Categories
a voice for men ableism advocacy of violence are these guys 12 years old? boner rage creepy douchebaggery evil women FemRAs gender policing homophobia judgybitch ladies against women men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA not-quite-explicit threats oppressed men pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles racism threats transphobia trigger warning

Some of the comments I don’t let through

How comments are moderated at Man Boobz.
How comments are moderated at Man Boobz.

So I had to re-ban a couple of long-banned trolls today, who had returned with new names and slightly different IP addresses but who gave themselves away with their behavior. And that got me thinking about the people — well, the MRAs and PUAs and other such charming folks — who regularly denounce me as an evil censor of FREE SPEECH.

In fact, when I ban people, I do so for good reasons: one of the two trolls I banned today was a longtime MRAish commenter here who eventually creeped everyone out by boasting about having sex with underage prostitutes; the other was a man of many sockpuppets known for angry, abusive meltdowns full of slurs.

Anyway, so I thought I’d give you all a glimpse into my “trash” folder. Here’s a sampling of comments from would-be first time commenters at Man Boobz that I felt would not add anything to the discourse here. But in the interests of FREE SPEECH I thought I’d give these “ideas” an airing today.

TRIGGER WARNING for violent and offensive language. (Sorry about the quality of the last two; you can click on them to see larger versions.)

You people are such wankers. MGTOW is the best thing that ever happened. Personally, i despise women and would gladly see them all die horribly. This site is not only run bu a pathetic, wretched little scum, but populated by ones as well.Sad to say. But I see many good men get hurt by women. I feel not one drop of sympathy for any women who gets hurt, Beatin up or treated like shit. Cheers you dumb bitch.censored1censored2

Not all of the comments I trash are quite this awful. Some are only mildly violent or abusive. I tend to be a bit picky with people’s first comments, assuming that if someone posts a shitty first comment it’s not likely to get any better after that. There are a few banned commenters who stop by and try to post anyway, including one fellow who leaves endless comments trying to prove, as far as I can tell, that teenage girls are objectively hotter than women in their twenties and older.

And, of course, there are comments targeting individual women, whether these are giant cut-and-pasted rants about Anita Sarkeesian, vaguely threatening remarks aimed at other well-known internet feminists, or bizarre sexual comments about female MRAs from fans of theirs.

Once in a while I will get a comment from a feminist that resorts to violent language; I don’t let those comments through either.

And then there are the pictures people try to post in the comments. Below, one of the ones I actually let through, depicting me in a dress with some extremely tall dude. A quick Google image search reveals that it was originally posted online by regular A Voice for Men contributor Janet Bloomfield, in a blog post of hers from last year on Disney princesses. Stay classy, Men’s “Human Rights” Movement!

I don't actually own a dress like this.
I don’t actually own a dress like this.

Anyway, the pictures I don’t let through are worse.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

324 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fromafar2013
fromafar2013
6 years ago

@ Shiraz, the bread is nice. I actually don’t know what made me sick, especially since I’m a vegetarian, limits me to, like, two sandwiches.

@ op4tm I’m on siren. Sad face 🙁 I don’t make friends in game, but I have one irl friend I play with sometimes. I’m working my way to monk. One level left in pugilist and five in lancer. Yay! I can’t even imagine capping all adv classes! Leveling past 25 is a mega pain in the ass!

opium4themasses
opium4themasses
6 years ago

@fromafar I don’t know if you are we’ll established yet, but you and your friend could transfer. I have a fun group in my free company and link shells if you wanted to make the move. One thing I love about FF is the tendency to have a more mixed gender player base. So far the amount of MRA bullshit I see from players is much, much lower than gaming in general. Though there is still anti-Sarkeesian stuff. (There are definitely issues with gender, but the ingame language is more inclusive.)

vaiyt
6 years ago

“I love how evo-psych explanations always assume a rigid gender binary, modern Western culture, and patriarchy for all of history. ”

Not even modern Western culture – modern, Western, developed, white and rich culture.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: sparky

Basically, I feel every time dude says “men prefer,” “men think,” “men do,” what he REALLY means is, “I prefer,” “I think,” “I do.”

Dude, just because YOU believe this shit doesn’t mean other men do. Leave me and non-creepers out of your stupid little bullshit.

