By David Futrelle
Fellas, is it gay to date a woman?
Signs point to “yes,” at least if the person reading the signs is a MGTOW Redditor called DannyTTT55.
In a recent post on the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, he suggests to his fellow men that unless you’re a true alpha male who doesn’t give a shit about the women he has sex with, dating a woman makes you a cuck in her eyes.
Why? Because you’re dating her, and she known she’s just a worthless slut who deserves nothing better than blatant disrespect.
“At least on a subconscious level, these women know they are a dumpster fire of a human being,” Danny writes,
that’s why if you try to date them normally and treat them with respect, they can’t have any respect for you
It’s like the old Groucho Marx thing of not wanting to be in any club that would accept the likes of him as a member. Except that this version of the old joke isn’t funny, and it involves the word “cuck.”
How can they possibly treat you any more than a cuck while you’re sitting across at dinner from them, waiting at least three dates to hold their hand, while in the back of their mind they’re remembering the gang bang they had a couple years back when they were still “having fun”
Like a lot of manospherians, Danny has a vivid imagination when it comes to the sex lives of other people he knows nothing about.
That’s why the only guys they respect are bad boys who treat them like crap, because deep down inside they know they are crap. They need to constantly boost their ego somehow so they aren’t ashamed to be treated like a regular human being, because they know all they deserve anymore is to be pumped and dumped
Huh. No wonder women want guys like this to make good on their promise to Go Their Own Way, far away.
Commenter Chadrith_Thundavisht agreed with Danny, writing that women are
so desensitised to compliments and all that happy horseshit that it probably engenders frustration to the point they actually WANT a piece of shit to treat them like a piece of shit. Look how many douchbags they go out with and you think to yourself “wtf is going on here!? That guy?!”.
I am shocked — shocked! — that straight and bi women are sometimes shallow when it comes to picking out men to date, because clearly no man would ever make that mistake.
The only other explanation for this is the negative animus complex but I bet my left nut most women are sick of the blue-pilled grovelling and seek out fuckwits to date just to break up the monotony and go ‘southy’ for a bit. They know there’ll be plenty of blue fishies in the ocean when they’re about to walk down washout lane.
Speaking of shocks, it’s also quite stunning (not) to see one of these guys citing some half-digested bit of Jungian theory to explain why women are bitches and hos.
A commenter called Evergreen35, meanwhile, reported that his
biggest Red-Pill was realizing how turned off my last girlfriend was when I told her that I loved her.
Ok, but maybe that was because you’re the kind of guy who reads the fucking MGTOW subreddit for advice on women?
When I ignored her and showed less interest, she always came back to me looking for attention. The less you care, the more she wants you, and vice-versa.
Maybe because she knew you were a shitty dude and was glad to have a less-then-fully-committed relationship with you?
Just spitballing here.
A commenter called breakingthebarriers said he thought that the OP was overanalyzing the whole thing.
From what I’ve seen I don’t think it’s even this deep though.
When I look at the behavior of women, I see a simple creature controlled by an ever-changing volatile melting pot of unchecked emotions. A simple creature unable to comprehend the chaos it creates.
Ok, but how exactly does a melting pot control a creature? Does it have little arms it uses to manipulate the creature like a puppeteer would? I don’t think this guy is able to comprehend his own metaphors, much less the inner life of women.
But it wasn’t just breakingthebarriers who thought the OP was overestimating the cerebral powers of women. According to Zevren_LT,
You are implying, that a woman has even on the basic level the ability of self-reflection.
Which is, in my opinion, far too generous.
Reading too much into them – elevates them needlessly. So we should stop sugarcoating something – which is in truth far simpler and sadly also crueler.
Our minds like to read something more into it as a cope mechanism, when we cant believe the simple truth.
I think these guys have it all backwards. I don’t doubt that a good number of the unfortunate women they go on dates with treat them with disrespect. Not so much because the women in question hate themselves but because they hate you guys for believing the shit you do about women, which I don’t doubt you share with your dates.
