Category: sex

Categories
PUA rapey sex sluts

>Dating advice for “creeps” who don’t want to be creepy any more.

>

You don’t actually need to wear goggles.
So the other day we were talking here about how to have the hot sexes with someone who wants to have the hot sexes with you also. Lots of good advice in that thread, but none of it is very useful to guys sitting around at home with no one but Pamela Handerson willing to climb into bed with them. So how exactly does one find a special someone to have the sexes with  – especially if you’re one of those horny, socially awkward guys who tends to get labeled a “creep?

Well, wonder no more, because two of my favorite bloggers have some advice for you:

In a post on the Good Men Project Magazine, Clarisse Thorn sifts through the sexist garbage that permeates virtually all Pick-Up Artist (PUA) websites in search of some decent, ethical advice that can help socially awkward guys connect with women. As she puts it:

the current pickup artist subculture has a monopoly on effective advice for how to break down social interactions and talk to women. Not all of it works, but enough of it works that it draws guys in. As a pickup artist instructor once told me, “When I first found the community I was horrified by how sleazy and gross it is, but I had never had a girlfriend, and I told myself, ‘Dude, if you don’t learn this stuff you’re gonna die alone.’” 

I wouldn’t go so far as saying  that PUAs have a “monopoly” on good advice, but there are aspects of the basic PUA approach that do make sense, and do work. To oversimplify a bit, the PUA approach encourages men to do something that women have been doing for centuries if not millennia: playing hard to get. Yep, guys who don’t come across as desperate and clingy tend to do better with the ladies than guys who do. That one basic insight is worth a lot more than an e-book-full of idiotic “openers,” not to mention the sleazy sort of date-rapey shit that self-described PUAs like the gun-happy Gunwitchpreach. 

In any case, after offering a critique of some of the most obvious issues she has with PUAs, Clarisse links to a bunch of sites that she thinks can be genuinely helpful to awkward guys. Check it out.

Meanwhile, also on the Good Men Project, Amanda Marcotte – who is far less forgiving of PUAs than Clarisse — offers some specific advice for “self-described “nice guys” who claim they want non-sexist dating advice that works, but are forced to look to PUAs because there is no one else speaking to them. ”

Her first tip is golden: Dudes, if you want to score with a hot slut, stop thinking of women who enjoy sex as sluts. Or, as she puts it:

Be generous about women’s motivations. 

PUA communities spend a lot of time disparaging women with words like “shallow,” “gold-digger,” and “childish,” for having what they deem to be incorrect desires. But often, women’s choices make much more sense if you assume women date for fun and companionship, just as men do. If you don’t judge men for wanting sexiness, fun, and ego-boosting from women, then don’t judge women for wanting the same. 

For the rest of her advice, see here. 

On a completely unrelated topic: Are any of you having trouble posting comments here? If so, check your settings and make sure you’re allowing cookies from Blogger. If that doesn’t work, and you still have problems, send me an email. (See my profile for an email link.) Thanks!


— 

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it. 

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Categories
antifeminism kitties men who should not ever be with women ever oppressed men sex vaginas

>Non-haters gonna non-hate: NiceGuy Edition

>

From NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum.
Once upon a time one of the guys over at NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum set up a little poll asking his fellow “nice guys” whether or not they actually consider themselves to be misogynists; it’s been up there for years, and the site’s resident MGTOWers have been adding votes and comments all along.  The wording of the poll is sufficiently, ah, flexible enough to give respondents a lot of ways to wiggle out of saying explicitly that they really were misogynists:

* I despise the entire female sex. Period.
* I hate only “western” women.
* I only hate feminists and women who take advantage of sexism.
* I just blame feminists.
* I don’t hate women; I just don’t like being around them.
* I have no animosity towards women of any group. I’m only here to learn more about MRAs.

