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!
@Naglfar
We could try music!
Why don’t you look at surveys asking women what they look for a partner?
https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
Let’s try a little thought experiment. Which one is more likely to stand out on a dating site and get a reply:
1. A thoughtful, witty, personalized message from an average-looking guy
2. A dick pic from Chad bragging about his endowment and his boat
If you picked door #2, you have absolutely no idea how women work.
So, if I understand correctly:
1) Attractiveness is an objective quality.
2) Attractiveness has nothing to do with whether people find you attractive.
3) Trying to hook up with people you find attractive is bad. You should only hook up with those who are objectively as attractive as you, regardless of how you actually feel about them.
@Victorious Parasol
But the songs might have words. I suggest we try interpretive dance.
@Buttercup
Well, that’s an established fact about this fellow.
@Lukas Xavier
You should also only have relationships with who the objectively objective manospherians think is your looksmatch, and you can’t complain.
@Naglfar
How about songs without words AND with dancing?
If you picked door #2, you have absolutely no idea how women work.
https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
The presence of actual verifiable data on “how women work” must really chap your ass, eh?
So, does the fact that our latest dumbass linked to the same article twice mean he effectively concedes that he doesn’t have anything else?
Pretty sad, even for a kiddie-league troll…
Edited to add: Oo! Three links to one article! The fail is stong in this one!
MansVoice,
Now you’re not even trying anymore, are you?
Here’s an actual study
http://www.hrpub.org/download/20140105/UJP6-19401829.pdf
It shows that both men and women prioritize physical attractivness when it comes to sexual relationships, but when it comes to romantic relationships, both men and women prefer loyalty. Which makes sense and isn’t actually bad. The study also cites prior studies indicating similar things.
@Victorious Parasol
Yes excellent. *rubs hands together* And now I have a new artist to support.
Yeah, they always think we’ll be intimidated by a link with some numbers in it. Then when it turns out that a lot of us have basic literacy in social science research and are able to pretty quickly point out why the link doesn’t prove what the troll thinks it proves, the troll just doesn’t know how to respond.
@Weirwoodtreehugger:
That paper in no way contradicts Hypergamy. I am utterly unsurprised that both men and women prioritize attractiveness in casual encounters. (In fact, this seems to vindicate Heartiste more than bluepilled normies like yourself – didn’t you just claim that Tinder women care more about the message than the messenger’s looks?)
Regardless, as we know, what men and women consider “attractive” is very different: men will find their looksmatch attractive; women will not. Hence, Hypergamy.
@WWTH
His triple link also appears to think dating sites are an economy, which doesn’t really make much sense as a model. The number of likes you give to other people doesn’t require you to receive likes, and there is no real world value to likes.
@MansVoice
I don’t recall anyone saying what you think we said. And I cannot tell you how many average looking men want to fuck supermodels.
Say, maybe you can post a picture of yourself and a woman you consider to be your looks match.
@ buttercup
Er, can I just have the goat please?
Yes it does. Because people, of all genders only prioritize looks when it comes to casual relationship.
The manosphere claims that women only want to date “Chads” That’s not true. Women (straight women, anyway) want to date men who are loyal and kind. That is, not the kind of men who proposition every woman they see on Tinder.
@Alan
LMAO.
@MansVoice
Funny you should mention red and blue pills, The Matrix is pretty explicitly a queer feminist movie. It’s not just that the directors transitioned a while back (and are now both gorgeous thx), the whole thing is an incredibly blatant metaphor for casting off the fake, constructed reality of 90s cisheteropatriarchy – literally constructed, it’s a simulation! – in favor of a radical queer leftist worldview. One that sees living and loving freely in a post-apocalypse underground wasteland (aka the real world in all its ugliness) as superior to the lie of beige offices, female submissiveness, and Happily-Ever-After marriage that the Agents oversee.
Not only are you still in the Matrix, dude, you are making yourself a willing conduit for the Agent Smiths of the established social order.
