So “dating” guru Roosh has a post up on his Return of Kings blog by another self-professed dating guru, Alex Matlock, who rates various types of “bad sex” according to the type of female partner who’s involved in them, including such charmingly named types as “The one that tries too much (aka The Disaster)” and “The one that doesn’t move (aka The Starfish or The Doll).”
I expected a good deal of standard-issue manosphere misogyny in Matlock’s list, but I honestly couldn’t make it past his description of what he regards as the second-worst type of female sex partner: “The one that’s scared (aka The Virgin).” Because what he’s describing doesn’t sound so much like “bad sex” as “date rape.”
[TRIGGER WARNING for what follows; emphasis mine.]
.
.
.
.
This girl doesn’t necessarily have to be a virgin because she can still act the part many years after she’s popped that priceless cherry. She will usually look at you with fear in her eyes as if she has no idea about what’s going to happen. She gently pushes you away as if she’s not ready for the event and when it does happen she continues to act like it’s the first time. She usually sits in some extremely awkward positions that make you give up and just go missionary. This girl will eventually bust your nut but she’ll surely leave you with a sense of disappointment and/or guilt.
Uh, Mr. Matlock, I’m hoping for everyone’s sake that this is a hypothetical “humorous” scenario you’ve come up with for the sake of this article and not something you’ve been a part of in the actual real world on a regular basis, because, unless you’ve left out that portion of the hypothetical events in which the woman in question clearly and unequivocally consents to having sex with your hypothetical protagonist here, what you’ve just described as “bad sex” (for the hypothetical dude) is actually a description of, well, rape from the point of view of the rapist.
In which case that twinge of guilt your hypothetical protagonist hypothetically feels is probably just the tiny part of his hypothetical self that’s still human reacting to the fact that he JUST (hypothetically) FUCKING RAPED SOMEONE.
MRAs and PUAs and manospherean assholes generally like to pretend that consent is some weird and mysterious thing, but it’s really not. Here’s a hint: if a women looks at you with fear in her eyes and pushes you away all while sitting in a position that makes sex difficult …. all that means NO.
The fact that Matlock — despite those twinges of guilt — still doesn’t regard this as the worst kind of “bad sex” (for the guy) but merely the second-worst adds a certain level of absurdity to the horror.
Given Roosh’s publication of this piece by Matlock, and the fact that he himself has already confessed to committing what would be considered date rape by American standards by having sex with at woman too inebriated to give consent, perhaps it’s time to stop referring to Roosh as a dating guru and to start referring to him as a date rape guru.
I don’t really have anything else to say.
Here, as brain bleach, are some cats with smaller versions of themselves:
@artic ape
I’m a virgin and I spent last night in a bar……
Ah , yes of course they are. Which is why they are pushing to solve income inequality, are pushing to have the federal min wage increased and have healthcare for all. Because they are happy with the ways things are.
@The Black Fedora:
Oh, my bad. Thanks for the correction.
I guess I was reading you wrong. I apologize, I shouldn’t have assumed something that wasn’t true about you.
So, anyway:
“She will gently push you away, she will look at you with fear in her eyes, she usually sits in extremely awkward positions, act like its a first time”.
You are right.
This isn’t actually utterly and entirely rape.
I mean, he didn’t write “I raped her”; so clearly it can’t be.
Why are we bothering being upset about that, I wonder…
How’s things going with the poitical correctness of the Iraq War as compared to the political correctness of World War 1 and 2? I think you might want to look into the example of Alan Turing, by the by. It’s fascinating.
Unless that was just argle blargle you’re not actually interested in replying to.
Ah, yes. Fear that is a sign of consent. And when a woman pushes you away she is really into it. Yep, doesn’t sound like rape at all.
I’m so glad to know that you think that is rape. Frankly, if I’m scared of a guy and pushing him a way it is because I DO NOT want to have sex with him. It isn’t because I’m thinking “take me you stud”.
Oh, and just FYI consent can be taken away. A person can change their mind. So, just in case you can’t read signals: if a woman says yes to sex, but later looks upset and wants to leave and you have sex with her (while she is trying to push you away) THAT IS RAPE. Just because a woman is okay with making out doesn’t mean she is consenting to sex. If a woman is scared and not cooperating with you agenda that does not mean you should have sex with her.
I don’t understanding why this is so hard to understand.
*I’m so glad to know that you don’t think that is rape.
Goodness, I’m tired, but that is no excuse for the amount of errors in my typing today.
No you’re not. You’re here to argue against straw (wo)men and talk about how great the KKK are.
Also, you still don’t get to dictate the terms of the conversation. It’s cute that you keep trying, though.
