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.
Pecunium:
“Damn! I needed that. Qualified? As in Certified by the PUA Council of America?”
Bla bla and bla. Can you answer a simple question? Are they students or teachers? Is that simple enough a distinction?
“Becuase so far as I can tell, the only requirement for, “teaching” game has ever been that one has the self-aggrandisig condfidence to pen such epic works as, “How to succeed with women” and then the drive to get it published.”
No, the requirement for teaching game is to successfully demonstrate what they should do, make them do what you did and improve their results dramatically.
“So how is it taught? Because fools like you come in and tell us it’s about getting confidence.”
How do people get confidence? By successful repetition. How do you know what to repeat? By trial & error. People test things to see what works.
“So, if it can’t be discussed intellectually, how can it be taught?”
It is normally taught by demonstration. Doing it on your own takes forever. Thus Aristoteles started to document findings so other people would not have to repeat his trials & errors.
“Why doesn’t Roissy matter? As I hear it he gets lots of tail. He certainly seems to have a solid coterie of people who adhere to his ideas. So he’s a Teacher, not just some dude.”
To put it in simple terms in a list of over 20.000 items used for instruction you get 0 hits on Roissy. Tucker Max would qualify as PUA if getting tail was all needed. Do you think Tucker Max is a PUA yes/no?
“If they can’t teach it, then why should I listen to them? And all the people I see explaining it are inept.”
Cant teach what? Opening? DHV? Escalation-ladder? As I wrote above the key is knowing what you are supposed to do and then repeat it till you get confidence doing it, getting a PUA to give feedback makes improvement much faster.
“(as with your proto-rapist lines of approach…
Another stupid label, how about learning which group promoted calling everyone not agreeing labels like “hater”?
“I’ll say it again. If one person joins another one in bed, and they are both nude, it’s not consent.)”
Well I guess then she is the one committing a crime cause you are not allowed to jump into other peoples bed without consent. Thats the problem with your theory. Either we both consent or none of us do.
“But you are now pulling a “no true scotsman” fallacy. I’m supposed to prove to you that the PUAs I’ve known are, “real” PUAs. Otherwise you will dismiss them, and my experience, as being wannabes.”
No, I am trying to find out if they are students or PUA:s worth mentioning, since the people I mention are recognized as MPUAS I think my sources are better than just a couple of students.
“Right, and that message is, “Fuck ‘em, and forget ‘em”.”
No, the message is do what you want. You assuming guys want to fuck and dump regardless what woman they are dating is just stupid. Guys dont want any woman and guys want a sexlife even when they dont have the right woman. Simple!
“But you say it’s really not. That the men who go to hear how to “pump and dump” are really looking for true love.”
Men dont hear how to pump and dump. Men hear its up to them what hey want. You talk worse of this than PUA:s normally do.
“Alll men… weren’t you making the point that one can’t be so broad with language? I think you were.”
I said men in general, Thats most men, not all men, thats normal behavior, common behavior.
“News flash, almost everyone has sex with more people than they have long-term relationships with. That’s not the issue. The issue is intent.”
My issue is not intent cause my intent depends entirely on the women I date.
“Game/PUA is about banging broads, not about finding a girlfriend.”
Game/PUA is about power and choice, what its used for depends on the guy – and most of the time on what woman he meets.
“Go ahead, show me the PUA articles about how to find “Ms. Right”, as opposed to the ones about how to find, “Ms. Right Now”.”
1. You have not even shown me articles talking about fuck and dump. How about you produce sources supporting your view?
2. Won´t you just say its snake-oil salesmen tricking people? So even if I show you a site hosted by 4 well known MPUA:s telling how people can use PUA to find a girlfriend would you accept that PUA has no intent and depends on what guys want and what the girls they meet are like?
Find a Girlfriend
Argenti:
“First, Pecunium and I are not the same person”
I am afraid sometimes you sound like the same person. Thus mistakes can happen. Specially when you frame arguments with lots of irrelevant text.