Still, given the amount of angry and explicit and completely straightforward misogyny you can find in the forms there, which after all are an outgrowth of a site devoted to the notion that “American women suck,” I’m a little bit surprised by how many of the regulars claim not to hate women – as you can see from the graphic above, the most popular answer is the one about “feminists and women who take advantage of sexism,” whatever that means. 
Conveniently, though, many of those who voted in the poll also posted comments explaining their, er, reasoning. And it’s pretty clear that they have a radically different definition of hate than, you know, the dictionary, and/or what everyone else in the world means when they use the word hate. 

Here are some of the comments from guys there who say that they aren’t misogynist. Again, just to make myself clear: these are entirely NON-HATEFUL comments from those who say they DON’T hate women.
Let’s start with the completely non-hateful non-hater who calls himself Alpha:

  
I’m not one who hates … I find that I don’t enjoy the company of women very much, as they tend to talk about things I really don’t give a crap about. Besides, they really wouldn’t like to hear what comes out of my mouth since, if I were to really say what I thought around them without restraint, they would go into knee-jerk, defensive mode. They’ve been so conditioned to fight and argue with what is simply, to me, a male point of view on things. It’s like being around children. ..
I will say this, I love ladies, the female equivalent of a gentleman, a gentlewoman. Unfortunately, that’s a rare breed these days. What we have are a bunch of emotionally immature, emotionally unrestrained, emotionally violent, toxic, unappreciative, self-centered, self-absorbed, self-serving, unempathetic, exploitive, arrested adolescents with vaginas, bad attitudes, and an incredible amount of contempt.

Now, I don’t mind holding my tongue around ladies. But the moment women declared themselves equal to men, they opened the door to being talked to as men.

And here is committed non-misogynist Zaku:

I voted: “I don’t hate women; I just don’t like being around them.”

Mostly because they have nothing to offer other than whining usually. …

When women talk they make me “ZZZ”.


Tiny kitties are honest about their hatreds.
In a followup comment Zaku offered this, well, revealing take on sex with women: 

Maybe it’s because I’ve only done american chicks but to be blunt having sex with a woman is like humping a moist pillow: It doesn’t join in and you can hardly tell the difference.


There is something I would dearly like to tell young Zaku at this point but I really can’t think of a delicate way to put it. Hmm. I’ll do it the Dear Abby way. 
  
CONFIDENTIAL TO Z— on N—G—‘sM—- F—- : You may be doing it wrong. 
 

Our friend MarkyMark popped in to offer his two cents: 
I don’t hate women, but, after working with a bunch of them and seeing their true colors, I don’t care to be around them. I don’t hate sewers, either; I just don’t care to spend time in them..

Now if this were anyone but our friend MarkyMark making this comment, I would assume he was making a little joke here. But as far as I have been able to determine, MarkyMark does not actually have a sense of humor. This is, after all, a guy who once devoted a blog post to rebutting, point by point, an article in The Onion. Joke or no, I think we can all agree it’s 1) not actually, you know, funny and 2) kind of a douchey thing to say.
Djc added this utterly non-misogynistic comment to the pile: 

I can’t stand to be around them for too long. It’s not hatred. I just can’t stand stupid people. Male, or female. And there is no question most American females are dripping with delusions, which in my book makes them stupid. And I’m at a point where women have nothing I really need. So it’s a complete waste of my time to even talk to one


And then there is this, from strigoi:

i merely hate feminists, those women who latch onto sexism and how it has infected most of society. I aim for the cancer at the heart of the problem, they are the ones that need to be hanged.


I guess technically, that’s not misogyny. But I don’t think I’ll be inviting this guy over for dinner any time soon.

— 
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it. 
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Categories
douchebaggery gloating I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MGTOW paradox misogyny sex

>Living Bitter and Alone is the Best Revenge

>

Soon you too will be able to snub women LIKE A BOSS
You may remember our friend Christopher in Oregon, a proud woman-hating virgin (from Oregon, presumably) with some interesting theories on what women think about while having sex. He’s back with some thoughts on how to live the good life, MGTOW-style. Truly an inspirational post, offering words of encouragement for all those young MGTOWers out there who still can’t help getting boners whenever they stop thinking about how much they hate women long enough to start picturing these same women naked. (Ah, the MGTOW Paradox in action again!) CinO, as I’ll call him for short, tells these poor young men to hang in there – because eventually these dastardly boners will cease.