I mean, if we’re going to use this bullshit, than OBVIOUSLY Japanese yaoi teaches us that all women in the world prefer thin, femme, queer men. Obviously this is because they biologically see these men as good loving providers, allowing them to ride the alpha cock carousel and then chain these poor queer men into platonic marriages. I know this because of my RESEARCHES. *points to ass*

Robert
Robert
6 years ago

LBT, good point. I believe that one of the blessings of having sexytimes preferences that are not reified by the majority/dominant culture (for me, at least) is that I had to recognize that what I personally found appealing was not a universal truth.

Glad I don’t have to diagram THAT sentence.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Robert

Yup, basically. I’m a trans gay man who’s only been attracted to a handful of people, so I had it hammered in pretty fast that my tastes do not equal the world’s. Atomo over there needs to go hang out with some different people, you ask me.

kittehserf
6 years ago

I mean, if we’re going to use this bullshit, than OBVIOUSLY Japanese yaoi teaches us that all women in the world prefer thin, femme, queer men.

… can I customise that to bi and with a touch of the old love-handles? 😉

kittehserf
6 years ago

Drat, hit reply too soon.

I had to recognize that what I personally found appealing was not a universal truth.

I got that even without being outside the opposite-sex thing. I was astonished when other people said they thought Mr K’s handsome, because he’s so far from the type of male beauty presented by Hollywood or magazines (which I find mostly very unappealing).

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Kittehs

Yeah, while I actually have a minor dislike of abs, which is apparently unthinkable here. (I swear, I don’t know why! They just don’t do it for me!)

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Can I customize to bi or straight both acceptable, but keep the abs? And add that long hair, while not essential, is highly preferred, but yaoi-style relationship dynamics are highly discouraged?

The mainstream American idea of what’s hot in men has always been so far from what I prefer that, yep, you learn pretty early not to universalize your own preferences. You also learn that men who’re really attached to the idea of the mainstream preferences being universal will a. get angry with you for having preferences at all and then b. assume you’re lying about them.

Shiraz
Shiraz
6 years ago

Yeah. “…get angry with you,” then accuse you of being a shallow bitch.
Then there’s that phenomena of watching a film in mixed company, seeing an attractive male and saying something like, “Wow, he’s cute.” Only to have someone in the same room reply sneeringly, “Pffft. He’s gay.” What the fuck is that, anyway?

kittehserf
6 years ago

Cassandra, you can have all the abs I don’t want, too. And the pecs … I really, really dislike the hugely built-up chest thing. I like more or less straight up and down, but a soft line, and sloping shoulders, not straight ones, and not really wide ones. The inverted carrot figure doesn’t do it for me.

Long hair dark and moustache are a must. Beard’s optional but it has to be minimal and neat, not sproiking out everywhere.

OT I am loving my new glasses.

kittehserf
6 years ago

Shiraz – that sort of shit makes me glad I have the easy way out of saying “He’s not him” about anyone else at all. Being single-target has various advantages!

I don’t get the “he’s gay” thing either. Do they think finding a guy attractive has anything to do with whether the opportunity for sex exists, or whether one would act on it if it did?

Argenti Aertheri
6 years ago

“Btw, jeetyet?”

I have not! Born and breed in CT, went to visit a friend at Pitt and made it my goal in life to get in, succeeded and very nearly chose homeless there over moving back to CT, but I couldn’t find a new home for my fish. Salads need french fries, this is a thing no one up here gets! Also, no Yeung Ying, and their Black and Tan is the only beer I like! (Pecunium, pick some up for me, you can get it there and I can’t!) Definitrly S’liberty, but South Oakland.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Huge pecs make me feel like I should offer to lend the bearer a bra, so no, someone else can have those. I do like muscle definition, just not bulk. Skinny but toned hits the sweet spot for me. I love the inverted triangle torso with the big shoulders and the tiny hips.

Bets on how long it will be before some dudebro spots this conversation and complains? I used to get guys yelling at me about my icon (sexy shirtless dude playing a bass) on Jezebel all the time.

kittehserf
6 years ago

Yeah, “put on a bra” is my reaction to them, too.

Slim-to-skinny used to be my thing, but now it’s middle-aged-comfy. Oddly enough my tastes change to whatever Mr currently looks like. 😛

Sexy shirtless dude playing bass? Did he have long hair? ::drools::

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Skinny but a bit toned pretty boys have always been my thing. Their preferred age range has changed along with mine, but other than that…yeah, I have a type.

