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
So, in other words, it’s a poorer metaphor if you use it literally the way the creators intended. Still doesn’t change how you sound when you talk about it.
@Alan Robertshaw
That could make sense as well, though I would imagine more people would be familiar with estrogen as a concept.
@MansVoice
LOL @ the fresh little MRA attempting to lecture anyone, literally anyone, about comfortable self-delusion vs. hard truth. Mate, you have spent the last three pages of this thread insisting (to a group of mostly women) that women work the way you think, and only that way, because anything else would mean you’re Wrong and A Bad Person and that conclusion is just unthinkable. The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a blunt nosed pliers.
Interesting.
So when it come metaphor, it must be flexible and general enough to encompass human variation in order to reflect a universal human truth, but when it comes to some poorly-reasoned theory about human relationships, AWALT, amirite?
Troll-boy is way dumber than he’s capable of accepting.
So much for his vaunted “red pill”….
I always enjoy the irony of RedPillers, who claim to have discovered the true essence of reality, being so bad at describing how the world is.
I mean, maybe it’s that way for them inside their heads, but their field reports and studies are so bizarrely out of touch, their thinking so black-and-white and distorted. It’s just another layer of the Matrix.
So, in other words, it’s a poorer metaphor if you use it literally the way the creators intended.
How do you know the creators intended it this way? Significantly, the Wachowskis have never attempted to tie red pill/blue pill to any particular politics. Because that’s not the point.
@MansVoice
They’ve literally said as much. And they’ve been very open about their politics. That is the point.
They’ve literally said as much.
What are you talking about? They say nothing of the kind in that article.
MRAs never seem to have seen any of the Wachowski’s work other than The Matrix. Sense8 is probably the most “SJW” sci-fi I’ve ever watched.
Unfortunately, I must take my leave; lazy Sunday is coming to an end, and I still have some housework to do before I get back to my actual real live job tomorrow. (Not that I expect many of you to relate to that.) I likely won’t be back.
Don’t let the logoff screen hit you on the ass on your way out.
@MansVoice
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Edit: Ninja’ed by PoM
So, how do you tell who is your looksmatch? I mean, since you apparently can’t tell by, you know, looking.
I maybe should have asked before he left:
How should gay and bi people act with regards to looksmatches? I’m bi but prefer other women, so I’m not sure how the whole looksmatch thing applies to my relationships with women.
@WWTH
Also Bound, which I got to watch recently with one of my friends (albeit virtually because quarantine). Amazing directorship, intense as all heck, and it’s literally about a lesbian ex-con helping another woman break free of her abusive mafioso husband. I could spot stylistic choices in it that turn up later in The Matrix, TBH I can almost see the line from Corky/Violet to Trinity/Neo thematically.
I did find it very hard to watch in parts because of realistic violence, but yeah, highly recommend.
Also, the plumbing scene… Oh gods, the plumbing scene. Oof.
@Naglfar
I suspect he’d deny that bi people exist. That view is pretty common among reactionaries, probably because self-consistent attraction to both men and women is an threat to their oppositional sexism.
@Cyborgette
And even if he does accept our existence, I would imagine his views on same-gender relationships are not very positive (especially between women, since he probably thinks we need to marry looksmatched men).
LOLOLOLOLOL Yeah no
I used to be cute. Now I’m not because I just don’t care anymore. I’m mostly invisible to men (and it’s awesome), but the ones that feel the need to let me know that I’m ugly are invariably uglier than I am.
Oh, geez, that flounce! One of those articles he linked to flat-out said that men in their twenties are having less sex than before because they’re less likely to be employed, but now we’re supposed to believe that he’s an essential employee.
@LindsayIrene
Really, the thing that’s hard to believe is that he is able to get any job done at all rather than just complaining about women.
There’s also the contradiction amongst the incels where they both claim that they’re subhumanly ugly (which would imply their looksmatch is as well) whilst also declaring that they are entitled to a supermodel virgin.
His reading of The Matrix only seems to make sense if he didn’t pay much attention to anything after the pill scene, and views the rest of the movie as a bunch of fights with no purpose beyond might-makes-right. It’s such a sad way of viewing the world.
