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.
1973 was an awesome year, Cassandra. Roe versus Wade, the publication of Joanna Russ’s “The Female Man.” I could go on and on.
(Preens for my birth year)
Also, both authors of Sex At Dawn seem to be equally terribly writers and scholars, given the frequency with which they write “science says” or “society believes” and don’t cite any evidence at all.
And punk rock music during the early ’70s…Awesome!
@Brz- but when you say shit like “oh it was just a little groping and it TOTALLY doesn’t need to be prosecuted and pc fascist culture and blah blah blah” you are doing exactly what you claim not to be doing. You are encouraging diminishing choices for victims in the name of “changing cultural norms.” You sir, are disingenuous in the highest degree, and I would say exactly the same thing to someone who was raving about how someone who was groped on a train absolutely MUST go to the police.
Shiraz, thanks! I wasn’t sure that made much sense. :/
My favourite example is probably property rights and work: women were a hell of a lot worse off by the mid-nineteenth century in England than they were in the seventeenth. Nothing you made, no money you earned, nothing you inherited, was yours once you married in Victorian times. Part of the push for the Married Woman’s Property Act came when one of its advocates (I can’t remember her name or the book where I read this, alas – I have a shelf full of stuff on Victorian England) was robbed, and all through the trial, her purse, the purse she made, was described as being her husband’s property. Or there was Caroline Norton, whose arsehole abuser husband deserted her, then demanded the money she made writing books to support herself.
Interesting side note was that an unmarried woman had control of her children; custody was hers automatically. Married women had no chance of that; children of a marriage belonged to the father.
@M Dubz
“but when you say shit like “oh it was just a little groping and it TOTALLY doesn’t need to be prosecuted and pc fascist culture and blah blah blah” you are doing exactly what you claim not to be doing.”
I said :
“The fact that we consider that an asocial guy who grop a girl in the street isn’t just a little misconduct which PROBABLY don’t even need to be prosecuted, but a sexual assault that threatens the social order shows were our totalitarian tendencies come from : the modern over-suspicious attitude towards sex.”
@CassandraSays
The “society believes” parts were some if the funniest. I’m not quite sure where they live ans what their society is like, but it isn’t where I like and it isn’t my society. If they needed society to advance their point, society was there for them. If they needed to argue against society, society obliged by taking an unsustainable position.
Sometimes they had to handwave the science or massage it to get it to do what they needed, but society was always taking the exact position they needed in the most helpful way.
@ Kittehs- It’s actually a huge problem I have with early feminist discourse. I don’t want to live in a world where we (wrongly) assume that “oh noez the womens were chained in the kitchenz for thousands of years until bright sparkly feminism came along!” Women have been making choices about their sexual and economic lives and living within the constraints of patriarchy forever. Sometimes, women would be able to snag tremendous amounts of power within that system. Sometimes, they were able to foment cultural change. Often, they were able to lead satisfying and fulfilling lives. And I think the more we allow for that nuance in our narratives, the more we are able to build change that goes beyond what our foremothers could have ever hoped for, while honoring their work and contributions.
*of, and, live
Basically Sex at Dawn is what would happen if an unusually well educated troll wrote a book. Strawmen all over the place, evidence either not cited or misinterpreted, opinion asserted as fact. The bit of it that I got through was such a mess that I just gave up.
Yeah, @ Brz, I stand by my summary of your statements on the issue.
@M Dubz
I think that, in a lot of early feminist stuff, you can clearly see the effects of little to no cultural or women’s history.
Since there is a talk about woman sexuality and condition during 18,19,20th centuries and because I’ve talked about Foucault, I post some interesting quotes before I go to bed :
“This is the essential thing:
that Western man has been drawn for three centuries
to the task of telling everything concerning his sex; that since
the classical age there has been a constant optimization and
an increasing valorization of the discourse on sex; and that
this carefully analytical discourse was meant to yield multiple
effects of displacement, intensification, reorientation, and
modification of desire itself. Not only were the boundaries of
what one could say about sex enlarged, and men compelled
to hear it said; but more important, discourse was connected
to sex by a complex organization with varying effects, by a
deployment that cannot be adequately explained merely by
referring it to a law of prohibition. A censorship of sex?
There was installed rather an apparatus for producing an
ever greater quantity of discourse about sex, capable of functioning
and taking effect in its very economy.”