No. A “gentleman” in this situation, after having his partner push him away with a scared look, would stop having sex, and then use their words to ask their partner if they wanted to continue. Feeling guilty after continuing to have sex with someone who was visibly uncomfortable or terrified does not a gentleman make. In fact, guilt or no guilt, it’s very possible it makes you a rapist.
Oh, it’s my favorite troll trope – where the troll tells a bunch of women why they do/think things. I think it’s my favorite because the motivation is so up in the air. Is the troll trying to convince us that we think this way in spite of our, you know, real life experiences? Is the troll trying to pull a gotcha on us by revealing that he knows our super-secret-woman ways? Or is trolly trying to shame us by associating negative qualities with the act/perception in question (for example, associating vanity with complaining about sexual harassment). I do not know. All I know is that whatever their desired outcome, they’re not achieving it and watching them flop is very entertaining.
But augochlorella, mansplaining isn’t real!
Black Fedora: The appeal of game is that it gives men who are not that attractive some chance with women.
Bullshit.
It givs assholes who seem to be otherwise incapable of treating women as people with legitimate desirers of their own a set of tricks which will work to prey on some women who are vulnerable to those exploitative uses of social engineering.
These guys aren’t complaining about being “invisible” they are complaining that they women they want to fuck don’t want to fuck them.
There is a difference.
Plus anyone the SPLC hates must be worthy of support.
Yeah, the KKK and the American Nazi Party are paragons of humanity.
Why is it so hard to believe that a man should have a higher purpose in life than seeking the approval of women? I simply do not see why this notion should scare people!
If that’s what you think, why praise PUA? PUA is all about getting approval from women. It’s proving one’s worth by getting women to approve of one enough to have sex.
You aren’t much familiar with this logic stuff, are you?
Conservatives on the other hand believe morality is absolute.
Oh my… So when Bush said he had broken the law, and intended to keep breaking it, Conservatives were all up in arms about it, and thought he should be impeached?
When the IRS, under Bush, threatened to pull the tax-exempt status of “liberal” churches because they had, “political” sermons they were six kinds of furious at the abuse of power?
When Romney used Bain Capital’s ability to just declare bankruptcy and default on the debt; so that he could pocket several million dollars and leave the US taxpayer to foot the bill, Conservatives were all against that… it was so bad they couldn’t support him for office?
Don’t make me laugh.
If it is wrong to punch a woman in the face for having a nose you do not like then it is also not ok to do the same to a man.
Which is why everyone agreed with the person who said Roosh was ugly and deserved a kick in the nuts… oh! Wait, I got it backwards, everyone who replied to that said it morally wrong, and his looks were irrelevant.
Never Mind.
Are Jackie and Fedora the same person? It just seems sketchy to me that Jackie posts this ridiculous rant criticizing a rapist for not being pretty enough and then Fedora comes in proclaiming that said rant proves the moral inadequacy of feminists. Despite the fact that no one here agreed with Jackie’s rant in the first place.
New troll sees one person, who isn’t a Man Boobz regular, make a threat of violence and engage in body-shaming, and (a) no one agrees + (b) multiple people condemn. That = this blog endorses body-shaming and threats of violence.
Same troll sees a Roissy-endorsed blogger talk about how he’s had sex with so many women who were clearly unwilling partners that he has to make a fucking CATEGORY for it. That = hey, what a cool blog, Roissy is awesome, just like everyone else the SPLC targets, like white nationalists.
Yeah, I think we know everything we need to know about The Dim Fedora.
@pi male, interesting theory. Also, interesting username 🙂
Black Fedora: The appeal of game is that it gives men who are not that attractive some chance with women.
Bullshit.
It gives assholes who seem to be otherwise incapable of treating women as people with legitimate desires of their own a set of tricks which will work to prey on some women who are vulnerable to those exploitative uses of social engineering.
These guys aren’t complaining about being “invisible” they are complaining that they women they want to fuck don’t want to fuck them.
There is a difference.
Plus anyone the SPLC hates must be worthy of support.
Yeah, the KKK and the American Nazi Party are paragons of humanity.
Why is it so hard to believe that a man should have a higher purpose in life than seeking the approval of women? I simply do not see why this notion should scare people!
If that’s what you think, why praise PUA? PUA is all about getting approval from women. It’s proving one’s worth by getting women to approve of one enough to have sex.
You aren’t much familiar with this logic stuff, are you?
Conservatives on the other hand believe morality is absolute.
Oh my… So when Bush said he had broken the law, and intended to keep breaking it, Conservatives were all up in arms about it, and thought he should be impeached?
