pre-twentieth century women’s lives anyway? There weren’t the studies, there wasn’t the data, and if you’re looking at the middle class in the 19th century, f’rinstance, you’ve got massive social disapproval that would keep women from speaking – much worse, even, than in the 1950s. Women at the upper and lower ends of society had more leeway, from what I’ve read, in their sexual lives. The middle classes in mid-Victorian England had heebijeebies over the more relaxed attitudes among the working poor in London, for example (the more repressed working-class attitudes developed a little later). Aristocrats from the Renaissance on had much more freedom, though having an affair could still be risking one’s life for a woman, but there are plenty of women from the courts who had lovers as they pleased, and their husbands pretty much shrugged and did likewise.
Rambling, but I’m trying to say that the idea of a linear development, even in the twentieth century (as noted with the differences pre- and post-WWII) doesn’t seem to fit. Those individual complexities and differences operate across history, and history’s up, down and sideways even just in one small group of cultures (Western Europe).
Gah. I don’t know if that made any sense. I have vacuuming brain. Amazing where six months go …
“You are half right. A women co-wrote the book.”
Whoops! My bad.
I like consecutive orgasms better … experience and observe, two pleasures. 🙂
@M Dubz
“There is a VERY BIG difference in giving rape/ assault victims the room to feel how they feel about their assaults. It is quite another for you to take your own feelings and apply them to other people.”
That’s a thing I didn’t do, I said :
“(Just for the dishonest people here, I don’t tell this to blame victims of sexual assault or to fix the norm of how someone should react after having experienced something like this. I say that you don’t have any fucking right to tell people how they should react or decide in advance who are the “privileged” who can’t talk about that)”
@The Kittehs’
There are parts of the book they each take credit for, but I don’t remember any of her stuff being less dumb than his.
“Rambling, but I’m trying to say that the idea of a linear development, even in the twentieth century (as noted with the differences pre- and post-WWII) doesn’t seem to fit. Those individual complexities and differences operate across history, and history’s up, down and sideways even just in one small group of cultures (Western Europe).”
No kitteh, I get it. Some people think everything advances simply because time marches on, and modern times. Sometimes things/events/social norms, regress for whatever reason.
@ Kittehs
I just watched a movie based on historical events in China in which the fact that the emperor’s mother had a lover was a major plot point. It was set in about 250 BC. Women having affairs if and when they can is not a new development.
@The Kittehs’
I enjoy both, but I certainly am not about to let worrying about timing get in the way of the rest of the fun. If it happens, great! If it doesn’t, great!