Forget the reported suicides and all the ruined lives; the real tragedy of Ashley Madison is that men had to use the site in order to find women to cheat with, when all women have to do to get laid is to exist.
At least that’s the consensus of Men’s Rights Redditors in a recent thread.
The Reddit post in question links to an article in The Week asking “Why are we denying that women used Ashley Madison?” But the assembled MRAs are much more interested in discussing what they see as the real issue: how unfair it is that men have to sign up for dating sites to get laid while women, allegedly, can just fall into bed with whatever random dude is nearest to them.
The male tears flow freely as the Redditors set forth their case.
It’s MISANDRY, I tells ya!
![Globalization101 9 points 6 hours ago This is the real story that no one is touching. It's the WOW effect, women are wonderful men are duchebags. Most of all the women I've slept with in my adult life where almost all married or in a relationship. They didn't need to use this service to get what they wanted. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]jb_trp 9 points 5 hours ago It's the WOW effect, women are wonderful men are douchebags When a woman discusses the horrible things that men can do society calls it "insight, empowerment, and a step towards equality." When a man discusses the horrible things that women can do society calls it "sexism, misogyny, and mansplaining" (i.e. "shut up you whiny fucking loser!"). Men eventually got the message: Society doesn't care about your feelings. Hence, the women are wonderful and men are douchebags trope. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]BigOldNerd 1 point an hour ago Can confirm that my ex-wife didn't need a service. She hit the jackpot on her 1st outing.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/realstory.png?resize=492%2C495&ssl=1)
As Palidin327 sees it, women not only don’t have to sign up for Ashley Madison; they can have sex delivered right to the door for free — without even bothering to order it in the first place.
If this is true, why aren’t horny men lining up around the block for jobs as mailmen and poolboys?
Meanwhile, Spolio repeats a familiar talking point:
Dudes, here’s the thing: YOU are also the gatekeepers of sex. You can also say no! Just because your standards are lower, or because you have standards you’re unaware of because you only really notice the women that you do want to have sex with and not those you dismiss as fatties and uggoes, doesn’t mean that (heterosexual) sex is always the woman’s choice, not the man’s.
You’re also forgetting that women don’t only screen guys for attractiveness, compatibility, or lack of ear hair; they screen for safety because, you know, men are afraid women will laugh at them, and women are afraid that men will kill them.
If women don’t want to sleep with you, maybe it’s because you’re a creepy, whiny, entitled Men’s Rights Activist.
@Alan
But they’re probably also huge fans of the “Man’s home is his castle” thing. But only for them. The wind may enter, the rain may enter, but the king may not enter: hate to tell you lads, it applies to people’s bodies too. Even when the king is a returning one.
Alan
http://www.mzshyneka.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/giphy4.gif
I find it infuriating they think that men and boys cannot say no becuase they are always ready for sex so they just erased male victims of rape. Way to go a-holes.
Hey, OT mind bleach. A guy belly dancing:
It’s super interesting, culturally enlightening and there’s body glitter.
That YouTube page is in, like, four different languages and I can’t figure out where the guy is from so it MIGHT not be culturally enlightening as I thought…
Too much logic from the commenters here. My head hurts.
They seem to forget that these heterosexual women they are so bitter over, who get sex so easily, are getting that sex on with… men. Men who are apparently finding sex with these women without the use of paid dating sites. I doubt this is a small pool of men for a large pool of women, either. At least, not significantly smaller. Which means that it’s a two-way street, and plenty of men ARE having sex, just not THESE losers!
Yyyyup.
“Women can gave sex any time they want! Heck, they can even have sex when they DON’T want! Women who fall unconscious in the presence of any dude [at least any dude who is anything like the speaker, and they assume this trait is universal] is going to get sex like, right away! What a huge privilege those [insert slur of choice here] have, getting sex handed to them without even asking for it (even though they’re totally asking for it, amirite fellas?)!”
Ugh. Writing that made me feel dirty.
The creaky Victorian in me fails to understand why someone should *set out* to be unfaithful to one’s spouse. It’s one thing to be married, then meet someone else you want to get close to (and wished to have met before your current spouse); it’s quite another to register on a website with the express intent of cheating with someone, anyone, as long as you’re cheating.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I must go and trim my sideburns.
All idiocy aside, I don’t get the point of AM site. Married people usually don’t seek out affairs, they just “happen.” Like “I never planned this, etc.” if you’re looking to screw or date outside of your relationship there’s many sites designed for hooking up. I just don’t see the appeal. You get married for the express purpose of staying with one person. Is it just me? Do you have to be a devious shitstain to understand?
Hidden assumption of MRAs: All women= white, thin, hetero, conventionally attractive.
Because it certainly is not the case that the rest of us can “get laid” any time, anywhere.
