NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.
For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.
First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:
MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.
Ok, so what do those terms mean?
MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether. I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.
Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:
Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).
Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.
Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.
The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.
NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.
PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”
Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.
Arkitvarum: How would I know? This is what was written earlier.
Argenti: If you’re especially, or persistently, offensive, disruptive, or tedious,
Thus I gave the link to reply in case people here dont let comments up.
Oh. Were you planning to be especially persistent in offensive behaviors, or just planning an excess of tedious disruption?
Now to what passes for substance in you post.
To make someone do something is to force them.
Hence the childish response to a parent, “You can’t make me!”
Married to the implicit sense that consent exists, and the woman has to prove she has revoked it, you are, at the least, possesed of latently rapist behaviors.
Things like this: <i.This is an absurd statement! Rape means she doesnt want sex at all.
Nope. Rape happens when someone (not just a woman) doesn’t want sex right now and someone else insists. No force is required. It’s sort of the same as fraudlent sales. I might want to change phone companies, but when a company make a pitch which causes me to, “agree” to a change in service by playing with the technical meaning of the language, it’s still a crime.
You even (seem to, it’s a passage of almost incomprehensible grammar” seem to admit this when you say, the difference between forced to sex you dont want – and being made to want sex (you do want).
If someone wants it they don’t need to be, “made” to want it. It’s not that some people don’t change their minds, it’s that you persist in using a verb of coercion, as if it were a verb of persuasion.
Not at all. Thats more you assuming I would decide whether to keep her of dump her before even having her at all.
That’s you not reading what was being talked about. Change it, to, “that’s one deciding”. But let’s look at your actual words.
HER clearly putting more effort into her body than other things of value is my problem?
You were clearly saying that, apart from her looks, she has nothing of value to offer. That was in this part of the quotation: If we are not gonna be in a longer relationship me not admiring other things about her than what attracts sexually is neither a) disrespect nor b) a problem. (really dude, it’s all there; we can look it up. Pretending you didn’t say it doesn’t help you).
Your clarification in this comment isn’t helping your case that you aren’t objectifying women as things for fucking, rather than people.
I decide what is of value in my relationships – same as everyone else. When we first meet her being interested in me is her seeing value in me and likewise. Then after sex same thing
Sex first, then we see if she’s a “real person”.
I am talking about me and her having sex. Me getting sex and her getting sex is perfectly moral and equal.
No argument. It’s not a question of what, it’s a question of why. Your motives are base. Not that you like casual sex. I’ve like casual sex. But you aren’t treating the people in the other half of the equation as people.
You think that “making” them want sex is legitimate. You think that having sex with no real consideration of them as anything more than a warm hole is reasonable.
That’s not treating them as ends, but as means (see above, where it’s making them want sex, then seeing if they are worth knowing as people).
I really dont care replying personal attacks (ad hominem)
It was an insulting estimation of your character. It wasn’t an ad hominem I didn’t say your repulsive lack of empathy was why you were wrong. I didn’t even connect it to your arguments at all. I just said it was a repulsive lack of empathy.
Ergo it wasn’t ad hominem That you pretend it is is a different sort of logical fail; a misuse of pathos, or an unwillingness to be correct in your language, or an intentional attempt to mislead the audience by pretending I have actually committed a fallacy.
I am prone to thinking it the second; because the idea that insult is verboten categorically, because there is a way in which it can be misused is so common it deserves it’s own name.
That you are so careless with words/meanings is it’s own problem. That you have been so careless, so often, in all of the work I’ve seen you present is what leads me to this conclusion.
Careless is, as careless does.
Back to playing piñata:
However if that was the case she would not wanna keep seeing me after having sex with me so where would the problem be even if this was true? It doesnt seem to help your argument at all.
<Au contraire, mon frere, you admit that you are willing to trick her, to, “make” her want to have sex with you, when she was otherwise uninterested. You presented a false representation of your actual nature (see above, re Kant, and treating people as means, not ends; thank you for being so accomodating in this fisking). As a result she might have been interested, had you been treating her as a person, not an object.
That is relative attraction being measured. Which means comparing A, B and C and girls getting to choose who are more/less attractive. However they dont know what is also studied is whether girls decide who is more attractive based on picture alone or using information provided althoug not a part of the task.
This is gibberish. It’s not attraction, it’s, “relative attraction”. Relative to what?