 
Women, even the truly attractive ones, somehow just aren’t that attractive once your sex drive starts to disappear. The fog lifts, and you start noticing the annoying and down-right rotten things about women that you never noticed when you were blinded by your sex drive.

 
You start seeing the physical imperfections that even the prettiest women have. The blemishes. The overuse of cosmetics. Things caught in their teeth. Plaque build-up. Hair on the lip. Less than perfect hair dye. Bad hair cut. Bushy eye brows. Bad breath. The stupid laugh that grates on your nerves. Her lack of knowledge in current affairs. Shit. The list grows ever longer as you grow older, and your patience grows shorter.

 
Women simply start to annoy by their mere presence after a point in life.

 
For MGTOWers, CinO explains, life really does begin at forty:

 
When you hit forty, the situation becomes laughable. If you listen to nothing else I say, boys, trust me on this one:

 
The satisfaction you get from snubbing or cancelling out on a date at the last minute with a 35+ attractive woman makes the misery you suffered at the hands of women all worth while.

 
Granted; I never really suffered, as I avoided them, but what the heck, I might as well enjoy it as long as it’s being throw in my face.

 
Yeah, there’s nothing quite so satisfying as getting back at women for causing suffering that didn’t happen by being really rude to an individual woman who had nothing to do with the original suffering (which never happened)! (Also, I’m guessing this aborted date is fictional as well.) That’ll show ’em!

 
Today, CinO, is free, white (I think), and fortysomething, and living an enviable life riding motorcycles, watching ancient Nazi-based sitcoms, and posting endlessly online about how vile and horrible women are:

 
I took the last few days off work, and rode my Harley Beasties around. Just because I bloody-well wanted to. Today, I rode all around the snow covered mountains surrounding Mt. St. Helens. An absolute blast. … It sure beat the hell out of spending the day perusing the aisles of K-Mart with a fat bitch of a wife.

 
I came home, watched movies, a few episodes of Hogan’s Heroes, and it’s off to bed.

 
Oh, wait, there is still one tiny little trouble in paradise:

 
Tomorrow, I stop by the doctor because I’ve been riding my bikes so much, it’s re-activated a long dormant ‘roid. Hope he can cure it. lol. Ah, the penalties of being a care-free bachelor. Oops. I meant joys.

 
Truly an inspiration to us all.


 
Categories
kitties men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny rhymes with roosh sex

Educated women: Boner killers?

Dating guru RooshV — whose name conveniently rhymes with “douchey” — is convinced that, when it comes to women, smartness is inversely correlated with hotness. As he puts it in a post today, committing at least one logical fallacy in the process:

Femininity is a quality that pleases men. Therefore from the chart we can deduce that educated women decrease a man’s happiness. … Anything beyond a bachelors at a public university is a near guarantee she’ll possess a large basket of masculine traits that will prevent boners.

The “chart” in question is one that RooshV made up himself, and which contrasts the purported sexiness of less-educated women with the purported unsexiness of more educated women. As he explains:

A good test to see if a girl is over-educated is to add the word “sexy” before her job title. If the resulting phrase ignites arousing images in your head, then she’ll most likely have what it takes to satisfy you.

Amongst RooshV’s “boner inducing” job titles for women: Sexy waitress, sexy teacher, sexy librarian, sexy flight attendant. Amongst the “boner softening” job titles: Sexy IT specialist, sexy anesthesiologist, sexy tort attorney, sexy financial analyst.

There are more than a few problems with RooshV’s little list, not the least of which is that plenty of dudes do in fact get boners thinking of “sexy” female IT specialists, lawyers, financial analysts and other smart women. (I’m kind of partial to sexy professors, myself.) And if you don’t want to take my word for it — and MRAs never do — I invite you to investigate the vast amount of porn involving “nerdy girls” or simply girls with glasses (NSFW link).