I don’t have the icon any more, but it was a cropped version of this pic.

http://imgur.com/TkyxzpX

Wow, his face looks terrible there though. Must have had a cold, he’s all puffy.

Bina
Bina
6 years ago

Yeah. “…get angry with you,” then accuse you of being a shallow bitch.
Then there’s that phenomena of watching a film in mixed company, seeing an attractive male and saying something like, “Wow, he’s cute.” Only to have someone in the same room reply sneeringly, “Pffft. He’s gay.” What the fuck is that, anyway?

Bitterness. And a ham-handed attempt to distract one from the “competition”.

Bina
Bina
6 years ago

BTW, if there’s such a thing as a heterosexual twink, I would love one.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

There are tons of hetero twinks, you just have to know where to look.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

“What the fuck is that, anyway?”

Raging insecurity.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

Heh, while I care less about muscle definition, but prefer bulk. I was rather dismayed to find that I find young John Goodman quite the handsome man.

Ah well. The travails of being gay, I suppose.

kittehserf
6 years ago

I can understand that. I’m finding Roger Allam quite handsome – partly because I’m seeing him playing the very likable Fred Thursday.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

Who’s Fred Thursday?

kittehserf
6 years ago

He’s Morse’s boss in Endeavour – Inspector Fred Thursday. Lovely character who has a mean right hook with villains.

Shiraz
Shiraz
6 years ago

I love you guys.
Fred Thursday, the cop in Endeavour? We don’t have it here in the States, but I’ve heard of it.

Shiraz
Shiraz
6 years ago

Ah, didn’t refresh soon enough. 🙂

kittehserf
6 years ago

DId you ever see the Inspector Morse or Inspector Lewis series, Shiraz? Endeavour’s the prequel – Morse as a skinny young ’60s detective constable – and it’s really good. They’re making a second series. The first’s out on dvd if you’re interested.

kittehserf
6 years ago

Ditto about not refreshing! 😀

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

Ah, okay! Consider me learned.

kittehserf
6 years ago

🙂

Fade
Fade
6 years ago

@cassandrakitty

Huge pecs make me feel like I should offer to lend the bearer a bra, so no, someone else can have those.

as long as we’re on the topic of what’s hot, huge pecs are the best IMO

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

See, dudes who think they’re doomed because all women like the same thing and they’re not it? Women do not actually all like the same thing.

(“Complete asshole who hates women” seems to be almost a universal turnoff, though.)

armondikov
6 years ago

That’s you in the picture? I thought it was supposed to be either TheAmazingAtheist or the Hairy Bikers.

titianblue
titianblue
6 years ago

Could be both Hairy Bikers on Strictly…

Bina
Bina
6 years ago

There are tons of hetero twinks, you just have to know where to look.

That must be it. I live in a small town. It appears to be a twink-free zone.

Octo
Octo
6 years ago

“BTW, if there’s such a thing as a heterosexual twink, I would love one.”

By the same token, there seem to be too few hetero ‘boyish’ (for lack of a better word) girls :p

Anyway – I delurked to say that you people shouldn’t be too dismissive about the concept of the “sex market”, creepy as the term may be. Let’s call it dating market instead. After all, we all know any true market is driven by supply and demand, right? But that means *individual* demand – everybody prefers something (or in this case, somebody) else, and everybody is willing to pay differently (in this case, willing to put up with different amounts of, well, whatever).

That’s what the broscience dudes forget. If they don’t want too date older women, hey fine, their choice. Let’s see if they can compete for the limited supply of younger women (yes, yes, sounds creepy but hear me out). But no, they want to have their behaviour be normalized, to set it as a standard for everybody. Essentially, they want to replace the “dating market” with “dating command economy” (ehem).

That’s also why “Men Going Their Own Way” is a good idea in *theory*. If you truly thing modern women are not worth putting up with (i.e., in market terms their “price” is too high), well, then don’t. But don’t try to force this behaviour on other men as well… which is what actual MGTOW try.

So essentially – the dating market is an area that would actually benefit a lot from true, unfettered “capitalism”, i.e. being a free market. That way, everybody can follow their own preferences, without any obligations or restrictions (like stupid, misunderstood Psycho-Evo). Which is funny considering how many MRAs are libertarians, yet they essentially want the dating market to be a central command “economy”…

titianblue
titianblue
6 years ago

I delurked to say that you people shouldn’t be too dismissive about the concept of the “sex market”, creepy as the term may be. Let’s call it dating market instead.