“I said — “what Adam may or may not have in his personal life is irrelevant both to what PUA “teaches” (sells) and what Aktivarum said “most men” want (causal sex).”
Well to PUA:s this is simply wrong. Since personality is part of what is being taught you cant teach against who you are.
“I can’t afford to visit any of the countries that practice FGM”
It has nothing to do with what you can “afford” its the fact that the places doing what you want has a way worse result than the place you are criticizing. You dont wanna live there, you just want the luxuary of attacking us while needing no better alternaives whatsoever.
“our insistence that “elite-teachers” are in fact like everyone else is because they are.”
Again, thats not true in PUA.
“Context — one PUA has (and thus presumably wants) a girlfriend, thus all PUAs want girlfriends”
Lots of PUA:s have girlfriends. I just showed one of the high ranking. You not accepting rank means you decide rank doesnt matter in PUA. You however have no say in how PUA view rank. PUA neither obey nor listen – to you.
“So are PUAs shittier than average at picking potential girlfriends, or did you just decide that 4 out of 5 guys want to have sex with people they don’t want relationships with? And that somehow PUA is the only solution to that?”
Neither, I told you most women are not what these guys are looking for and they dont intend to lack sexlife while searching.
“Please see above re: fallacy of composition, and note that Steinem (and likely Adam too) is not some superstar every feminist everywhere bows to”
So you say. Are you saying feminism doesnt have rank at all or do you intend to mention a larger superstar than Steinem showing that such people exist?
“So yes, you are saying PUA is the only solution to that…ever try making friends with people first to see if there’s any chance you’d actually get along as a couple?”
1. The try making friends-method was historically in large part based on men having money
2. I am not saying PUA is the only method – I am saying its by far the best for most guys.
“No, we’re saying you don’t have to objectify women to have casual sex.”
I dont objectify women. Women objectify women. Read Ariel Levy she seem to understand this better than you do. Also thats a negativist advice. You are not saying how guys can succeed better, you are just complaining on what I am saying.
“Ooooh now you’re keeping your women? Most women don’t want to be kept women, they want a partner, not an owner.”
Those two things mean the exact same thing. Guys “keeping” a woman means they wanna keep seeing her. Your theory on it meaning something else without any importance whatsoever!
“But since you utterly fail to understand how your wording implies objectification”
Not at all. I understand thats your personal opinion and since there is a deep need for feminist theory inventing excuses to control the way guys speak and behave it does not surprise me. You just let the theory dictate the message for you, thinking is then not needed.
“let’s just move on to how you apparently cannot be friends with women because you aren’t having sex with them”
I have no problems being friends with women. I just dont always look for women friends.
“(hint, friends with benefits is a non-asshole solution to wanting more than one partner)”
Thanks for that opinion on people descibing MLTR
“Yep, it’s about results, but that still requires you to be able to describe how you got those results, in a manner that would allow others to get those results.”
Not at all, first you demonstrate, then you describe what happens in an own lingo PUA uses other people cant understand. Thus you can discuss how to pick up a girl in front of her and she still dont get what is being said. Non-PUA people not understanding is intentional.
“…You did it!!! We have a No True Scotsman! *cheers* Wtf makes Roissy not a PUA?”
In one word: Hierarchy!
“Why should all PUAs not be given equal weight as to what PUA is?”
Cause all PUAs are not equally good.
“And what Pecunium said was that people may fail to describe “game” well either because “game” itself is nothing but “vapidity, and a vacuity” (lacking substance, like ether, etc) or becausethe people describing it are lacking aptitude/idiots. See the or there? Those two have no bearing on each other.”
Neither of those are true and the ability to describe game doesnt matter more than a great painters ability to describe what he does.
“Yet a-fucking-gain — citation needed”
Citation on what? Male studies 2013 or on guys having sex with more people than they have relationships with?
“Steinem controls exactly one person, herself, anyone is free to ignore her, there’s no feminism cabal that’ll throw people out for not taking her advise”
If you believe this you dont understand how women are controlled. This is evolutionary. Women needing to do certain things to survive and still doing them today.