Also, if you’re going to base your notions of male and female sexuality on which job titles sound like the best sexy Halloween costume, how can you leave out such classics as “sexy nurse” (a job that actually does require specialized education) or “sexy kitty” (which requires whiskers and little cat ears)? And should we conclude from the perpetual popularity of the latter as a Halloween costume that furry women with tails who shit in a box are sexier than the furless standard models?

Also, if you’re a guy who fetishizes less-educated women, and refuses to date women as educated or as well-paid as you are, you pretty much lose the right to criticize women for wanting you to pick up the check for dinner.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
funny sex sexy robot ladies

>When Harry (Harddrive) Met Susie (Software): Sexbots in action

>

Susie will make your drive hard.

As long as we’re talking sexbots, I thought I’d give you all a peek at two of the most advanced models available for purchase or (eww!) rent — not ten or twenty years from now, but today! Assuming the company that built them is still in business.

Um, before you get your hopes up too high, fellas — and ladies, as there is also a male version — I should warn you that, as sexy as these bots are, they are still a little ways away from complete perfection. In fact, it is possible that viewing one of the videos of these bots in action — or even seeing one of the animated gifs based on the videos — much just possibly scar you for life. Granted, I couldn’t get the videos to work, but, trust me, even the animated gifs will haunt your dreams forever.

With that out of the way, I invite you to read what the always entertaining and informative Scary Sextoy Friday blog has to say about Susie Software and Harry Harddrive (that’s really what they’re called), as well as to see the aforementioned gifs. You can learn more about the pair and their creator in this story on Nerve. Or in this story from the always tasteful and reliable Sun.

And then there is the sexbot website itself, a charmingly low-tech affair.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
creepy links men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny sex sluts virginity

>I used to be Snow White, but I drifted. And then some cars drove by and spewed exhaust on me.

>

An apple a day scares the men away?

Women’s magazines can be terrifyingly good at reinforcing every bad thing women in this culture feel about themselves. Take, for example, this awful blog post over on Marie Claire, written by a dude, on “why men prefer innocent girls to bad girls.” It’s filled with statements like this, on why guys (supposedly) prefer virgins or near-virgins to more sexually experienced women — aka “bad girls”:

Guys just want to be the leader of that journey instead of the followers. I guess it’s like white fresh snow versus the snow that’s turning black on the side of the road … under the haze of car exhaust. The fresh snow is more of a palette for adventure.

Yep, that’s right. He’s comparing post-virginal women — that is, most adult women — to DIRTY, SOOTY, PROBABLY PISSED-ON, SNOW.

Actually, don’t click on his article. Not yet anyway. Click here instead, to see Captain Awkward’s masterful and often quite hilarious takedown of Rich and his paean to not-very-experienced, not-too-confident women.

Categories
antifeminism asian fetishist evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny sex western women suck

>Asian women: Sexual strikebreakers?

>

Pick a stereotype. Art by Margaret Kasahara.

Today, on the blog Objectify Chicks — devoted to women, not bird children — the would-be “relationship expert” behind the site attempts to explain why so many men of his ilk prefer Asian women. Naturally, he spews forth an assortment of stereotypes which manage to be insulting towards American and Asian women at the same time.

American women, he writes, echoing a widespread sentiment amongst manosphere men,

are worthless. They are fat, ignorant, self-absorbed, and sexually unskilled. They are so stonehearted that they have been murdering their unborn at the rate of 4,000 innocents a day for 30 years. They are psychologically unstable, romantically unreliable, and more prone than not to use the legal system as a weapon to merely get their way. American women are brash, obnoxious, loud, and irrational – and that is on their very best days.

