By David Futrelle
In the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, yet another man with what appears to be a merely theoretical understanding of the subject has decided that he needs to explain sex to us all.
Be warned: He uses … metaphor.
It’s not pretty.
Here’s the whole text if you don’t want to squint to read that:
The Rigged Exchange (self.MGTOW)
submitted 7 months ago by slyn69
when you boil male female relationships down to their most basic exchange, the man provides resources and utility and the woman provides access to sex. already, this is a completely unfair exchange when you realize that women actually enjoy and crave sex as much as men, if not more-so. on top of that, it is the expectation on the man to perform sexually, pleasure his woman and bring her to orgasm multiple times.its like, if u and a woman were making an apple pie together. your job would be to grow the apples, pluck them. plant the wheat, grind it into flour. mead the dough. add the sugar. turn it into a pie. then u bring your pie around to all the women u know hoping one of them will open her oven for you. she doesnt even turn the oven on, thats still your job. then, after the pie is done cooking, u have to feed it to her.
Er, “mead the dough?”
I’m not sure this guy is much of a baker, if you catch my drift.
I’ll leave it to the rest of you to tease out all the implications of the rest of this metaphor because I’m a having a little trouble trying to figure out what, sex-wise, each of the pie-making steps he mentions actually refer to.
The oven is the vagina, right? Is the pie the penis? Because I’m pretty sure you don’t bake pies by repeatedly putting them in and pulling them out of the oven.
And if we ignore this little metaphorical oddity and accept that putting the pie in the oven is penis-in-vagina fun time, then why does the guy have to feed her the pie afterwards? What if she wants to, er, eat it beforehand? Or maybe just use her hand? What if he wants to eat her pie or, I dunno, put his finger in it? If her pie, in this metaphor, is actually the oven, dude should probably wear oven mitts, right? Do they make those for tongues?
I have so many questions.
I suspect this guy will be “meading” his own dough for a while, if you know what I mean, wink wink nudge nudge.
And here we see both Incel logic and Incel methodology
Woman sets boundary
Incel immediately crosses boundary
Incel asks how he’s crossed boundary
But of course the whole purpose is the kick that incels get from making women uncomfortable.
If they were just into theoretical misogyny they’d keep themselves to their own sites; but practical misogyny is their goal; hence intruding here with the sole purpose of causing harm.
Everyone here knows that the purported unattractiveness excuse is both individually and generally bullshit. But incels don’t want to date women; they want to abuse them.
And here we have the perfect spherical Incel in a vacuum example.
And he failed so fast he ninja’d me
?
The boundary cant be “Youve said something I dont like so wah wah wah ” It has to be related to sexual behaviour and unwanted advances. Which I have not done.
And incel is a bullshit term anyway. Whilst some guys are undateable, they can all get hookers and chose not to, so there celibacy isnt involuntary
Women aren’t allowed to set boundaries that aren’t about sex? Are you for real?
Edit – sorry, kupo, this obviously isn’t aimed at you! You ninja’d me. 😛
You don’t get to define anothers boundaries.
Now, be a good chap and don’t put so much compressed wrongness into single posts. The field strength is distorting the entire net.
http://pa1.narvii.com/6013/123cfba54308b43bda2996dc6c9c111a4441e522_00.gif
Uh, Feministguy? When women say “Hey we’re uncomfortable with you doing a thing, please don’t do that.” and you insist you didn’t do that thing and demand we drop everything to explain to you (again) why, it comes off as really shitty non-feminist behavior.
You’re talking over women and attempting to hijack the conversation.
Oi mate, you’ve been rumbled. Now fuck off and go.
Hi, feministguy.
Two points.
1. Due to the way our economy works, many men are living paycheque-to-paycheque and are not able to afford to drop a bunch of cash on hiring someone to sleep with them.
2. Sex workers deserve better than to work with people like incels.
Oh, and I continue to maintain that Feminist Guy is MRAL. You can see exhibit A of my evidence on page 2 of the makeup thread. Exhibit B is his continued boundary violation.
I’m pretty sure when they start reducing the other side’s arguments down to “wah wah” the flounce is imminent.
http://www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/castles/images/mb.jpg
scamper scurry retreat
@Dr. Thang:
Aw, thanks!
The OP isn’t even the first online MRA I’ve encountered who used his misconceived ideas about baking to craft an analogy for how men and women relate to one another. I used to hate-read a terrible webcomic I do not care to name, and in one strip, the author self-insertion character explains to his wife that society is like cookie dough – it needs both the “sweetness” of women and the yeast – or “Y-factor” – of men to be any good.