When the IRS, under Bush, threatened to pull the tax-exempt status of “liberal” churches because they had, “political” sermons they were six kinds of furious at the abuse of power?
When Romney used Bain Capital’s ability to just declare bankruptcy and default on the debt; so that he could pocket several million dollars and leave the US taxpayer to foot the bill, Conservatives were all against that… it was so bad they couldn’t support him for office?
Don’t make me laugh.
If it is wrong to punch a woman in the face for having a nose you do not like then it is also not ok to do the same to a man.
Which is why everyone agreed with the person who said Roosh was ugly and deserved a kick in the nuts… oh! Wait, I got it backwards, everyone who replied to that said it morally wrong, and his looks were irrelevant.
Never Mind.
Also, but at least it was the occasion for one of Fibinachi’s awesome poetry pwnages!
And pi male, I think you may be onto something there. Hm…
Wait, I have a question relationship related. And I won’t even be a hystronic, sassy ass about it:
Who is the gentleman having sex with?
Seriously, I mean it, answer that question, who is that gentleman having sex with?
If the answer is: “The other person in the room he is naked with and currently inserting parts of his anatomy into”, riddle me this extra: Why on God’s Green Earth doesn’t he stop when we get to the “fear in their eyes, push away, lie there, awkward?”.
The guy is a gentlemen, you’ve written so, but you write it as if the person he is having sex with is himself. “He feels he has acted badly despite this because one part of her was not into it”, ie, because she didn’t enjoy the act, he feels guilty.
Why was there an act there to enjoy? Why was there a sexual intercourse event if one part of was not enjoying it? When he gets to the bit where he feels guilty, because he can see the other part doesn’t like it, tell me why he doesn’t stop. Tell me why they don’t communicate. Tell me why him getting off, ejaculating inside someone else, is more important than every other instance of their personal communication?
You know when I wrote I wasn’t going to be hystronically sassy? I lied.
By Carl Sagan’s Non Existent Beard, Fedora, Black – that is atrocious. That is terrible. That is shameful. You don’t have to feel ashamed, I am not trying to shame you, but a view of sex that incorporates the activities of two people and boil it down to “One gets off ,feels a little guilty because the other side didn’t enjoy it” is shameful. It’s mechanicisticall atrocious. It’s masturbation with the aid of a meat puppet.
If you ever find yourself writing the sentence “It is not rape because consent was given, but the gentleman will feel he ha acted badly despite this because one part of her was not into it” and not immediately appending “… so that’s why they didn’t have sex”, you are doing it wrong. You are thinking wrong things.
Consent was given in the same way I go and get a cup of coffee? Sure, it’s a bit stale now, but might as well finish the damn thing, right? Consent was given like I bought a fucking cheese at the local supermarket – sure, the salesman assured me it was great, but it turns out it wasn’t… and I ate it anyway, because why the fuck no. No other options exist.
Consent is not “Buyer beware”. It’s not “seller beware”. Consent is fucking mutual .
IF this gentleman DID NOT stop upon NOTICING that some part of his partner was not INTO THE ACT, why is he still a gentleman? And who is he having sex with?
Because it sure isn’t his willing partner, but it might be his giant ego.
Also, how did PC attitudes relate to Einstein and winning the war? Don’t cop out. Tell me.
And guess my age while you’re at it. And how much I hate men. And how many boyfriends I’ve had.
Dance monkey, dance. As the PUA’s put it, you’re our dancing monkey now.
@Asshat: You’re still not making any sense. I confess I like political conversations more than blatant rape apologia, but you sound an awful lot like you’ve lost your way with your talk of the modern world’s moral bankruptcy, the bliss of the free markets, and other imaginary stuff only self-obsessed, entitled jerks care about. Isn’t the Conservative Dinner with Whine discussion board somewhere else?
I cannot fathom these guys. To them, human rights are a zero-sum game, but the economy isn’t? Treating others as equals is utterly unreasonable, but food and shelter just magically arise from some vague “hard work”, like there aren’t limits to human capacity and natural resources, or the access to them?
@Zombie Marie: “What strange alternate universe are you living in?”
Who was it that made the comparison between a group of people (I believe it was New Earth creationists in that case, but applies equally well here) making their absurd claims about the way the world works and a person insisting that the small rock in their hand is actually an elephant? How can you address the arguments of such people? They are so incredibly, unbelievably wrong that they’ve stepped beyond human comprehension and entered some strange, chaotic world where physical laws work as they want them to work, and being right is not a matter of facts, but about the insistence on being right. Yet every normal person here on planet Earth can clearly see that the rock is not an elephant.
