So the Men’s Rightsers over on Reddit are getting worked up over the evils of women “friend zoning” men, and one especially angry fellow by the name of andreipmbcn has a warning for the ladies: if they don’t watch themselves, the men’s rights movement might just rise up and make friend zoning illegal:
What this means is not exactly clear to me. Would women actually be required to have sex with all men who are aggressively “nice” towards them? Who knows. But judging from the dozens of upvotes andre’s comment got, Reddit MRAs like the sound of it.
(Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this lovely comment.)
He should probably petition the White House. Or write to his Congressperson. I’m sure they’d love to hear this suggestion!
Oh my gosh, these guys just don’t understand.
If anyone is confused on women, what attracts them, wonders why they don’t attract women and are constantly friend zoned, and ESPECIALLY if you have misogynistic tendencies toward women, then check out my men’s help site at http://www.RealMenLifestyle.com
Also check out these articles I wrote on these subjects for some insight:
http://www.realmenlifestyle.com/2013/02/05/how-to-never-fall-into-the-friend-zone-again/
http://www.realmenlifestyle.com/2013/04/04/is-misogyny-simmering-underneath-your-surface/
http://www.realmenlifestyle.com/2013/04/26/the-nice-guy-the-asshole-the-real-man/
Okay, the notion of laws requiring sex for ‘nice guys’ is bizarre in itself, but the notion of ‘community standards’ inducing this behavior is even more confounding. After all, the entire MRA “alpha male” scheme is dependent upon a certain group of men dominating the social scene. The notion that these men are going to participate in a system that would dismantle that privilege is… distinctly illogical.
Once again, even if you grant the premise, the conclusions are full of fail. Which means that they have literally failed at the easiest game in academics.
Lemme ‘splain. In formal logic, there’s a general rule that says that within a logical system, a false premise can produce any conclusion. The classic example given to students of logic is, “If 3 is equal to 5, prove you are the Queen of England.” The trick entails using the original false equivalence and the genuine rules of mathematics (subtract one from both sides, divide both sides by 2) to get to the point where 1 = 2, then declare, “The Queen of England and I are two people, therefore we are one person, therefore I am the Queen of England.” It’s a trivially simple chore once you manage it.
And yet, somehow, these nitwits manage to fail to prove their conclusions, even when they take the liberty of their own premises. It’s… sad, really.
But they ARE only nice to get sex. Ever consider being nice for the sake of being nice?
@Zach
You know that the friendzone isn’t actually a real thing, right?
Lawl. I’ll “watch out” all right. Good luck, guys, with your attempts to get the legal system to back you on “enforcing” some kind of douchebag-enabling law. It’s like the dipshits who scream “I’m getting a lawyer!” whenever something unpleasant happens to them; they don’t understand that they are not entitled to everything they could possibly want. Oh wow, sometimes things SUCK FOR YOU. For the last time, that is not illegal.
Making it illegal not to have sex with someone would be such a giant waste of resources, my head just exploded. It’s especially funny since so many of these goofballs fancy themselves libertarians.
Re: “community standards,” I think the idea is we’re supposed to Shun the Friendzoners.
SHUUUUUUUUUNNNN….
Zach: this is probably the wrong venue for you to pimp your bullshit.
@hellkell: Libertarians as long as it suits them cos fuck everyone else’s human rights.
@ Ugh
Then you have to define what is “real”
To a lot of guys, it IS real. And it was VERY real to me back in the day as well.
When you’re nice to a woman to get a relationship/sex/some outcome, and you think you’re playing the game fairly well, then SHE just says “let’s just be friends”, you’re love confused, bewildered etc at why you tried so hard and you just get left being a friend i.e. the friendzone.
So yeah, it’s not real in the sense of a “physical” thing that we can touch (if that’s what you’re getting at….), but it’s a perception that’s real to a LOT of guys, and one that causes a LOT of pain, frustration, and suffering, hence these MRAs calling for law to prevent it from happening in the first place, cause it’s that painful for them.
They just don’t understand attraction, or don’t have the willpower to make themselves more attractive to women, which is where I come in to help out.
So, the friend zone is very real to a lot of guys out there.
Joanna: well, yeah. The whole central premise of this new strain of libertarianism so popular with these warts is “fuck you, jack, I got mine.”
I have often wondered, do they believe the reverse statement: An act of kindness by a guy is always a non-refusable invitation to have sex with him.