Relative to what they think is sexy. It’s possible to design a study which constrains the results (rate the following people from most to least attractive [which, btw, will get different results than a study which askes people to rate from least to most; which calls all such studies into question, in some interesting ways: but I digress]) but that’s not what you said this one did.
It rated from 1-10. That’s an outside scale. That’s a self-referential scale. It’s a scale internal to the person asked to rate. It’s what they find attractive.
You even said this: They dont ask people who they find attractive. They ask people to grade 1-10. If you would not eff anyone dont give anyone a 9 of 10.
You say that a 9 = wants to fuck. That’s an internal/individual metric, not, “A versus B versus C.
Again, you don’t seem to read what what you write from one sentence to the next. Since all you’ve written (from one comment to the next) is here for anyone to read, you might want to fix that.
Oh good lord… Your’re citing Against the Theory of Sexist Language? Kelly Ross?, a second rate philosphy professor †
An argument that’s based on a use of the Strong Sapir-Whorf theory, and badly using even that; but taking the specific aspects of non-English, and applying them to English, with a prescriptivist gloss of what language is, while ignoring how culture and language interact: Does he go into the ways in which the subject/object pronoun pairs are fading? Or why the formal/informal in English stopped being used, much less why the formal was the one adopted? No. He rather pretends that the broader culture’s use of langauge marginalising large groups within it is irrelevant; even when some of those other questions (esp. the one on formal/informal default pronouns) are fundamental to the issue of gender/non-gender uses of default pronouns in English.
† I have only second hand knowledge of his skills as an instructor. None of the people I know who took classes with him, back in the late 1980s. because I was going to Pierce, not Valley; but I had friends who went to Valley. It’s a small world).
BTW, those links aren’t citations. They are, at most, references. Cite your work.
Not at all. Thats more you assuming I would decide whether to keep her of dump her before even having her at all.
That’s you not reading what was being talking about. Change it, to, “that’s one deciding”. But let’s look at your actual words.
HER clearly putting more effort into her body than other things of value is my problem?
You were clearly saying that, apart from her looks, she has nothing of value to offer. That was in this part of the quotation: If we are not gonna be in a longer relationship me not admiring other things about her than what attracts sexually is neither a) disrespect nor b) a problem. (really dude, it’s all there; we can look it up. Pretending you didn’t say it doesn’t help you).
Your clarification in this comment isn’t helping your case that you aren’t objectifying women as things for fucking, rather than people.
I decide what is of value in my relationships – same as everyone else. When we first meet her being interested in me is her seeing value in me and likewise. Then after sex same thing
Sex first, then we see if she’s a “real person”.
I am talking about me and her having sex. Me getting sex and her getting sex is perfectly moral and equal.
No argument. It’s not a question of what, it’s a question of why. Your motives are base. Not that you like casual sex. I’ve like casual sex. But you aren’t treating the people in the other half of the equation as people.
You think that “making” them want sex is legitimate. You think that having sex with no real consideration of them as anything more than a warm hole is reasonable.
That’s not treating them as ends, but as means.
I really dont care replying personal attacks (ad hominem)
Nope. It was an insulting estimation of your character. It wasn’t an ad hominem I didn’t say your repulsive lack of empathy was why you were wrong. I didn’t even connect it to your arguments at all.
So it wasn’t an ad hominem That you pretend it is is a different sort of logical fail; a misuse of pathos, or an unwillingness to be correct in your language, or an intentional attempt to mislead the audience by pretending I have actually committed a fallacy.
I am prone to thinking it the second; because the idea that insult is verboten categorically, because there is a way in which it can be misused is so common it deserves it’s own name.
That you are so careless with words/meanings is it’s own problem. That you have been so careless, so often, in all of the work I’ve seen you present is what leads me to this conclusion.
Careless is, as careless does.
Back to playing piñata:
However if that was the case she would not wanna keep seeing me after having sex with me so where would the problem be even if this was true? It doesn’t seem to help your argument at all.
<Au contraire, mon frere, you admit that you are willing to trick her, to, “make” her want to have sex with you, when she was otherwise uninterested. You presented a false representation of your actual nature (see above, re Kant, and treating people as means, not ends; thank you for being so accommodating in this fisking). As a result she might have been interested, had you been treating her as a person, not an object.