Asian women, by contrast,

are (largely) diminutive, petite, and feminine. They are quiet and submissive, and have genuine values. … They are devoted to their family, and recognize that sexual skill is a necessary part of being a woman. They recognize that their primary loyalty is to their husband and do not have the “party” attitude of young American women. They are clean, manageable, marriageable, and sane.

Mr. Chick Objectifier shows how much he values these women with values by illustrating his post with a picture of a young, attractive Asian women, with the following caption: “Hello There …. You must be the birthday boy!!! I am your gift!!! I am here to love you long time!”

Clearly, Mr. Objectifier suggests, the best way to knock those smug American women down a peg or two is to import as many of these Asian “gifts” to the US as possible. Alas, evil feminists — sorry, “femtards” — have put a some barriers in the way, in the name of protecting women and girls from “human trafficking.” Mr. Chick Objectifier objects, arguing that

the femtard interest in Western men’s attraction to foreign women has nothing to do with their purported concern for “human trafficking.” Femtard attempts to criminalize foreign matchmaking services and the ease with which foreign wives can obtain visas is rather an attempt to squelch competition from real women (which Western, femtard women are NOT) so that Western men are forced to settle for the screeching, obnoxious, and fat-laden banshees of the femtard left.

That’s right: In his mind Asian women are basically sexual strikebreakers, and feminists want to keep them out of the US so they can have … bitter, woman-hating dudes like the Chick Objectifier all to themselves?

I was following his logic up to this point, but then my head exploded.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
hypergamy links nice guys sex

>Saturday links: Not-so-nice Nice Guys and not-so-hypergamous women

>

Links

A couple of interesting posts on topics near and dear to readers here:

Amanda Marcotte takes on “Nice Guys,” and the oft-repeated notion that women seek out abusers and assholes to date:

My counter-theory is that Nice Guys® group together traits like confidence with aggression, so they can convince themselves that confident men are always assholes, and thus that they’re being unfairly deprived of pussy by women who are sick fucks that enjoy being abused.  Are some confident men abusive assholes?  Absolutely; look at Charlie Sheen.  But are all confident men?  … [W]hat I can say is I’ve known many men who are great husbands/boyfriends and are also confident … Some shy men are also very nice people, just shy.  But many shy men are inconsiderate fuckwits or even wife-beaters.  I just don’t think there’s a strong correlation between “alpha”-ness and basic human decency. 

And a couple of posts on some new research on gender and casual sex that challenges a lot of manosphere myths about women and hypergamy, suggesting that: 1) women, in general, are as interested in casual sex as men, so long as they feel they will be safe and 2) women, in general, aren’t so addled by their alleged hypergamous proclivities that they actually find Donald Trump to be attractive.  In fact, the study suggests, women considering casual sex are driven by a desire for, er, hot sex with a dude who won’t kill them and who they think will be good in bed, not by a desire to get their claws into some random rich dude. Or, as the paper itself puts it:

Sexual strategies theory clearly predicts that higher status proposers should be accepted by women more readily than low-status proposers. The fact that status did not predict women’s acceptance of casual sex offers is therefore a problem for SST. Neither status, nor tendency for gift giving, nor perceived faithfulness of the proposer (nor, more precisely, the interaction of any of these variables with gender) predicted whether a participant would agree to the sexual offer, contradicting SST.

Here’s a brief summary of the research. And here’s a more detailed (if a bit convoluted) discussion from Thomas on Yes Means Yes, from which I got the above quote.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
manginas men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MRA sex sexy robot ladies

>With a Cherry 2000 on top

>

Silly poster! Melanie Griffith does not actually play Cherry 2000

Manosphere dudes, especially those waiting impatiently for the day when sexbots replace women,  could actually learn a thing or two from one of my favorite dumb 1980s films, Cherry 2000, which I happened to catch (for about the third or fourth time) the other night.