On the free market thing: 1) I’d quote you (Zombie Marie) for truth if I knew how to make those fancy blockquote thingies, 2) The “free” market is a silly thought eperiment that does not work in real life, and even then, success in the free market is not achieved by simply working hard, 3) Holy shit about that job offer to your mom. That’s awful, and a great example of how poor people cannot just “work hard and achieve success” in our economic system, where a key ingredient to acquiring wealth is already being pretty wealthy.
@Pecunium: Bravo.
Also: “PUA is all about getting approval from women. It’s proving one’s worth by getting women to approve of one enough to have sex.”
In my experience, at least some PUAs also use “the Game” to get approval from other men (usually other PUAs, but any man will do) by sleeping with many different women. So yeah, seems the whole thing is just about getting approval and attention.
Dude’s now advertising his blog on two thread’s here, because he can’t get anyone else to read it? Pathetic.
This conversation is over. 😉
Oh oh! Guess for me too!
cloudiah, you have to tell us the conversation is over twice before it’s actually over.
Then you need to start posting again a few minutes later.
That’s how these things are done.
@Radical Parrot
Yeah :/ Luckily things have picked up now, and she has a job. We pretty much kept in an apartment when she didn’t have a job because her aunt was helping us pay for it, so it’d have been much, much harder without a support net (right phrase?). The good news is someone finally got around to suing those people…they were supposed to be the ones you apply to for help if you don’t have a job, and clearly failed, but they’re finally going to court. Don’t know much more cuz I only know what my mom told me, but glad that something happening there. State of Indiana, in case anyone is curious where this shit’s happening.
/rambling.
Also, you remembered I was a zombie! 😀 I tried to change my name, but it stuck my comment in moderation.
Also also, blockquotes are [blockquote] text [/blockquote] but you use < instead of [
Guess my age too. Oh, wise one.
And guess how many bf I’ve had.
After all, you did tell us that if we complain about male attention it must because of how unattractive we are. Because secretly we all want men to scream “masturbate” out their car windows at us. Or follow us around downtown and into coffee shops until the barista calls the police on them, or paw at us at the clubs, or call us ugly bitches when we decline their invitation to have them be out sugar daddies.
Black Fedora: My point remains however. Both men and women are born with varying degrees of physical attractiveness. This is just the way things are.
That wasn’t your point. Your point was that PUA was harmless, at worst, and probably good, because it keeps dudes with poor social skills from a fate worse than death (i.e. being invisible, or perhaps not getting laid).
People who lack skills with the opposite sex will want to attain them. There is nothing creepy in giving the underdog a fair chance. In fact teaching men to be attractive actually does women a favor!
If that’s all that Game was, I’d be behind it 100 percent. But it’s not, and you know it, because you praise the writing of Roosh.
I believe on a basic level that everyone deserves a chance to better themselves. If they are poor they deserve the chance to make some money by hard work. If they lack social skills they should learn them.
Good, we are in agreement.
I also believe that people are allowed to have their own agency. That no means no, and tricking people (or worse, forcing them) to do things they don’t really want do is a moral affront, to their humanity, and to society.
You (as a person who praises Roosh, and Game, and those the SPLC reveal as hate groups) don’t.
That’s why we say you are a moral pinhead, and an asshole, and a shitbird. It’s not your Conservativism, it’s your abusive nature.
. Maybe she wants to let go but cannot due to a religious upbringing. Who knows? It is not rape because consent was given but a gentleman will feel he has acted badly despite this because one part of her was not into it.
What…? You say, in your example, that she didn’t consent (“but cannot”, to which you attach a specious [fictional] justification). You aver consent was given (and not revoked), because…? Oh, right, the dude telling the story tells you so; while describing the encounter as her, “pushing him away, with fear in her eyes.”
This is “consent”? Remind me not to enter into any business arrangement with you.
We are now discussing the moral sewer that the left has become.
No. You are pretending to have that conversation. We are pointing out your inability to maintain a consistent moral compass (unless, perhaps, the compass is actually, “I should be allowed to do whatever I want, and you shouldn’t”).
A Subreddit that discusses Reddit itself is now discussing the tensions between allowing FREEZE PEACH and the existence of “hate groups” like MRAs on Reddit. Cue visits from angry douchcanoes, who blame everything on David:
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/1ezbjt/hate_groups_on_reddit_and_the_problem_of_leakage/ca665ap
Me too! BlackAsshat, guess my age and how many times I rode the Alpha Cock Carousel.
The conversation is dead. LONG LIVE THE ZOMBIE CONVERSATION!!!