One of the biggest flaws with that thrice-linked study is that it doesn’t control for desired outcomes. What constitutes a successful Tindr encounter? A like? A date? Sex? A long term relationship? Different people are looking for different things.
I don’t understand the manosphere’s obsession with reducing human relationships to formulas and numbers, or the gymnastics they go through trying to fudge the data to scientifically prove that women are bad. No wonder they’re so susceptible to grifters. You can dazzle them with important-sounding words like “quantitative” and a chart that tells them exactly what they want to hear.
@Alan – Would it help if I closed the door containing Chad?
I don’t know if I’d go that far with that statement, since there have been a few attempts to make mathematical models of what constitutes beauty in both humans and nature.
These first two links are the homepages for sites that used mathematical models to analyze beautiful people via the Golden Ratio (aka Phi):
https://www.goldennumber.net/
https://www.beautyanalysis.com/
This next one shows how the GR can apply to a human face:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.goldennumber.net/face/amp/
This last link analyzes Elle magazine’s 2015 claim that model Joan Smalls has the world’s most perfect face, using software from the first two links above. The article goes into a discussion of what factors besides mathematics would make Smalls very beautiful to an observer, plus a small discussion of what factors would go into creating a so-called exotic beauty could be.
https://www.goldennumber.net/joan-smalls-most-perfect-face-and-golden-ratio-beauty/
I will admit up front that I didn’t do an in-depth dive into all sections of these sites or anything, so I don’t know if they have anything super-problematic in them. I will say that I didn’t see them consider things like young age, skin tone, hair style/color, ethnic origin, etc. as relevant to what makes someone beautiful in their mathematical formulas. Just how a face measures up when the GR is applied to it.
Just recapping again here, attractiveness is objective, but nearly half of all people disagree with nearly the entire other half on what is attractive. The men are right; the women, of course, are wrong.
To add to my last comment, if female hypergamy is defined as women seeking status via their male partner, as Men’sWhine is claiming, then it can’t be about casual sex partners. Women do not gain status from having lots of sex partners, whether the sex partners are attractive or not. If women are being hypergamous by seeking out physically attractive men, the implication would be women are trying to increase their social status by having a hot boyfriend or husband.
Unless we’re just back to the manosphere are really just mad that women can choose their partner and are appropriating social science terminology to complain about it. Which obviously, that’s what the deal is.
@Cyborgette
I’ve read some analyses of the films that also suggest that the red pill represents estrogen, which makes it all the more hilarious when manospherians talk about how they have taken the red pill.
@Redsilkphoenix
Every mathematical model of beauty I’ve seen comes down to “conservative-looking white women are the most beautiful.” I haven’t read what you linked, but I admit I’m a tiny bit suspicious seeing how many different cultural standards of attractiveness there are.
Funny you should mention red and blue pills, The Matrix is pretty explicitly a queer feminist movie. It’s not just that the directors transitioned a while back (and are now both gorgeous thx), the whole thing is an incredibly blatant metaphor for casting off the fake, constructed reality of 90s cisheteropatriarchy – literally constructed, it’s a simulation! – in favor of a radical queer leftist worldview.
I bet you think you’re the first person to tell me this.
Anyway, no, not really – I mean, certainly you can read it that way, but red pill/blue pill would be a much poorer metaphor (and The Matrix a much less interesting movie) if that were only viable interpretation.
Personally, I would argue that the greatest metaphors are almost necessarily nonspecific, because they must articulate some universal aspect of the human condition. What red pill/blue pill actually refers to is simply the choice between comfortable self-delusion and hard truth. Now, what that means in concrete terms might be different for any given person depending on their circumstance, personality, politics, etc – but it’s a choice we all face in some form.
@ buttercup
Apparently so; but I still can’t fathom why!!!
As per our previous discussion, I’m a bit of a lost cause when it comes to explaining the maths to me.
Although if you do close the door maybe stick a cask of Amontillado in there.
Re: the red pill
I thought it was meant to be Spironolactone?
Seen some discussion around that in film commentaries.
Man, I forgot how tiresome trolls could be. Does this guy have anything new to say? No?