“Nineteenth-century “bourgeois” society-and it is doubtless
still with us-was a society of blatant and fragmented
perversion. And this was not by way of hypocrisy, for nothing
was more manifest and more prolix, or more manifestly
taken over by discourses and institutions. Not because, having
tried to erect too rigid or too general a barrier • against
sexuality, society succeeded only in giving rise to a whole
perverse outbreak and a long pathology of the sexual instinct.
At issue, rather, is the type of power it brought to bear on
the body and on sex. In point of fact, this power had neither
the form of the law, nor the effects of the taboo. On the
contrary, it acted by multiplication of singular sexualities. It
did not set boundaries for sexuality; it extended the various
forms of sexuality, pursuing them according to lines of indefinite
penetration. It did not exclude sexuality, but included it
in the body as a mode of specification of individuals. It did
not seek to avoid it; it attracted its varieties by means of
spirals in which pleasure and power reinforced one another.
It did not set up a barrier; it provided places of maximum
saturation. It produced and determined the sexual mosaic.
Modern society is perverse, not in spite of its puritanism or
as if from a backlash provoked by its hypocrisy; it is in actual
fact, and directly, perverse.”
“There is no question that the appearance in nineteenth-century
psychiatry, jurisprudence, and literature of a whole series
of discourses on the species and subspecies of homosexuality,
inversion, pederasty, and “psychic hermaphrodism”
made possible a strong advance of social controls into this
area of “perversity”; but it also made possible the formation
of a “reverse” discourse: homosexuality began to speak in its
own behalf, to demand that its legitimacy or “naturality” be
acknowledged, often in the same vocabulary, using the same
categories by which it was medically disqualified. There is
not, on the one side, a discourse of power, and opposite it,
another discourse that runs counter to it. Discourses are
tactical elements or blocks operating in the field of force
relations; there can exist different and even contradictory
discourses within the same strategy; they can, on the contrary,
circulate without changing their form from one strategy
to another, opposing strategy. We must not expect the
discourses on sex to tell us, above all, what strategy they
derive from, or what moral divisions they accompany, or
what ideology-dominant or dominated-they represent;
rather we must question them on the two levels of their
tactical productivity (what reciprocal effects of power and
knowledge they ensure) and their strategical integration
(what conjunction and what force relationship make their
utilization necessary in a given episode of the various confrontations
that occur).”
http://suplaney.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/foucault-the-history-of-sexuality-volume-1.pdf
Maybe one day, a massive anti-progressivism pamphlet will come out of this book.
Just a quick note – it’s now 6:30 AM in France.
@CassandraSays
I just hope he goes to bed and never comes back.
You make me homesick, that’s the better time to walk in the streets of Paris
Maybe we can find a door to Narnia and send him there.
There’s a place on the île Saint-Louis which looks directly on the Seine, there’s a bank next to a wall and when you sit there you feel like you’re in middle of the river. A long time ago, I was there at the end of the night smoking weed with a friend because I was depressed because I’d just dumped a girl. I was lying on the bank and my friend was peeing in the river. I swear that the first I’ll do when I finally come back is to pee in the river in this place.
So, Some Gal, any plans for the weekend?
@CassandraSays
The RiffTrax for the final Twilight movie is out so we will definitely be doing that. 🙂 We enjoy those so much that we’ve actually been buying the Twilight movies (when they are really cheap) so that we can watch the spoofing of them whenever. Other than that, nothing definite. You?
Shiraz, M Dubz, Cassandra, Some Gal, and Kitteh
This history discussion is fascinating. I have been wondering about the 50s. If the premise that jazz was a US mainstream music up to and including WWII is true, how did the culture change so dramatically for the middle class that only 10 to 15 years after the end of the war, that people were shocked at the mild sexuality implied in rock&roll? (Which seemed tame to me compared to the physicallity in dancing to the 30s and 40s jazz.)
I found a detective story yesterday – Gone West by Carola Dunn, one of her Daisy Dalrymple stories. Never heard of either before, but this is fun. It’s one of those series set in the 1920s. I’m starting to get the feeling I really do like detective fiction, at least within a fairly narrow range. 🙂
Whoot! More history. I know nothing about the development of jazz or social mores in the US.
::sits down with popcorn in hope of really interesting discussion developing::
@joanimal
Music history is not my thing, but if I had to take a wild stab, I would think that seeing it on television as a separate activity from the viewer, sitting in the living room watching, would be part of it. (That is a total guess, though.)