Those of you who’ve baked cookies from scratch have already spotted the problem with the analogy, but I’ll spell it out for those who haven’t: cookie dough doesn’t have yeast in it. It expands in the oven because of the microscopic air particles introduced in the mixing process. (So men are a lot of hot air, I guess.) The cartoonist clearly had only made cookies from the premixed dough tubes you can get at the grocery store – the character holds up one when he’s talking – but he could have at least checked the ingredient list to confirm that cookie dough has yeast in it before making his comic! The Dunning-Kruger effect at work.
@feministguy, I’ll give you a chance here. There’s a stumbling block you’re hitting here, repeatedly. You will find that WWTH is a cement pollard to your rhetorical unicycle.
See, you’re wrong about something. Wrongety-wrong-wrong. And every time we say it, you either ignore it or get cranky. This is an excellent way to continue to be wrong, and a great way to be more wrong in the future.
Your gross reply to WWTH is exactly what I’m talkin about here. She said “please don’t cross this line,” and you crossed over it and said “I can cross that line if I want, I just won’t cross that line.” To this, I have to say,
1) Fuck you, when someone says “I don’t want you to ask me questions” it’s not a fuckin’ invitation. Learn some basic human decency.
2) Anyone who’s interested in a conversation has to, at a minimum, listen to and respect the people they’re speaking with. A great way to violate both of these things is to do what you just did.
So don’t play the “poor me, I just want to rationalize” argument. Don’t play the “free speech I can say what I want” argument. Be human, have empathy, listen, and respect the people you’re talking to.
Or crawl back into your bailey and we’ll siege you out. Your choice, I guess.
Feministguy
To make life a bit easier for you in your upcoming inevitable flounce, and to save everyone from having to listen to any more from you, I’ve set out the usual flounce options. Just tick the one that suits you best.
(a) Ok, I can see I’m upsetting people, I’ll go away now.
(This one allows you to appear contrite but without making any actual substantive apology, and you can sneak back later)
(b) You’ve been so conditioned by the way men have treated you, you’ve internalised lookism. So obviously I can’t get through to you. That’s not your fault.
(This way you can be really patronising and dismissive of women yet still use progressive terminology, like your purported feminism)
(c) If some of you are going to say merely expressing an opinion is equivalent to sexual assault then there’s no reasoning with you.
(Here you can blame women and gaslight them with a strawman fallacy, but by only referring to ‘some’ you can pretend that it’s only a minority that think you’re a wanker)
Toodles
You forgot one, Alan.
(d) I was pro-feminism. Then I commented here and you were all so mean. I guess I’m going to become an MRA and it’s all your fault.
(This type of flounce is meant to give the impression that feminists are so unreasonable that it’s driving away well intentioned men from the movement. In reality it’s tone policing nonsense and shifts the blame for misogyny onto women for not being patriarchy compliant enough, which reveals that the flouncer was not well intentioned in the first place.)
This type of flounce is very popular with trolls here. Although it’s been a little while since we had one. I think the last one to this is that one guy in that monsterously large and troll filled Cassie Jaye thread. John something or other. The one who kept unflouncing to tell us about the Facebook he’s forming to call us (especially me) out for being so mean and misandrous.
I actually think it’s going to be none of the above and he’ll just show up in another thread and pretend this conversation never happened. Don’t worry. Pam and I will remind him about his mistakes.
Or even:
(e) Why can’t we just get along? I thought we were supposed to be tolerant.
(This type of pseudo-flounce is meant to shift the tenor of the conversation, by equating his offered tolerance of you being a woman with his desire for you to tolerate him being a misogynist.)
@ WWTH
Ah, yes! I had forgotten that one. Ooh, and for extra points he could do a strike-through of the ‘feminist’ bit of his nym.
I’d also forgotten about your Facebook fanclub out there. I wonder how that’s getting on?
@MrsObedMarsh:
So since, as you point out, cookies don’t include yeast, did he just inadvertently call men a yeast infection?
As a man, I think I’m somewhat offended, except that in many cases, I don’t think I can deny the analogy. Having sex with an MRA sounds about as fun/advisable as having sex with a yeast infection, after all.
@ rapid rabbit
I don’t need the B12 that badly.
@Alan: Snoooort!
And while I’m personally more into cooking than baking, It still seems like the person behind the original post doesn’t know his way around the kitchen. Or anywhere else really.
@Scildfreya:
Mind you, it’s increasingly difficult for anyone to hold down a job or a home anymore, between the disappearing jobs (except for part-time, contract, and other minimum-wage-no-benefits-unpredictable-hours-unpredictable-pay-may-disappear-at-any-time jobs that usually won’t pay close to one person’s full living expenses, can’t be relied upon to pay as much (or even still exist) tomorrow, and seem to be multiplying like jackrabbits) and skyrocketing rents and real-estate prices.