Dating while MGTOW must be an ordeal, but that ordeal is nothing compared to what dating one of you — even for the length of a dinner — must be like. And on some level these guys (or at least that portion of them capable of self-reflection) know that they’re the problem — that they themselves are the ones who deserve the disrespect.
Put that in your melting pot and smoke it, guys.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Mansvoice reminds me of those Christian fundies who seem to think that atheists obviously believe in God but hate Him because they’re mean.
“As we know”
@PoM
There is something sort of funny about how they’ve transformed and abused this word, isn’t there? “Hypergamy” began its life as a description of the phenomenon wherein the more restrictive a culture is on women the more likely they are to attempt to advance socially and financially by the only means available to them, which is marriage. MRAs took this largely self-evident fact that people given few methods to survive are motivated to use those methods to survive and transformed that into “Women are naturally hypergamous. They aren’t even attracted to men. They just want to steal our resources.”
Then along came the incel types to say that women base their sex and dating choices solely on physical attraction to men, and hypergamy means they’re going for the absolute sexiest sexy men, which is bad (you know, for reasons). That seems like the complete opposite of what the MRAs they stole the concept from were saying. Really, though, both groups are complaining about the same thing: Women are making their own choices about who to be with instead of allowing misogynists to assign us to whoever they consider most appropriate.
@Viscaria
My understanding of the original hypergamy research is that it’s men in cultures with arranged marriage and dowry who are most likely to engage in hypergamy. The bride’s dowry goes to the family of the groom, and the groom’s family therefore has a huge financial and social incentive to “aim high” and arrange for a hypergamous marriage.
That seems like the complete opposite of what the MRAs they stole the concept from were saying.
It’s actually not at all. The principle remains the same; the context has changed. (Somewhat, anyway – there are still female golddiggers out there, after all.)
Why is this not Hypergamy when men do it? It’s the exact same behavior.
The manosphere’s foremost intellectual has addressed the putative phenomenon of “male hypergamy” many times before:
http://heartistelives.com/2018/01/05/is-male-hypergamy-real-no/
@PoM
Oh, wow, well I’m embarrassed for just talking out of my butt, then! Thank you for correcting that. Makes perfect sense.
More howls of laughter courtesy of MansVoice.
@MansVoice
Oh goody! Another dumbass who thinks beauty is an objective standard.
Since beauty is objective, by all means list the metrics by which these Universal Beauty StandardsTM are measured.
I’ll wait….
@MansVoice
I used this gif recently, but it seems appropriate.
Calling Heartiste an intellectual might be even more idiotic than calling Jordan Peterson one.
Speaking of which, I hadn’t heard from him in a while. Maybe he could have hired a web designer in the meantime.
@Gaebolga
It’ll be a long wait. I may bake cookies.
https://www.food.com/recipe/splenda-blend-chocolate-chip-cookies-107628
This is a good one for diabetics, but I’ve found the texture and taste are improved if you substitute 1/4 cup AP flour with 1/4 cup almond flour.
I guess the only way for a woman to not be considered hypergamous is for her to put on a blindfold and marry the first man she bumps into.
Those sounds delightful; thanks VP!
Oh God, I tried reading the link that MensVoice gave us and forgot that Heartiste writes as if he’s trying to sound smarter than he really is. @TrollVoice: long words clunkily inserted at every opportunity does not mean the writer is an intellectual.
ETA: oh eww that car analogy he uses is the worst I’ve ever seen.
@LindsayIrene
No, but then they’d become Leftgamous, because all women always turn to their left, so they’ll be unfairly spurning all the worthy men to their right to go out with those degenerate men on their left side.
AWALT, amirite?
@Gaebolga
No problem! I have another chocolate chip recipe that uses real sugar:
https://www.asaucykitchen.com/almond-flour-chocolate-chip-cookies/
Mr. Parasol loves these, in part because he can’t tolerate the fake sugars I use for my diabetic self.