That is relative attraction being measured. Which means comparing A, B and C and girls getting to choose who are more/less attractive. However they dont know what is also studied is whether girls decide who is more attractive based on picture alone or using information provided althoug not a part of the task.
This is gibberish. It’s not attraction, it’s, “relative attraction”. Relative to what?
Relative to what they think is sexy. It’s possible to design a study which constrains the results (rate the following people from most to least attractive [which, btw, will get different results than a study which asks people to rate from least to most; which calls all such studies into question, in some interesting ways: but I digress]) but that’s not what you said this one did.
It rated from 1-10. That’s an outside scale. That’s a self-referential scale. It’s a scale internal to the person asked to rate. It’s what they find attractive.
You even said this: They dont ask people who they find attractive. They ask people to grade 1-10. If you would not eff anyone dont give anyone a 9 of 10.
You say that a 9 = wants to fuck. That’s an internal/individual metric, not, “A versus B versus C.
Again, you don’t seem to read what what you write from one sentence to the next. Since all you’ve written (from one comment to the next) is here for anyone to read, you might want to fix that.
Oh good lord… You’re citing Against the Theory of Sexist Language? Kelly Ross?, a second rate philosophy professor †, in a question of linguistics and social behaviors?
An argument that’s based on a use of the Strong Sapir-Whorf theory, and badly using even that; but taking the specific aspects of non-English, and applying them to English, with a prescriptivist gloss of what language is, while ignoring how culture and language interact: Does he go into the ways in which the subject/object pronoun pairs are fading? Or why the formal/informal in English stopped being used, much less why the formal was the one adopted? No. He rather pretends that the broader culture’s use of language marginalising large groups within it is irrelevant; even when some of those other questions (esp. the one on formal/informal default pronouns) are fundamental to the issue of gender/non-gender uses of default pronouns in English.
† I have only second hand knowledge of his skills as an instructor. None of the people I know who took classes with him, back in the late 1980s. because I was going to Pierce, not Valley; but I had friends who went to Valley. It’s a small world).
BTW, those links aren’t citations. They are, at most, references. Cite your work.
My god… I’m sorry for not breaking up that WALL-O-TEXT.
I’m going to claim the Argenti-Defense,and say it looked a lot shorter in notepad.
† I have only second hand knowledge of his skills as an instructor. None of the people I know who took classes with him, back in the late 1980s THOUGHT HE WAS MUCH GOOD AS AN INSTRUCTOR. I was going to Pierce, not Valley; but I had friends who went to Valley. It’s a small world
(I am enjoying the Victorian time traveler game, just a heads up there)
This “attractiveness” study of which you speak, where may one find a citation? As this strange time of yours seems to lack any understanding of Latin, English, logic, or the meaning of the word “objective” I would very much like to examine their research for myself.
Of this study you have said the following statements, some of which directly contradict each other:
“The researchers tell the women to tell us which guy is more attractive HOWEVER they also make sure women can read information of the guys – thus scientists can easily trick girls by asking them which guy is hotter and lie about which guy works as a club owner and which guy works at macdonalds.”
“They dont ask people who they find attractive. They ask people to grade 1-10. If you would not eff anyone dont give anyone a 9 of 10.”
“That is relative attraction being measured. Which means comparing A, B and C and girls getting to choose who are more/less attractive. However they dont know what is also studied is whether girls decide who is more attractive based on picture alone or using information provided althoug not a part of the task.”
Pray tell, would you like short lesson in research methods, as perhaps standards have waned over the century between your time and my own? A double blind study means that neither the people administering the conditions of the study nor the study participants know which condition any given participant is in, this is nearly impossible in psychological research (simply amazing that that is done now, simply amazing!) No study in which researchers “easily trick” the participants could ever be double blind for, alas, the researchers know the study condition any given participant.
Further, first you imply that the study rating are of attractiveness, then of sexual desire, then of relative attractiveness, has attractiveness become a synonym for sexual desire? Admittedly the time machine and all this strange technology has left me a bit confused, but it would seem that even in this strange time one can find someone attractive while not wanting to have sexual relations with them. Even if these words have become synonyms, relative attraction must still mean “in relation to others”, in this case that would mean the study participants rated the attractiveness of photographs of men in relation to each other, yes? Thus it is entirely possible a study participant may find all ten photographs attractive, perhaps even sexually desire all ten men, yet, being forced to assign each a different number, would end up rating one as the low end of attractive. Unless the basics of mathematics have also changed drastically it would appear that it is entirely possible for some of the men rated least attractive to still be considered attractive.