It is just I have often been attracted to guys who were my friends and who were nice to me, yet my feelings were not reciprocated. It doesn’t make me angry, it is just one of those things and for the most part I understand why these guys weren’t interested. However by the theory above I am duty bound to have sex with these guys even though they don’t want to have sex with me. They need to come up with a solution manual for situations like that.
@ hellkell
This site is about exposing misogynistic tendencies towards women by men, especially in the manosphere. It exposes it, but doesn’t offer solutions/a way for these guys to change to become more positive and loving men.
This is where I come in, to help men make the transition, instead of being so hateful and ignorant and in so much suffering.
So yeah, I definitely think this is the venue to “pimp” my “bullshit”.
@Pear_tree: ALL nice people having sex with each other ALL the time!
@freemage: I think the “community standards” thing is meant to be directed towards women rather than men. This dude is convinced that the women who aren’t having sex with him are leading him on, and he wants them shamed for that.
What he’s assuming – and even some of the other Redditors are calling him out on this – is that women do this on purpose. Like most of these guys, it’s never occurred to him that when he treats a woman like a platonic friend rather than a romantic/sexual partner, she’s going to respond by treating him like a platonic friend rather than a romantic/sexual partner because…well, why wouldn’t she? Is she supposed to sense that you’re attracted to her if you’ve never so much as asked her out on a date?
I’m trying to figure out how this law would work. We’d have to set written standards for what actions made a man qualified for sex. Is one action enough, or does it have to be a series demonstrating an ongoing desire? Do more major actions count towards sex more? Is one sexual act sufficient to pay off the whole friendzone debt, or do further actions require further sex? If so, does the debt reset after every sex act or is it cumulative? Can the debt be sold or exchanged? Can the woman reschedule the sex act or is she bound to the man’s preferred day and time? Is there a statute of limitations? So many questions.
oh man, katz, can you imagine the dystopia? Women frantically trying to prevent dickheads from completing the tasks for them that would incur sex debt. Literally fighting men to keep them from being ‘selfless’.
So gross.
@Pear_Tree:
Well, obviously if the guy doesn’t actually want to have sex (pssh, yeah right), then he shouldn’t be forced to. But if he’s going to spend his time and money on a woman and she accepts his kindness, it is the ultimate tragedy for her not to reciprocate with sex. /s
@katz:
Also, feelings change. Would she have to fill out paperwork saying that she has accepted the gifts with intent to pursue a relationship, then get a “date divorce” if she later changes her mind? Or is she legally obligated to the guy after the first exchange, no matter what happens later? How would you prove that a feeling was genuine at first, then changed? Is the woman fined if she accepts a gift, but then becomes unable to have sex in the future?
Here I am imagining a group of MRAs getting together and hashing this shit out… only bad things are coming out of it.
Andrew: My point is, between women and alpha males (who all presumably support the matriarchy/misandric alpha-society set-up that leads to hypergamy ow it hurts to type this shit too much), there’s not enough ‘nice guys’ left to actually effectively ‘shame’ anyone.
Can’t… breathe… too much… stupid…
I think she’s supposed to understand that the only reason a man would want to spend time with a woman or do nice things for her is because he wants in her pants. It’s all of a piece with the FleetingWish screed David tackled yesterday.
@inurashii
That’s actually pretty close to a concept I’ve been working on. The idea was that, in fairytales, there’s almost a debt system. If you help a fairy, they’ll always grant you a wish. A princess will always marry the prince who rescued her, and a king will always give away his riches to whoever does such-and-such a thing.
I was actually thinking about incorporating that general idea of “nice-to-you=sex-with-me.” And the way that a society built around those sorts of concepts would work, and the sorts of people, and all of that jazz.
^^
inurashii+katz, not just inurashii.
Sorry. o_o”
Speaking of questions, if anyone wants to pull some ASSFAX on the frequency this occurs at (say, how many times per whatever time frame each woman does this?) and some ASSDATA on the cost of legally enforcing the sexytimes (should I use the average cost of litigation? Fraud charges?)…I’ll work out the annual cost of this, in the US, and what percent of the budget that is, and maybe even figure out what we spend that much on currently.
Say, women do this monthly? Every other month? Ongoing friendship has to be ongoing after all. And assuming the court costs are more than the $550 for a paternity test, then this policy would cost way more than 2 billion dollars every year. Like, assuming all women do it twice a year, and less than half give birth annually, we’re talking at least 2*2*2 = 8 billion a year. At minimum, that’s using $550 as a cost per case.