Let’s not. Any discussion that treats human relationships as commercial transactions is creepy and diminishes us.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
6 years ago

I’m sure this is another “misunderstood” comment by Octo that will be explained away now.

Fibinachi
6 years ago

“BTW, if there’s such a thing as a heterosexual twink, I would love one.”

By the same token, there seem to be too few hetero ‘boyish’ (for lack of a better word) girls :p

Anyway – I delurked to say that you people shouldn’t be too dismissive about the concept of the “sex market”, creepy as the term may be. Let’s call it dating market instead. After all, we all know any true market is driven by supply and demand, right? But that means *individual* demand – everybody prefers something (or in this case, somebody) else, and everybody is willing to pay differently (in this case, willing to put up with different amounts of, well, whatever).

That’s what the broscience dudes forget. If they don’t want too date older women, hey fine, their choice. Let’s see if they can compete for the limited supply of younger women (yes, yes, sounds creepy but hear me out). But no, they want to have their behaviour be normalized, to set it as a standard for everybody. Essentially, they want to replace the “dating market” with “dating command economy” (ehem).

That’s also why “Men Going Their Own Way” is a good idea in *theory*. If you truly thing modern women are not worth putting up with (i.e., in market terms their “price” is too high), well, then don’t. But don’t try to force this behaviour on other men as well… which is what actual MGTOW try.

So essentially – the dating market is an area that would actually benefit a lot from true, unfettered “capitalism”, i.e. being a free market. That way, everybody can follow their own preferences, without any obligations or restrictions (like stupid, misunderstood Psycho-Evo). Which is funny considering how many MRAs are libertarians, yet they essentially want the dating market to be a central command “economy”…

No.
No, no, no, and no.
I disagree.

A person should be dismissive of the idea of a sex market, because while it has a seductive air of applicable analogous terms, it does not apply to economic theories as those are understood and used by actual economists, and using them, these theories, to explain a sex market is a misunderstanding and a misappropriate of a very specific kind of information and system, which ends up destroying and utterly rendering null any kind of value that analogy has, while also supporting a system of misunderstood, exacerbated ignorance in an attempt to make preferences and proscriptions seem scientific (But I’m right! I’m not a fool, I’m using economics).

Economics might be the dismal science (Well, it’s dismal, science is a bit off), but it need not be used by dismal people for dismal aims. I’m going to go through exactly why this doesn’t work, and why you should be very careful about using those terms.

Why?
Because I’m an economist.
And it bugs me when people do this.
It bugs me infinitely. It bugs me like the multiplier effect bugs my sense of math.
———–

Anyway – I delurked to say that you people shouldn’t be too dismissive about the concept of the “sex market”, creepy as the term may be. Let’s call it dating market instead. After all, we all know any true market is driven by supply and demand, right? But that means *individual* demand – everybody prefers something (or in this case, somebody) else, and everybody is willing to pay differently (in this case, willing to put up with different amounts of, well, whatever).

No.
Demand is not individual demand.
Demand is a function of price – the lower the price, the higher the demand, generally. The axiom is that “Demand is a buyer’s willingness and ability to pay a price for a specific quantity of a good or service”.
Willingness AND ability. Ability is just as important as willingness. It’s a review of the available MARKET, not the individual preference of a product. The term is used to describe a market analysis on idea of, say, at price point XX, how many Consumers will eat our ice cream?

Using it to mean “Demand for love” means ignoring price, willingness, ability, elasticity, the availability of substitute products and market differences, while still somehow maintaining the “scientific notion” that demand is a function of a price – which allows one to make easy, off hand statements like: “Everyone is willing to go to different lengths for different products, but old women are still yucky, just look at the way the graph slopes downwards”

Preference is not and have not been an economic term that relates to demand, because preference is nominal, and we can’t work with personal preferences in a seemingly theoretical science.

That’s what the broscience dudes forget. If they don’t want too date older women, hey fine, their choice. Let’s see if they can compete for the limited supply of younger women (yes, yes, sounds creepy but hear me out). But no, they want to have their behaviour be normalized, to set it as a standard for everybody. Essentially, they want to replace the “dating market” with “dating command economy” (ehem).