“Says someone who’s made it clear he doesn’t want female friends, so where’s this opinion coming from? Citation needed”
I never said I did not want female friends, thats just your personal assumption. I said when I look for sex partners I dont look for pals. Women dont normally sleep with pals thus if a guy wants to have sex he is better off not being seen as “pal”
“Someone revoke my feminism card, I have no idea who that is… (yeah I’ll google, but point stands)”
Which feminist thinkers and writers do you know of? Except Robin Talmoch cause obviously you have her ideas on sexist language. How about Catharine MacKinnon? Know who that is and what opinions she has? Or maybe its Betty Friedan?
“oooh so tell me, oh omniscient one, why do women get into relationships at all then?”
Cause of the emotional needs designed to produce children. (that question is really really stupid)
“Yeah feminists talk about the benefit of everyone.”
Thats impossible. You cant speak for guys while ignoring guys. Thats the reason feminist mens studies are now ignored and people with real knowledge on men starting non-feminist Male studies.
“You know most of the people arguing with you are men right? Men who’d I imagine put approximately 50% thought into whether something benefits them”
Benefitting THEMSELVES yes, Benefitting other men? Men normally compete against other men and women normally choose who they think are winners No! Google “Apex Fallacy” and “Apexuals” if you have an honest interest in the subject.
“and the other 50% into whether it benefits other people (or at least doesn’t harm them, context dependent).”
Communists in Russia and China thought the exact same thing. They were wrong and so are you.
“Really? Where? Citation needed”
It would seem I confused you with Pecunium. You seem to have same opinion on everything.
“I’ll be sure to tell my friend with benefits that, should be laughter inducing. (And I’m serious here, this is going into email right now)”
You do know what general statements mean right? It means being her friend doesnt improve your chances. Its still possible its just a worse strategy than PUA getting MLTR.
“Um…y’all treat all drug users as criminals? Because we do”
Yes we do. We just dont put people in jail for everything cause it would be very expensive. Thus less people are in jail here. The point being USA putting more people in jail doesnt make people do less crime of that kind.
“that’s not exactly relevant to DV, though it’s highly relevant to both “harder prison system” and “more criminals”. (Also, tautology, we put more people away thus we have more criminals, well not shit sherlock)”
USA are worse at pro-active work. USA wait for people to become criminals and then police put them in jail. Sweden try to prevent crime happening. Guess which country gets less criminals? Also fatherlessness has clear correlation to criminal young men. Which USA should know, not cause USA give a shit about men (they dont), but cause USA has racist history and fatherlessness a big problem among black people.
“When a woman finds herself trapped in an abusive relationship there is a tendency to ask, “Why doesn’t she just leave?” If we ask that question, we are blaming the victim and not addressing the issue of stopping the violence.”
The issue doesnt matter, ending the relationship does. Women dont want to do that and giving them excuses is counter-productive regardless intent.
“Wow…that’s not encouraging them to stay”
Its not meant to, yet it has that effect anyway cause they dont want to leave. Getting explanations for not leaving means lesser probability they do. Its not rocket science!
“that’s not blaming them for not getting out”
Intent does not matter! It has this effect regardless of intent.
“no, feminists do not make up excuses “not to leave” they/we explain why some people “do not leave”
see above.
“the assumption being they would if they thought they could and thus we need to address the reasons they don’t instead of just going “you didn’t leave the first time you got hit?!?!”
My answer being none of this matters. We dont need explanations. We need to understand how to make them leave. We need to end bad relationships BEFORE violence happens! We dont need to wait for violence to happen. We dont need to wait for people to commit crimes. Do you understand?
Aktivarum: Bla bla and bla. Can you answer a simple question? Are they students or teachers? Is that simple enough a distinction?
No. Because it’s an artificial one you made up.
Can’t you answer a simple question? I want to see your credentials? Who are you to tell us what is PUA? Are you a qualified teacher?