Speaking of diabetic comfort foods, this is a great one for those savory food cravings:
https://healthyrecipesblogs.com/easy-focaccia-recipe/
@sonnysombrera
That’s going to be a hard lesson for the right; it’s all they know how to do to sound smart.
I just find it really funny that MansVoice quoted the bit where I was like “It seems like X is different than Y,” and then was like “Aha, but X is not different than Y!” and didn’t notice that immediately after I said that they were the same.
Time for the old classic
No, that’s hypergamous too. A woman would be more likely to bump into a tall muscular guy because he has more surface area.
The only way to woman correctly is to marry a man you’re not attracted to and who isn’t financially secure and then do whatever he says and never complain.
Lukas Xavier noted, on women’s alleged “hypergamy”,
Indeed, if attractiveness in both genders is “largely objective” and universally recognized, then it should be entirely predictable, even logically necessary, that everyone would be primarily attracted to the most attractive members of their preferred sex.
Apparently, the manospherian notion that men are generally “not attracted” to the most attractive women is supposed to mean that a typical man is sensible enough to settle down with his “looksmatch” woman, if only she would be sensible enough to settle down with him. This asserted (in shoddy language) difference between genders remains without evidence.
A common manospherian corollary allows that women supposedly relax their standards around age 30, or whenever “hitting the wall” happens, as sudden decline in the woman’s attractiveness coincides with the dawning realization that she can’t actually expect to marry “Chad”. This would explain why most men and women eventually manage to get partnered.
However, the man she settles on will then miss her years of youthful attractiveness (and his own youth, sexually speaking), which is why “female hypergamy” supposedly ruins everyone’s lives, especially men’s. Men who aren’t “Chad” will get to sexually enjoy only the later, unattractive stages of a woman’s life.
In short, manospherian notion of “female hypergamy” is not about attraction, it’s about women being supposedly too imcompetent to manage their partner choice in response to attraction and availability.
Yes, I’m sure it rankles that Heartiste – a witty, intelligent, articulate, successful man who is certainly much smarter, and a much better writer, than any of you – is challenging your complacent liberal sensibilities.
Indeed, if attractiveness in both genders is “largely objective” and universally recognized, then it should be entirely predictable, even logically necessary, that everyone would be primarily attracted to the most attractive members of their preferred sex.
Why in the world would this be, in any way, “logically necessary”?
What is my evidence for female hypergamy? Here’s a start:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-americans-not-having-sex-has-reached-record-high/
Care to explain that away?
@MansVoice
I can’t read that article because of the paywall, but now that you’ve “proved” that point, care to start proving that attractiveness is objective? And if it is objective (meaning it’s not a question of taste and no one has personal preferences), how it wouldn’t follow that everyone would be primarily attracted to the most attractive members of their preferred sex like Lumipuna suggested?
Or did you realise that line isn’t going the way you wanted?
@WWTH
Seems to me like she better not outlive him and he better not leave any inheritance for her, because I bet that would retroactively make her a golddigger or something.
Yes. The study was about single people and hypergamy is marrying up in social status. Therefore the study has nothing to do with female hypergamy.
Some more evidence for female hypergamy (this one is not paywalled):
https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
Care to explain that away as well?
(The wall of evidence approaches…)
@MansVoice
Wait, you were just told that your first article had nothing to do with this and now you’re gloating because you have a second one? I’m not sure you understand how evidence works.
Also, if we were giving you non-peer-reviewed articles as evidence, would you consider yourself bested? I mean, you wouldn’t because you ignore most of the rebuttals you get anyway. I’m just asking for the heck of it.
Stop, stop, MansVoice, I’m laughing too hard again:
To illustrate my standards for witty writing:
“True Wit is Nature to advantage dress’d
What oft was thought, but ne’er so well express’d;
Something whose truth convinced at sight we find,
That gives us back the image of our mind.
As shades more sweetly recommend the light,
So modest plainness sets off sprightly wit.”
Unlike the Elizabethans, who usually burst the sonnet form to express emotion, Alexander Pope usually managed to make his couplets tighter. And talk about wordplay!
“A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.”
*English major swoon*