At any given price point, any given amount of producers will put out as much product as the market can withstand and they can supply. It refers to the amount of a product that producers and firms are willing to sell at a given price all, other factors being held constant. Supply in economics NEVER HAS and NEVER WILL mean merely the “Amount We Have Lying Around In Stock”, it is a specific term with a very specific meaning. Pretending that it means “Supply of”, instead of “The supply the producers put out”, means you can make statements like “People with different demands will be more willing to compete for limited supply”, which seems like it then ties into economic theory, but it does not. It is not what supply means. If there was an very high demand for young, nubile women, the market, in a free market economy, would see this imbalance (This is a called a supply shortage), and would attempt to correct it, because there was money going to waste as demand ability and willingness was not met.

What broscience dudes miss is that, according to economics, if there was such a high male demand for beautiful nubile young women, those beautiful, nubile young women would be produced and supplied.
Congratulations, I have just explained the sex trade to you.

Personal preferences does not influence economic supply, the producers of a good influence economic supply.

That’s also why “Men Going Their Own Way” is a good idea in *theory*. If you truly thing modern women are not worth putting up with (i.e., in market terms their “price” is too high), well, then don’t. But don’t try to force this behaviour on other men as well… which is what actual MGTOW try.

If you truly think not doing something is not worth doing, a person should not do this thing they do not want to do.

This has nothing to do with economics, because demand is willingness and ability, and in this case, we’re looking at no willingness. If the market terms would have someone’s “price” as too high, other people would still want to buy that thing, because demand slopes downwards, and at very high prices, you can still find consumers of a product (their willingness and ability is still present). In market terms, that’s what that means, which is very, very different from someone claiming that the “price” on an interpersonal relationship is too high to bear because all women are bitchy. Nevermind how I can’t conceptualize of a graph that somehow explains emotional states as a function of price, but claiming otherwise allows one to make the neat non-economic trick of pretending that women’s behavior are somehow a market changer, despite the fact, that in the system presented, women are the product being supplied – it allows one to make grand, magical tales about how bitches ruined dating, despite also controlling dating, supplying dating and providing dating, but those bitches are still reliant on us manly men for paying their now overwrought prices, and when we don’t, they’ll get all lonely.

It’s Revenge By Misunderstanding Economics, when what would actually happen is: “Large segments of the consumers are unwilling to pay for the supply at this price, but others still are. Perhaps we should change our business model?” with a significant amount of companies answering: “No, I’m good” and others answering “Okay, sure”.

So essentially – the dating market is an area that would actually benefit a lot from true, unfettered “capitalism”, i.e. being a free market. That way, everybody can follow their own preferences, without any obligations or restrictions (like stupid, misunderstood Psycho-Evo). Which is funny considering how many MRAs are libertarians, yet they essentially want the dating market to be a central command “economy”…

Becoming a free market and going through unfettered capitalism is about the single worst thing that could happen to a “dating market”.

No restrictions on under age dating? No controls for the treatment of the supplied product? No oversight by anyone on how dates are acquired or set up? What people who think “Free Market” means “Wondrous Wonders” misunderstand when dealing with a personal, emotional thing like dating is that dating (and women and women in dating) is a product in economic terms, and that “free market” just means “No regulations and no barriers to entry”.

If you think a free market approach and unfettered capitalism would be the single best thing that could happen to a “dating” market, then you are saying that you want sex slavery, children imported for sex dungeons and roving gangs of “Asset Acquisition” teams chloroforming women and men of the street and selling them.

It’s not what you want to say, it’s not what you intend to say, but it is, as a fact, what you are saying, because the barriers to entry for dating are very, very, very high and the regulations we as human beings place on dating are very, very, very strict, and most importantly of all, all those things are there for a very good fucking reason, because dating and sexual activity involves other people with sapience, sentience and lives, and not blocks of wood we can transport in a container through the ocean without food while throwing out whatever happens to rot on the way to keep prices down. In free market terms, no one entity has control over any other producing entities, and consumers are free to buy any and all products at any and all times. There are grand cases for free market economics in a lot of things and terms, but “De-regulated” is about the last fucking thing you want ANYTHING resembling a dating market to be, nevermind the fact that in a dating market, dating is the supplied product, and not sexual activity, which changes every single facet of the ongoing discussion.

What would constitute a market failure in a sexual market place?
What would the multiplier effect be like?
Does wages and work have an influence on a sexual market place?
Is it micro or macro economic?
Are you applying Keynesian, Neo-Classical or, god forbid, Austrian economic theories to the dating market?
What kind of market structure does the sexual market place have, pray tell?