If you aren’t why should I listen to you on the subject of game?
Is that a simple enough distinction?
No, the requirement for teaching game is to successfully demonstrate what they should do, make them do what you did and improve their results dramatically.
How is this measured? Why should I not believe Roissy when he says he’s getting laid left right and center, and his followers say it works for them too?
It is normally taught by demonstration. Doing it on your own takes forever. Thus Aristoteles started to document findings so other people would not have to repeat his trials & errors.
Demonstration? Where? In bars? Are random women brought into the rooms full of aspiring masters of Game and used for practice? How do the books (and there are lots of books) manage to demonstrate? What makes it clear that Game, and not something else worked? Do students get filmed being rejected by a random woman, and then taught the Techniques That Never Fail, and go back to that place and seduce the same woman?
If not, how do we know it was Game, and not just that woman 1 wasn’t in the mood, and the next woman was?
We don’t. If there was any testable theory, something with predictive power, then it could be evaluated. But there isn’t. When someone fails we hear, “he didn’t have good Game. If he had good Game, he’d have closed the deal”. Game, you see, never fails, it can only be failed.
I teach interrogation, and cooking. I can both demonstrate how it’s done, and explain all the theories behind it. Want to know why a Bernaise works? Or how to butter poach a fish? I can show you. Or I can tell you, and explain the physics of it, and you can do it. Nothing more than some butter, a bit of acid, an egg and some tarragon for the first; the second needs only butter, a fire, a skillet (I recommend a straight sided one, but one can use a sauté, chacun a son goût).
For interrogation I can explain the ways in which a good question is built (it’s a single subject, direct question, requiring a narrative response) and I can show what happens when a poor question is asked (you get answers which make sense, but aren’t the answers to the question you thought you were asking, and so there starts a divergence between what you think you are asking, and what the subject thinks you are asking, which leads to more bad questions, and ultimately each party thinking something completely different is being discussed).
Cant teach what? Opening? DHV? Escalation-ladder? As I wrote above the key is knowing what you are supposed to do and then repeat it till you get confidence doing it, getting a PUA to give feedback makes improvement much faster.
Ah… the principle of jargon, and guru. Like the, “Secret Techniques” one hears of from so many bullshit martial artists.
Well I guess then she is the one committing a crime cause you are not allowed to jump into other peoples bed without consent. Thats the problem with your theory. Either we both consent or none of us do.
Wait… you invited her, yes? (that was the scenario, you were both in your house… you got naked, and she got naked too, and joined you in the bed) Did she break into your house to strip off her clothes and join you? If she did, that’s a crime.
But that’s not what you said, so you’ve created another strawman. And it’s not a problem with my theory. Either we both, explicitly consent, or there is no consent. It’s a feature, not a bug.
No, I am trying to find out if they are students or PUA:s worth mentioning, since the people I mention are recognized as MPUAS I think my sources are better than just a couple of students.
Recognised by whom? Seriously… what is the governing body which awards this Master Pick-up Artists status? What are the criteria?
“Right, and that message is, “Fuck ‘em, and forget ‘em”.”
No, the message is do what you want. You assuming guys want to fuck and dump regardless what woman they are dating is just stupid. Guys dont want any woman and guys want a sexlife even when they dont have the right woman. Simple!
Yeah… it’s simple: Fuck ’em and forget ’em. Look at what you said: men want sex even when they don’t have the right woman. That’s not looking for a relationship… that’s looking for sex. As I said before, PUA isn’t about Ms. Right, it’s about Ms. Right Now.
And here you are, agreeing with me. Thanks for admitting it so plainly.
1. You have not even shown me articles talking about fuck and dump. How about you produce sources supporting your view?
I’ve cited Roissy. I’ve made reference to books like, “How to Succeed With Women”, and “The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, by Neil Strauss, and I’ve got YOU… right up there saying it’s not about finding a relationship, but sex with the “wrong woman”, 90 times out of a hundred (at least).