The film, set in a vaguely postapocalptic future, offers an update of sorts to a very old story: Boy meets robogirl. Boy has sex with robogirl in a puddle of water. Boy loses robogirl when her circuits short out because they’re having sex in a puddle of water. Boy hires bounty hunter Melanie Griffith to escort him into the lawless Sector 7 to find him a replacement for his robogirl because her model (the Cherry 2000) has been discontinued.  Shit happens. Stuff blows up. Melanie Griffith kicks ass, pouts, and kicks ass again.

The movie sets up a stark contrast between the infinitely pliable and submissive Cherry 2000 sexbot and actual not-so-pliable women.  In one early scene, intended as something of a satire of the dating scene at the time, our hero and some of his pals go to a singles bar — where, if they decide they want to get with a sexy human lady, they need to negotiate the terms of the sexual encounter with her and her lawyer, and fill out the appropriate paperwork.

We get to listen in on a couple such negotiations; the women in question are all portrayed as, er, pretty touch negotiators — that is, bitches. One of the lawyers is portrayed by a young, pre-Matrix, Laurence Fishburne. At this point, I suspect most woman-hating, Matrix-loving manosphere dudes watching the film will jizz. in. their pants.

In fact, we get to see a lot of loud and obstreperous women in the film. In one memorable scene, a grizzled old junkyard owner asks his ornery young assistant for a favor:

GRIZZLED OLD COOT: Randa is going to fix us lunch, ain’t you, Randa?

RANDA: [Indignantly] No. 

COOT: Well, then, you can just go shit in your hat.

Randa does not in fact fix anyone anything. Manosphere dudes will probably be happy to learn that later in the film — SPOILER ALERT! — she’s shot in the head at point-blank range.

Anyway, long story short: after (barely) surviving assorted assaults from Sector 7 baddies with the invaluable assistance of the ornery Melanie Griffith, our hero is forced to choose between saving her or the robogal he’s devoted the whole movie to finding. Naturally, being a robot-loving idiot, he chooses Cherry 2000 — then, after heading off with her in tow, he realizes that she’s sort of a simpering moron, and goes back to rescue the real woman. Cue happy ending.  (Well, happy for everyone except for sexbot-coveting manosphere dudes watching the film, who will probably rush off to their favorite MGTOW forum to denounce the filmmakers as evil manginas.)

The moral of the story? Even the complete idiots who made this incredibly stupid movie realized that real women — with opinions and ideas of their own — are preferable to adoring sexbots.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women evil women feminism men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men sex sexy robot ladies the spearhead

>Incredibly Strange Antifeminist Bedfellows: Kay Hymowitz defends her attackers

>

Damn you, you monsters! This scarf does NOT make me look gay!

This is just embarrassing. A bit over a week ago, the Wall Street Journal published a chunk of antifeminist polemicist Kay Hymowitz’ new book Manning Up, which argues that young men today have turned into a generation of immature pre-adults as a result (to simplify only slightly) of excessive exposure to Judd Apatow movies and to young women who won’t let them step up and be real men. The article stirred up quite a tempest in the tea-pot that is the Men’s Right’s/MGTOW world online. Completely missing the antifeminist implications of her argument, manosphere men attacked her for impugning the honor of young men and their video games, and for generally being, to quote a few typical comments, a “bitch,” an “entitlement whore,” a “cunt,” “a fugly tranny skank,” and someone who “on her best day … has a face that reminds me a mule my uncle used to own.”

Now Hymowitz has responded to all this vitriol by penning … a partial defense of her attackers for the Daily Beast. While she notes that there are elements of “backlash” and, yes, misogyny in the rage of the manosphere, she’s quick to equate this manosphere tantrum with the feelings of men in general (as Amanda Marcotte has already pointed out), and to suggest that there are legitimate reasons for the hate. Which apparently have to do with, er, male frustration with having to ask women out for dates. Yes, that’s her real argument. Let’s let her explain:

[T]here’s another reason for these rants, one that is far less understood. Let’s call it gender bait and switch. Never before in history have men been matched up with women who are so much their equal—socially, professionally, and sexually. … That’s the bait; here comes the switch. Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure.