“Sexual Marketplace” is the kind of Just-So analogy that has an impact, because you can, if you want to, visualize sexual interactions like a kind of market place where people go to sell and buy their preferences in genitalia, experiences and moments of joy.

The invention of economics as a science, however, totally ruins that analogy because people then start talking in “Demand and supply of pussy”, while not understanding what those terms mean in the theories they are attempting to mangle into being.

We should be dismissive of an idea for a sexual market place.
It’s about most inane misunderstanding of a science you’ll easily find, on par with claiming quantum mechanics means water has memory, or that geometry allows one to access the Eternal spirit of triangles and bring financial success through applying proper principles of squares.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

If you want to be taken seriously and welcomed with a warm embrace, definitely open your first comment with “you people shouldn’t”. Best way ever to make friends and influence people, that.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Also, understands-the-basic-principles-of-economics fistbump to Finibachi. If reading stuff like that is annoying to me after only a couple of years of economics classes, I can only image how irritating it must be for you.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
6 years ago

I thought that was an awesome comment by Fibinachi too. I only have one question (I’m not an economist, I’ve worked with them, and my total economics training is in the design and analysis of a couple of different types of choice experiments).

My reading of the dating/sex market, as outlined by people like Octo, is that it assumes all menz have the exact same utility* for the same womanz, and that preference trade-offs don’t occur.** The only overall utility change appears to be on the basis of age, where each womanz utility decreases by some (?constant ?ratio).

Did you have anything you wanted to add with respect to utility?

* I’m using this word in its technical economic sense only. It does not equate to “usefulness”. Fibinachi will know what I mean.

** The number of factors never change, and the factor weights are aggregated using some type of basic (probably linear) function, which ignores step functions.

Octo
Octo
6 years ago

Well, that was quite a hammering-down Fibinachi provided there to me. And, uh, I can’t very well argue against it. Given the points you mention, Fibinachi, yeah, 1) the analogy makes indeed not much sense… and 2) can be (mis)used to justify such things as sex trade or sex with minors, things I admit I did not think about.

What I meant was, well, something along the lines of “don’t like it, don’t do it”, instead of people trying to make generalized comments about what “men do” or “women do”, but yeah, as you said… it’s not quite what I wrote. And as you exhaustingly argued, the free market analogy for that doesn’t really work out in the end.

Octo
Octo
6 years ago

Kiwi: Do you have a reading comprehension problem with my posts? While Fibinachi proved exhaustingly that my analogy doesn’t work, I did write about individual preference (and mistook that as ‘demand’ in the market sense, which Fibinachi rightly corrected). My point was exactly that there is NOT an uniform utility.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Stop exhausting people, Fibinachi!

(Please note that this comment is SARCASM.)

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
6 years ago

Octo: are you capable of actually communicating clearly? You wrote:

That’s what the broscience dudes forget. If they don’t want too date older women, hey fine, their choice. Let’s see if they can compete for the limited supply of younger women (yes, yes, sounds creepy but hear me out). But no, they want to have their behaviour be normalized, to set it as a standard for everybody.

That’s one example of a constant utility in your post, aka younger women have higher utility.

Here’s another one:

That’s also why “Men Going Their Own Way” is a good idea in *theory*. If you truly thing modern women are not worth putting up with (i.e., in market terms their “price” is too high), well, then don’t.

Aka modern women have lower utility.

Those aren’t fucking *individual* preferences, they’re *group* preferences.

Octo
Octo
6 years ago

Group preferences, but not uniform preferences across the male gender as you laid it out:

“My reading of the dating/sex market, as outlined by people like Octo, is that it assumes all menz have the exact same utility*”

(how is quoting done here anyway? BBC code?)

That is exactly NOT what I wrote. Iń both cases you quote I think I made it pretty clear that this is what those people think. And would you seriously disagree with that assessment?

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
6 years ago

Octo, seriously?

So there is no stereotype that females lose their attractiveness with age, or that their utility is based on that attractiveness? Even though popular culture shoves that down my throat? I must be imagining it that there are fewer older female anchors and actors compared to their male equivalents. I must also be imagining it that it’s hilarious to show an older female with a younger male companion, whereas the opposite situation is normalised.

Because clearly ageing has no effect on how society views the competence or attractiveness of women.

Otherwise, you know, my point earlier would hold.