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.
katz:
My motives are simple. I am looking for girlfriends but I am not looking for pals.
Not at all, I said
– 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
Also as i explained
– 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.
Troll is boring, so I present you with a Star Wars telenovela:
“Your loins will be your downfall!”
yo aktivarum if youre idea of equality is that you get to ascribe to ‘women’ whatever sinister behaviors you feel like and then use it as an excuse for your own oafishness, you don’t believe in ‘equality’ you believe in ‘being a self-righteous bully’
i know, i know, you’ve got this whole grand framework of vague allusions to science and a bunch of hand-waving about language to back up your worldview, but guess what- all the bullies have that. it doesn’t make you different from the others, except in that you seem to be particularly whiny and desperate for validation of your personal school of bullying.
btw, don’t take that i wrote all that out as an indication that you need to reply or that i’m gonna read it if you do. for some reason a bunch of people seem willing to be sucked into your stultifying lament-cloud of ‘nobody really understands me’ but yeah, arguing with dudes who are just looking for validation from people they know arent gonna give it is not in skill set.
maybe if you had a worldview that didn’t involve treating people like video games you’d have someone irl to bring this shit to instead of dumping it all here. just food for thought.
Cliff Pervocracy:
Does that work for you or is it absolutely essential for women to go to my bed naked NOT to have sex?
Yes I have but that is neither an answer to the question nor relevant for the subject.
It was not a rule it was a question. You are still not answering.
I am sure they do, however that doesnt answer my question.
The point was me asking you. Does me going to bed and you following and undressing mean you consent to sex or not? (If “you” are a woman)
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.
I never said I did! I said judging from this discussion women could change their minds after sex and there would be no objection. I also asked maybe you think men should have make recordings when they have sex? And I included two examples of women being caught in false rape accusations cause police saw them at CCTV
You seem to answer to everything except what I said/asked.
“I mean, are you really willing to look down on a woman screaming “no please stop get off me now” and keep on going?”
No I dont but why are you even asking cause it has basically zero with what i wrote.
I gave one simple rule and asked for opinion.
Oh, Mr. Let Me Explain Why Rape Isn’t Really Rape Because I Say So is still here?
Sharculese:
My idea of equality is already presented:
– Meaning when women care for me, I care for women. When women dont care for me – I am not obligated to care for them.
Pecunium made the point:
I replied:
– 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.
Yes, and still droning on about how two possible false accusations totally mean that he should record sex acts forevermore. Without asking permission, of course.
doooooooooooooon’t caaaaaaaaaaaaaare
I care! I totally care about this budgie who sounds like R2D2:
Bostonian:
Both those were proven to be false, not possible false, proven false by video evidence catching them red-handed. You calling them “possible false” is laughable.
As opposed to the women asking permission for the criminal act of making false accusations? They commit a crime and you say nothing but excuses. I talk about committing a lesser crime (yes, falsely putting people in jail is more serious than without permission making recordings) and guess what bostonian have problem with? – The lesser crime of course.
I know some people may be unfamiliar with the story of Star Wars, so here’s a recap by a 3 year old:
This troll is still at it?
Some people have way too much time on their hands.
Wait, is Aktivarum B__n?
Or are there TWO people out there who secretly record sex to avoid rape accusations?
Pffft, you can totally know how Star Wars goes without seeing it.
Katz, Br___n had a better grasp of the language. Not by much, but still.
Can this tedious fuck be moderated or banned? Boring troll is booooooooooring.
Maybe if we talk about bra sizing he’ll go away?
hellkell, first I have a message for him:
I wish their was a Jedi mind trick I could use…
^there^
ACK!
i cant see b____n as a pua. well, i could see him going in for shit like negging and kino as essential biotruths or whatever, but the whole manual of ‘tricking women into sleeping with you’ shit? nah. in the b______n-verse, women ought automatically recognize the magnificence of b_____n. those who don’t arent worth the effort.
also yeah, i can totally believe the internet is big enough for two creeps with self-serving justifications for secretly recording their partners
cloudiah — thank you, I try. *cracks knuckles to go at it again*
Oh this is one strange time indeed, where when it is noted that ones antecedent was unclear and instead of accepting that clarification could’ve avoided that, one simply insists the person noting the lack of clarity is wasting time! As a Victorian time traveler it is my humble duty to inform you that I, good sir, have literally all the time your could ever imagine, and then some.
I am beginning to question whether people in this era are still capable of reading, or if that fine art has been lost along with the meaning of “antecedent” and anything resembling research rigor. For you said —
“Guys in general dont want most women to stay after sex. Guys want to have sex with many women and relationships with a few special ones.”