I understand that as a concern, because that seems to be a common tactic of certain racists to prove ‘their women’ are the most beautiful ever. I did skim more pages on both sites a bit, and neither site seems to be motivated to prove white Christian women are The Best Evah.
Both sites seem to be sincere in attempting to mathematically model the proportions that make people beautiful or not. And while the majority of models are white female, that seems to be due more to unexamined default assumptions of what the human default looks like than racism.
https://www.beautyanalysis.com/beauty-and-you/face-variations/face-variations-ethnic-group/
That link looks a bit at how various ethnic groups differ a bit from the ideal ‘beauty mask’, and stresses that overall no group fits their model of the perfect face in greater numbers than any other group does.
How well these guys succeed at their stated goal without a bunch of racism creeping into their results I leave for others more attuned to those issues to decide. I am still very much a newb in many ways when it comes to detecting assorted -isms, and there may be huge red flags on those sites that I’m too blind to see right now.
WWTH:
An Impish Pepper:
Just to be fair – I never even saw The Matrix, but I remember it was a huge pop culture phenomenon in its time. I decidedly got the impression it was popular mainly for the cool fighting scenes. It seems entirely predictable that it’d create popular memes outside the core audience that pays attention to the context and subtext, and those memes would be adapted to novel uses.
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants
And let’s not forget “jaggers” (thorns).
Returning to the previous page:
This is a very confusing phrasing. I think what is meant here is to assert that women generally find men less attractive than vice versa, and tend to be less satisfied with the available partner choices. This assertion remains unproven and unmeasurable. It is then conflated with the notion that women focus more than men on seeking the most attractive partners (ie. “hypergamy”).
Meanwhile, for heterosexual “looksmatching” purposes, attractiveness is apparently measured by how the amount of Tinder likes you get compares to the other members of your sex. The presented, highly dubious data seems to suggest that the likes received by men are highly unequally distributed, while the likes received by women are much more equally distributed. This could be because women find most men unattractive, or it could be because women find some men outstandingly attractive. It could also be because men on Tinder routinely send likes to all the women they find, possibly because there are relatively few women on Tinder. Do the less attractive women even bother with Tinder? Whether this represents general dating dynamics remains highly doubtful.
There’s a longstanding stereotype that women are “less interested” than men in heterosexual sex and relationships, and therefore men typically have to court women rather than the other way round. Or, rather, men seek mostly sex and women seek mostly relationships. Inasmuch as this stereotype is based on reality, it could reflect some innate difference between the sexuality of men and women, or very possibly it could reflect a practical difference in risks and gains involved in sex and relationships.
It’s still different from alleged female hypergamy, where women would flock in disproportionate numbers around the most attractive men, either forming de facto polygynous arrangements or choosing to remain single if they can’t marry their favorite man. Many of the less attractive men would then remain unpartnered. Highly attractive men might commonly practice sequential polygyny, switching periodically to younger partners, especially if we assume that women’s attractiveness largely relates to their youth.
If female hypergamy was a real phenomenon in modern Western culture, evidence for it would involve analysing actual dating outcomes. Do men remain unpartnered more often than women? Is there widespread hidden polygyny? If successful men practice sequential polygyny with young women, leaving many young men unpartnered, do their divorced aging ex-wives count also as unpartnered? Do the unhappy bachelors and unhappy ex-wives eventually find each other? Is it hugely unfair and degrading for the less attractive men to have to settle down with “leftovers”? And if yes, is it actually the men who have the hypergamous instinct?
Not that I don’t hope MansVoice sticks to his flounce, but I find this bit fascinating:
Not only is this not true (or at least fails to account for all the guys who think they’re a lot better-looking than they actually are), it seems to both acknowledge and ignore that attractiveness is more than just looks.
Though mostly I’m still puzzled that he actually linked again to the “lying to 27 women on Tinder” study as an example of what women want. Because it’s totally cool to lie on Tinder for your super important study, and what the women tell you should be treated as gospel truth, because everyone knows no one ever lies on Tinder.