At this point, Hymowitz launches into a tired old litany of male complaints about the alleged horrors of post-feminist dating: OMG, in this crazy mixed-up world of ours, men don’t know whether or not to open doors for their dates! Some women want to pay their way on dates, even when they make as much as or more than the dudes dating them  … and others don’t!

Men say they have no choice. If they want a life, they have to ask women out on dates; they have to initiate conversations at bars and parties, they have to take the lead on sex. Women can take a Chinese menu approach to gender roles. They can be all “Let me pay for the movie tickets” on Friday nights, and “A single rose? That’s it?” on Valentine’s Day.

As Marcotte points out, Hymowitz is essentially echoing one of the dopiest of manosphere complaints about the ladies, “that they’re all different people, instead of easily controlled sexbots.” Indeed, on many manosphere sites, one gets the impression that women are, or should be, a bunch of interchangeable sperm receptacles, differentiated only by how high they score on a “hotness” scale of 1-10. If you think of women this way, no wonder you’re confused when women have, you know, actual personalities and shit.

But here’s a hint for the angry dudes of the manosphere: once you realize that women are not all the same person inside, you can turn this fact to your advantage, by deliberately seeking out women who are actually compatible with your own personality. Don’t like paying for dates? Then find a woman who likes paying her own way! (Just don’t be shocked if she finds your retrograde ideas about women repulsive.) I know that this may come as a shock to some of you guys, but there are men out there who actually find women’s distinct personalities … interesting. Stimulating. Attractive.

Back to Hymowitz. As strange as it is to see her parroting some of the dumbest manosphere complaints about women and dating — some women want one thing, while other women want something different! some say they want good guys but then they date bad boys! — even stranger is her notion that manosphere rage has its roots in frustrations about dating. Given that she’s not a complete idiot, there are only two possible explanations for this strange conclusion of hers. One, she’s so eager to find evidence for her thesis that empowered women are the root of male immaturity that she is willing to overlook the crazy misogyny of angry MRA/MGTOW dudes because they, too, blame women for their dating woes. Or two, that she has not actually given the blogs and forums of the manosphere much more than a cursory glance. I think it’s a bit of both.

The list of manosphere sites she mentions in her article bear out the second of these theses — it’s simply cut-and-pasted from her 2008 article Love in the Time of Darwinism, and it’s pretty clear she hasn’t revisited any of them since then. Or, in one case, ever: EternalBachelor.com isn’t a Men’s Rights or MGTOW site at all. but a skeleton site for a web magazine “coming soon” whose only content at the moment consists of photos of buff, shirtless guys (and a page where you can order t-shirts, presumably to keep the poor fellas from freezing to death). I can only guess that Hymowitz meant to refer to the Eternal Bachelor blog, which has itself been dormant for more than three years.(Another site she links to, Nomarriage.com, is also “under construction.”)

Kay, if you read this, please take a moment to peruse some real MRA/MGTOW and related forums, like, say, The Spearhead, and take a look at some of the comments there. For example, this one, about you — which, last I checked, had gotten 33 upvotes and only a handful of downvotes from the Spearhead peanut gallery:

I wish I could reach through my computer screen and punch this bitch. …. this stupid bitch is using the pain of innocent men destroyed by the same misandric system that publishes her shit to make more money and she is probably part of the feminazi conspiracy to appropriate and colonize the growing MRM. …

WTF is up with jewish women? They seem to be the most misandric of all. They demand that baby boys get their dicks chopped off and grown men too, I have hooked up with a few and they all got weirdly gitty knowing I was uncut and then sad when they realized I wouldn’t get chopped up and submit to their version of a sky god. I mean, really, WTF? I haven’t read much into the torah but just scanning the feminists and other feminazi loons it’s is obvious that there are a lot with jewish names. … Really, I don’t get it and am not trying to sound like a nazi but I must be missing something.

Somehow, I don’t think the rage in this comment has much to do with confusion over whether or not guys should open doors for their dates. 

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.