Ergo it is utterly irrelevant that this one gentleman has a lady partner, if, in fact, most men in your time are solely interested in the act of coitus.
It is, in truth, absolutely essential to the law that someone who has disrobed in your presence may still defer on the act of intercourse. Verily, I have already provided you with proof of this, readily available upon this magical box you call a “computer”.
As it would appear the fine art of language has been utterly perverted by your time, perhaps you did not intend to imply ownership; however, the words “to keep her” and “having her” imply ownership, akin to the way one has shirts, and keeps the receipt. You may have meant to say “whether to continue seeing her”? Alas, it would seem that the idea women have agency is sadly lost on you, I see Pecunium has tried to explain the concept in some depth and failed, I doubt my apparently overly wordy use of language shall improve the situation.
Perhaps this is true in this curious land of yours, in mine, however, one who refuses to address an argument, and instead simply resorts to insults, is committing the fallacy of argumentium ad hominem — arguing against the person, instead of the idea — while one who addresses the argument and also insults is not committing any sort of fallacy at all. And you sir? Your fondness for red herrings can only lead me to conclude that you are a peddler of fish.
Pray tell, what is this bastardization of English you are using, and where exactly can one get a translation? Does subjective not still mean something which exists within the mind of someone? Has the definition perhaps contracted to exclude situations where a replying party must interpret what has been said and try to derive the proper meaning?
Cliff — “I mean, are you really willing to look down on a woman screaming “no please stop get off me now” and keep on going?” — Alas! I have met gentlemen of that nature, and, to use your vernacular, they are indeed “fucking scary.” (I may be enjoying this just a bit much! XD)
Aktivarum — Cliff’s example has, in fact, everything to do with what you wrote, for, you see, you implyed that disrobing in your presence meant consent to sexual relations, and, as I have already cited (twice) there is legal precendent for the idea that, no, this is not the be all and end all of consent. That, rather, one can withdrawal consent at any point during coitus and, if one’s partner does not cease coitus, this is an act of rape. Thus making the question as to where one draws the line of “you now consent to coitus” truly quite relevant and important.
Cliff — correct me if I am mistaken, but do you not have a piece on this topic, asking whether consent to vaginal intercourse is also consent to anal intercourse? Aktivarum here may be enlightened by your exquisite explanation of the problem. (That’s only half snark, I really do think that post is brilliant)
…bra sizing? Lo, I am but a confused time traveler, familiar with corsets, and the movement against them, but what is this “bra” of which you speak?
…I am simply aghast at this statement, perhaps that time machine left me more confused than I’d first thought for it is an absolute mystery how I missed this —
“’I mean, are you really willing to look down on a woman screaming “no please stop get off me now” and keep on going?’
No I dont but why are you even asking cause it has basically zero with what i wrote.
I gave one simple rule and asked for opinion.”
Now, it is possible your “one simple rule” is that women cannot change their minds after the sex act has been completed, however, it reads frightening like you meant women cannot change their minds once disrobed. Have you no respect at all for your fellow humans?
Your time does not still use community shaming as a punishment does it? This is sadly unfortunately as you, good sir, should come with a warning indicating that merely disrobing in your presence is a blanket consent to sexual acts. I must wonder, is there a limit on this consent? Does it apply only to coitus or to such acts as cunnilingus and fellatio?
(I do actually know Victorian euphemisms, but I’m afraid I’d cease making any sense at all…don’t ask)
Please share Victorian sex euphemisms. And Victorian porn, if you’ve got any.
The bra-sizing thread was sometime in early January, but I’m not having any luck finding the thread. It really freaked out some of the MRAs. Does anyone else remember which post it was?
Yes, please share the Victorian euphemisms!
katz — I have a few pdf copies of The Pearl but it really is about the most questionable thing I’ve ever read. As for euphemisms —
My email is turning up — paedicatio mulierum (anal sex, except that’s from an anti-homosexuality piece so idk) and tribadism (scissoring) — it’s a bit sad how many results my email is turning up for sex terms (hey, the FWB is 500 miles away!)
And from The Pearl — “The red head of “Cupid’s Battering Ram” was now brought to the charge”; “Mr. Priapus”; “gamahuched” (oral)
The problem with The Pearl is that last one is one sister performing oral on another, and it does not appear they’re nearly adults (though consent, this story does sort of have it at least) — you’ve got a mix of pretty good light BDSM, random limericks and bestiality jokes, and then there’s some that’s just “…well that was rape”