So hard that I think we’re moving into “center cannot hold” territory here. I predict the next financial crisis — and we are statistically overdue for it at this point, as this interval between recessions is already a sigma or two to the right of the mean duration — will result in much larger sociopolitical waves than “occupy” on the left and “tea party” on the right, which itself was a much choppier sea than what we saw after the ’01 “dot-bomb” recession.
I’m not normally the Chicken Little type to suggest turning all your Treasuries into silver and heading for the hills, but it might actually be near time to do … well, something of that general persuasion. If you actually have anything in the way of assets. Which most people don’t.
What I find fascinating here, is the resemblance to a pre-contact Central American town with the big stepped pyramid at one end of the main street, and a little house-like thingy on top of the pyramid up a long long flight of stairs. About the only major difference is that the “pyramid” in the picture is round and has grass growing on it, and is clearly mostly just a big earthwork berm.
And I know there was a lot of city-state vs. city-state warring in that place and time. Could the little house-like thingies on the tops of the pyramids have been fortresses, rather than purely religious in function, where the elites would barricade themselves when barbarians were at the gates? One would expect an agrarian city-state society with constant threats from neighbors and not in any larger-scale unified polity with rule-of-law to build in motte-and-bailey fashion, even if they had to independently invent that. Makes me suspect that they did.
Even the construction of pyramids instead of artificial dirt-and-grass hills makes sense when you consider how fast the latter would erode in a rainforest climate zone. The design is different as a response to differing rainfall and erosion rates, and all of the non-decorative design differences are explicable in light of this one factor.
Which also means there are at least three distinct reasons to build pyramids, leading to the three different designs. Stepped ones with a hut on the top are fortifications. Smooth-sided ones with lower entrances than at the top are tombs (and stone pyramid vs. earthwork barrow or tumulus is then a status distinction, influenced also by the availability of, and competing demands for, stone). And crypto-pyramids such as a central spire with four shorter satellite ones, a recurring design throughout the Old World where the five spire tips outline the vertices of a square-based pyramid, always appear to be temples and churches, so, focuses for religious practice. If the cultures that built those all associated actual, solid pyramids with death and burial, perhaps the cryptic pyramids implied by the geometry of their temples reflects the fact that religion, while of, by, and for the still-living, is to a very great extent about the fear of mortality, and the question of what, if anything, comes after that…
That would in turn lead me to question the assertion that New World pyramids were used as religious temples. “Elite castle/bunker” and “church” are different job descriptions for a building to have, and usually an urban culture has had distinct buildings for those jobs, though of course the top of the priests’ internal hierarchy have always counted themselves among the elites.
What to make of Gondor from LOTR, though? Seems to have extended the motte-and-bailey design to multiple levels, from Pelennor Field up through each successive level to the structure Denethor ran flaming out of on the top of the whole shebang, each one successively “more motte, less bailey” than the previous. Something tells me the Gondor culture was very complex and stratified, with several major class levels. How many did Rome have? Farm workers, military servicemen, merchants, artisans, Senators, and Imperial Royal Family still only makes six levels, and Gondor has eight if you assume the farmers live on (unseen!) farms out in (or just past?) Pelennor Field rather than in the bottom tier of the city inside its walls and the Anduin with its narrow ford guarded by the fort at Osgiliath is the true first line of defense, the bailey-wall.
All of this is rooted eventually, though, in a simple fact of geometry, which is that bigger areas (usually) require more resources to defend their perimeters, (typically) growing as the square root of the area. So there’s a desire to go big, so the defense budget can shrink as a proportion of total GDP (assumed to grow with the area of the bailey), but also to skimp somewhat on the defense of mere property (which, to elites in such cultures, usually includes the people who live on the land and work it!) while guarding elites’ lives (and their opulent treasures) with a stronger, inner defense that can have a much shorter perimeter. One wonders if geography that violates the assumptions (e.g., fertile mountain valley with one narrow pass to get in, you can grow as big as the whole valley with constant defense expense by putting a fort watching a gate across the pass) correlates with a more egalitarian culture developing (every life can be as strongly protected as elite lives at no extra expense by making the pass fort motte-strong).
Sorry if this comes across as an off-topic ramble. But it seemed interesting, it tangentially connects with other discussions here, and this thread is several behind the leading edge now …
History, from the Alps to the Andes, suggests yes. Valley /island based cultures with easy defense tend to be flatter, socially. They also tend to be significantly more xenophobic.
Im right that some men are so bloody damn ugly they cant date. Im living proof. Where incels go wrong is their misoginy, hate, rape fantasies and consumption,.
WE NEED TO TEACH INCELS HOW TO MAKE PEACE WITH BEING UNDATEABLE. Nothing else is gonna work