Finally, as attractiveness itself is a very subjective measure, there is no conceivable way to determine the weight of the additional information provided. That is to say that since study participants may have a drastically different senses of what makes someone attractive, it would be impossible to determine whether any given photograph was rated as “more attractive” as a result of the additional information, or as a result of the different measures of attractiveness the study participants are using. While the law of large numbers would help minimize that affect that law only applies to truly unbiased sample populations, which, without the study itself, we cannot possibly judge to have been the case or not.
Good day sir!
Instead of time to flounce, maybe I should start guessing time until they beg you to come visit their blog.
(Speaking of which, Anti-Manboobz is pretty much throwing in the towel.)
And his entire blog is this one post from January:
At least he managed to work a double period in there. Truly he is an MRA!
“time until they beg you to come visit their blog” = 7 days and 43 minutes for this one
Why he’s here at all remains quite the mystery however.
katz: I didn’t even notice that. He backdated his post about this discussion? Why? What possible purpose could that serve?
I’m still laughing about a blog he created being ‘neutral ground’ though.
Pecunium: it WAS shorter in your text editor. You pasted your reply in twice.
And then I thought to myself, I wonder if the troll will even notice? I mean, he certainly doesn’t seem to spend much time thinking about the content of any given post before he replies…
Also: he suddenly thinks feminists have some good ideas?
Name one.
Also, because Trolly McTrollpants keeps going on about how women’s power is all in imagery, a little bit of something to think about. (from the blog Hello Ladies)
It’s as though Aktivarum has caught the scent of a real problem in the world. And decided that the source of it is that women are dumb, not that theere are structural biases.
Imagine that.
What I like best about this silliness is that, in order to accept that “thinking someone is very attractive” intrinsically means “wanting to fuck them,” absolutely everyone must be either (a) completely pansexual or (b) completely incapable of having opinions on the attractiveness of members of their non-preferred gender(s). If, as a dude, you ever think that Brad Pitt or George Clooney is a good-looking man, it means you want to fuck them, even if you were under the impression you were totally straight. Also, asexuals think absolutely everyone is ugly. :-p
Pecunium:
That deepends on whether you mean offensive to you or offensive to me. I was not planning to be offensive but off course anything I say can be interpreted as offensive by any rigid interpretation of the kind found in churches.
Children believe this cause they dont know better. If I say “The heat is making me buy Coca Cola” it doesnt mean I was forced to buy Coca Cola. It doesnt mean I had to do it.
Kate Winslet: Celine Dion’s ‘Titanic’ Song Makes Me Want to Throw Up
I think thats a ridiculous interpretation as well as very careless use of the word rape. Also you gave no citations.
Using force is not the same as being forced/forcing somebody. You can be forced by any means (including physical force and/or threats) however the point being rape is sex you had to have. Not sex you choose to have. Choice is the key word. Men report unwanted intercourse (62,7%) mostly cause of peer-pressure and wanting to be popular (Muehlenhard). Should women be put in jail for taking advantage?
“It’s sort of the same as fraudlent sales. I might want to change phone companies, but when a company make a pitch which causes me to, “agree” to a change in service by playing with the technical meaning of the language, it’s still a crime.”
Offering you a better price and conditions if taking it now is that a crime?
You can be forced by any method (not just physical force) but if you have choice its not things you have to do. Rape is sex you had to have. Not sex you choose to have.
Its in fact neither. The Titanic Song makes Kate Winslet want to throw up.
Not at all I was saying she decides what she puts effort in and this will decide what value she has to offer. Its the exact same for guys. Women do not have sex with guys of no value to them. Women do not want relationship with guys not having value to them. Its 100% equal.
Neither, I clarify its dependent on her choice. Thats what the word “IF” meant.
“Sex first, then we see if she’s a “real person”
Everyone are real persons. However I am not looking for a pal I am looking for a girlfriend thus I need to know if she is interested in me sexually. If not she cant be my girlfriend and thus it would not matter if I liked her or not.
Guys listening to you spend countless hours on the wrong girl hoping for sex.
My motives are simple. I am looking for girlfriends but I am not looking for pals.