None of the rest of us count as women to these knuckleheads.
Whenever men do the “women can have sex with a man anytime they want” or “how can you complain about being catcalled, I’d love it!” I have to roll my eyes. Sure I could I find sex anytime despite being not an HB10 and past the wall at an ancient 35. But, with who? Can I have sex specifically with any man I find attractive anytime I want? Not so much. Could I pick up a skeevy and possibly dangerous creep from the internet or the bus stop? Sure! Only super conventionally attractive women are even visible to these men. So when they picture getting genitalia shots on OK Cupid, getting catcalled and being able to find a willing sex partner 24/7, they’re picturing their fantasy women throwing themselves at them. They aren’t gender flipping our reality. They’re conjuring up their wank material and getting mad it’s not their reality.
It all comes down to the usual manosphere complaint. That they don’t have an endless supply of thin, pretty, young virgins at their beck and call. This is somehow on the same level as being raped and abused.
Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on; the guy who claims every woman he’s ever slept with has been married is upset about being stereotyped as a “douchebag”?
So they want slut-nun-virgin-whores-man hungry-sex avoiders who will have sex with men that don’t wipe.
And they wonder why they’re bitter and alone.
@sn0rkmaiden
At least one of those things has already come true: just today Ashley Madison have been sued by five separate plaintiffs for a total of over $500 million, which should amount to about $15 for each stolen account. It seems a bit steep, but they’re probably hoping to settle out of court. I think it’s safe to say that AM won’t be recovering from this.
One of the things not being discussed is just how craptastic AM has been about security from the beginning. They didn’t (or at least some time) engage in account authorisation; so people who wanted to arrange harassment campaigns, could (and did) sign people up for accounts, so that they could then get pestered (or bombarded) with AM sourced mail.
A sort of Distributed Means Of Harassment, a la a DDOS attack.
So the data may all be from AM, and still be incredibly corrupted.
@Nitram
I thinkthat their appeal to married people is that they’re supposed to offer a much larger degree of privacy and security to their users, so they don’t get found out by their spouses. It’s also easier to keep things secret if the person you’re having an affair with knows that you’re married from the start, rather than finding out afterwards.
Amazing. Here I’ve merely existed for more than four decades, and somehow managed NOT to have any cheaty-ass affairs. What the hell am I doing wrong???
I am so so SO beyond sick of this MRA fantasy that women can have sex on demand without having to do anything. It’s so obvious that they don’t consider non-“HB10” women to exist (they don’t think women are human to begin with). It goes hand in hand with the “women never experience rejection” bullshit – since men “have” to make the first move women have NO IDEA how haaaaard it is to risk that rejection nevermind the 4 billion other forms of rejection that exist.
I know a lot of women who aren’t having sex. I know a lot of women who have been rejected, brutally, by someone. I really just want this fucking meme to die.
John mcafee claims this is by a women because of the emotional words used.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/john-mcafee-ashley-madison-database-stolen-by-lone-female-who-worked-avid-life-media-1516833
Off topic, but I’m so relieved somebody besides me saw the trailer for No Escape and thought “wow, that’s racist as fuck.” I pretty much had a rage stroke when I first saw the trailer but didn’t see anything about it anywhere else and wondered if it was just me.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-theres-no-escape-from-hollywood-racism/
Speaking of racist trailers
https://youtu.be/aGGPTlrX_PE
Holy crap, what the fuck? Eli Roth really needs to bungee jump into a pit of Legos anytime now.
@wwth
Oh, I saw an article about No Escape, I think, on Cracked.
@WWTH
I… I have no words. Has the idea that anyone not from a “civilised” western civilisation is some kind of murderous cannibal deity worshiping “savage” STILL not died out? In 2015? And that these people live in the fucking rain forest?
weirwoodtreehugger, The defense I’ve heard is that the point of the movie is to pick on the “White Saviour Complex”. These kids in knowing nothing of what’s actually happening. I don’t think people are buying that defense, but that is what I’ve seen trotted out.
I think that would hold more weight if it was their own stupidity and ignorance that got them in trouble instead of man-eating Peruvian savages.
Also is it just me or is anyone else interpreting the critic quotes in the trailer as though they’re not actually frightened by the movie but rather by the horrific racism and cultural insensitivity on display.
lightcastle,
I suppose it’s possible. But you’d think if that’s what the movie was going for, that would be clear from the trailer. If someone needs to be a mind reader to pick up on the satire, you’re doing satire wrong.
Of course the comments on the Cracked article are full of people whining about how mean the SJWs are to white people. If the people who defend your movie are the types of people who think anti-white racism is a thing, again, you’re doing something wrong.
But I’m sure people will buy that defense because that’s what they want to believe.