Celine Dion thinks playing a song making Kate Winslet want to throw up is legitimate? I have replied to your semantics regarding the words “make me want”
I think equality is legitimate and reasonable. Women dont care about those things yet you think I should cause I am a guy and not a girl? Thats as I see it either sexism or you simply dont know how little women actully care – you placing women on a piedestal.
Thats treating women as equals. Meaning when women care for me, I care for women. When women dont care for me – I am not obligated to care for them.
So basically your defence is I am wrong cause what you write is common verbal abuse with no relevance at all to the argument? Ok
We have a separate argument on “make” where I do not agree with your interpretation: Now your new argument is “make/trick” being the same thing? I do not agree with that interpretation either. If I wanted to say trick I would say trick.
I do not believe you. Even women themselves say they dont want their male friends to hit on them and this excuse is so common its gas its own acronym, LJBF.
Relative to the other choices.
No, relative to which they think is more good looking and less. This would be equally true if all of the guys were ugly. Key words being more/less.
However this study involves researchers sneaking in information that are not supposed to be used at all. The womens task is telling us which guy they think looks more good. Knowing which is richer is no excuse for changing numbers.
Yes and then money and other information is thrown into the equation. Which doesnt affect the numbers unless they actually do find money to matter for attraction.
The same guy who got a 4 at first got a 9 at the same picture in the same test when women though he had a different financial situation.
your argument is that were not being lazy and imprecise enough in our use of language? boy, you are just a model of someone who’s thought this all the way through, now aren’t you?
Pecunium may not have but I did.
choose, verb (used with object)
1. to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference: She chose Sunday for her departure.
2. to prefer or decide (to do something): He chose to run for election.
3. to want; desire.
4. (especially in children’s games) to contend with (an opponent) to decide, as by odd or even, who will do something: I’ll choose you to see who gets to bat first.
want, verb (used with object)
1. to feel a need or a desire for; wish for: to want one’s dinner; always wanting something new.
2. to wish, need, crave, demand, or desire (often followed by an infinitive): I want to see you. She wants to be notified.
3. to be without or be deficient in: to want judgment; to want knowledge.
4. to fall short by (a specified amount): The sum collected wants but a few dollars of the desired amount.
5. to require or need: The house wants painting.
verb (used without object)
6. to feel inclined; wish; like (often followed by to ): We can stay home if you want.
7. to be deficient by the absence of some part or thing, or to feel or have a need (sometimes followed by for ): He did not want for abilities.
8. to have need (usually followed by for ): If you want for anything, let him know.
9. to be in a state of destitution, need, or poverty: She would never allow her parents to want.
10. to be lacking or absent, as a part or thing necessary to completeness: All that wants is his signature.
make, verb (used with object)
1. to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining parts, etc.: to make a dress; to make a channel; to make a work of art.
2. to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about: to make trouble; to make war.
3. to cause to be or become; render: to make someone happy.
4. to appoint or name: The President made her his special envoy.
5. to put in the proper condition or state, as for use; fix; prepare: to make a bed; to make dinner.
6. to bring into a certain form: to make bricks out of clay.
7. to convert from one state, condition, category, etc., to another: to make a virtue of one’s vices.
8. to cause, induce, or compel: to make a horse jump a barrier.
It’s that last one that’s important here, you literally cannot make someone want something without either violating English or the person, at best, you’re misusing English. I include “choose” because technically one can choose to be raped if, for example, the other option is beaten and raped. That’s a bit of a stretch of English, but you said “Rape is sex you had to have. Not sex you choose to have.” when in reality it could be sex you “choose” to have to prevent worse from happening to you.
“If I say “The heat is making me buy Coca Cola” it doesnt mean I was forced to buy Coca Cola. It doesnt mean I had to do it.”
Try — If I say “I went over a friend’s house to play some video games and ze made me buy zir a Coco Cola before giving me a ride home” if rather does mean you were forced to buy Coca Cola, assuming that ride was your only way of getting home.
You’ve mentioned this study a lot now, including some contradictory things and things that make no sense (like claiming it was a double-blind study, which isn’t possible given the nature of the study, and suggests to me that you don’t actually know what double-blind means and just think it sounds science-y). And chance at all you can refer us to the actual study and we can see what it actually says ourselves?
Boring Troll is VERY boring. *yawn*
Dance better, Troll!
@PsychoDan: Aktivarum is relying on an unpublished study with a double-blind, randomized abiotic control group, which (following conventional practice) was analyzed using regression equations on the sample size. In conclusion, our bivariate analysis demonstrated that there was a mid-point at variance with the relative selection pressure. This proves that (a) men are looking for girlfriends, not pals, and (b) women are only attracted to men with sizable bank accounts who can keep pushing past “No” until they get the answer they want.
I am trying to get this study published in The Prestigious Journal of Scientific Psychology but the editors are not answering my emails. Misandry!!!!!!!!!!1!
/sarcasm
Also, placing women on a “piedestal”? Now i’m just hungry.
cloudiah — is he ignoring my Victorian time traveler methodology lesson because he assumes I was doing what you’re doing there? Because um, I was snarking with science (snarking, now with extra science!)
Your snark makes as much sense as NWO does most days — all those words make sense, just not strung together like that XD
“And chance at all you can refer us to the actual study and we can see what it actually says ourselves?” — please? I really do enjoy tearing apart bad research, and there’s just so much of it out there.
My motives are simple. I am looking for girlfriends but I am not looking for pals.
Ah, the ongoing quest to have sex with people who don’t like you. A noble enterprise indeed.
And the Prestigious Journal of Scientific Psychology is always accepting submissions. Cloudiah, you must have gotten hung up in the rigorous peer-review process.
Argenti:
“When you are speaking with someone, and they say something like “I don’t care if he’s the pope” and then you reply without clarifying who the “he” in your statement is, alas, the only logical conclusion is you meant the same “he” that they did — the pope.”
A1. Adam does bla bla bla
A2. I dont care if he (Adam) is the Pope
A1. He (Adam) is (as the Pope) high in hierachy in an elected position.
A2: hahaha I know lots of The Pope you are wrong… lets waste lots of time on the Pope
A1: We are not discussing the Pope.
“Do you really think it is realistic to claim people learn not to have girlfriends from a guy who has a girlfriend and bring her to the teaching seminars where he is top 10 in the world?”
That is not even a real answer. However I will assume you mean yes.
“This is an absurd statement! Rape means she doesnt want sex at all.”
Between meeting and going to bed there are lots and lots of tests, all beginning with the guy normally taking initiative and the woman responding either positive or negative. How about this signal? When I go to MY bed, do not go to my bed and undress? Does that work for you or is it absolutely essential for women to go to my bed naked NOT to have sex?
Actually, I get the impression women dont need to change their mind during sex. I get the impression you would not care if women change their mind after sex. Maybe you think men should have to make recordings in case women “change their mind”?
It was only when police examined CCTV that detectives realised the soldiers were telling the truth and the attack never happened.
The single mother pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice after police found nearly an hour’s CCTV footage of the consensual intercourse taking place.
What in blazes are you talking about? I said I will decide whether I want to keep seering her and she will likewise decide whether or not she wants to keep dating me. In what way does that mean me owing her?
Again, verbal abuse and no relevance hardly being better.
Not at all. People either reply on the premise they try to understand what people mean. Or they assume what people mean is not important cause they wanna win as many “points” as possible to be popular with their friends
Nope, still boring.
What do you think of hard chairs, Troll?
Misandry, or not?
You haven’t been in a long-term relationship, have you.
But the real problem is that this rule exists only in your head. Some guys might have an imaginary rule that entering their apartment is consent to sex; some might have the imaginary rule that sitting on their bed clothed is consent to sex. Because I’m not psychic, I don’t know when I’m “consenting” to sex according to your personal rules.
People who think women don’t get to change their minds during sex are fucking scary.
I mean, are you really willing to look down on a woman screaming “no please stop get off me now” and keep on going? Are you going to answer that with “BUT TECHNICALLY I HAD THIS IMAGINARY RULE IN MY HEAD” and feel okay about yourself?
fuuuck
[disengages snark]
I do not have the stamina to sustain my snark for more than one or two paragraphs, tops. Argenti, your scientific snark is a thing of beauty and a joy forever; mine is just lazy snark. 😉
[reengages snark]
Katz, I have citations and everything! Why didn’t your feminazi editors (excuse me, “peers”) approve?
Citations:
1. Some books from the 1950s.
2. Some books from the Star Wars series.
3. Some book by George R. R. Martin, with lots of maps in it.
4. My ass.