We still haven’t seen your credentials… maybe you graduated at the top of the Gold Medal Class of ’04… but you gotta know the territory, if you want to make the sale.
Aktivarum: It has nothing to do with what you can “afford” its the fact that the places doing what you want has a way worse result than the place you are criticizing. You dont wanna live there, you just want the luxuary of attacking us while needing no better alternaives whatsoever.
So… they are doing something which is worse than someplace else and therefore we need to shut up about what they are doing? That makes no sense at all. This is not atypical for you, but it is even moreso than your usual gibbering mush.
And if what they are doing is so bad (e.g. FGM) not doing it is a better alternative.
“our insistence that “elite-teachers” are in fact like everyone else is because they are.”
Again, thats not true in PUA.
Prove it.
Lots of PUA:s have girlfriends. I just showed one of the high ranking.
Is he a Colonel? A 6th Dan in the World Pick-Association? Did he attend The Sorbonne School of Picking-up Chicks? Where are his credentials?
So you say. Are you saying feminism doesnt have rank at all or do you intend to mention a larger superstar than Steinem showing that such people exist?
That it doesn’t have rank. It certainly doesn’t have anyone who can force (your words) women to do things.
1. The try making friends-method was historically in large part based on men having money
2. I am not saying PUA is the only method – I am saying its by far the best for most guys.
Citations needed. I know that when I was broke, “making friends” was how I found partners. It wasn’t money, I didn’t have any. It was women who wanted sex, and thought having sex with me would be fun. Win/win.
Not at all, first you demonstrate, then you describe what happens in an own lingo PUA uses other people cant understand.
Yep… the Guru Style. He tells you how successful he is, and makes up theories; with jargon, to make it seem more plausible. But he can’t describe it in plain language. It’s too secret. One has to be initiated.
“…You did it!!! We have a No True Scotsman! *cheers* Wtf makes Roissy not a PUA?”
In one word: Hierarchy! What hierarchy? Who is the governing body? Where is the College of Cardinals? When one King of the PUA dies is there a Great Conclave and a pillar of White Smoke when they have selected the new High Master? Will Paul be the next Pope of PUA?
Inquiring Minds want to know.
Thats impossible. You cant speak for guys while ignoring guys. Thats the reason feminist mens studies are now ignored and people with real knowledge on men starting non-feminist Male studies.
But you are ignoring women (certainly you are ignoring all those yucky feminists). So how can we take all your pronouncements on women seriously?
And when will Men’s Studies 2013 come to fruition? Where will the Institute of Dudes be located? What is the basis on which the curricula will be shaped? How is the academic rigor of the research on which the teachings are based to be established? Will there be journals? Who will appoint the referees? What is the review process? How will it compare to the other Social Sciences?
Will it rise to the standard of work you’ve shown here?
Also fatherlessness has clear correlation to criminal young men.
I assume you mean children in family with a single parent who happens to be a woman, not those produced by asexual parthogenesis.
Accepting that to be the case, you’re right. It’s why Iceland, with almost two-thirds of births being had by single mothers is so much more a hellhole than Sweden, where it’s only 50 percent, and the US is a paragon of non-criminals, because we only have a 40 percent rate of unmarried women having children.
Maybe it’s not about single parents, but about the support network for single parents and their children?
Its not meant to, yet it has that effect anyway cause they dont want to leave. Getting explanations for not leaving means lesser probability they do. Its not rocket science!
You’re right it’s not. That she is in fear of being killed if she tries to leave, or of being hunted down and murdered if she does… that’s not got any effect on things at all.
She just wants to stay.
My answer being none of this matters. We dont need explanations. We need to understand how to make them leave.
Make, as in force? I thought making someone do something had no sense of compulsion to it?
Really son, you need to be more careful with your words, one might think you thought coercing someone into having sex is acceptable; and that would be rape.
You’re one to talk, Aktivarum.
Thus mistakes can happen. Specially when you frame arguments with lots of irrelevant text.
Let us try an experiment to see how true this is?
The colonel would not confess for another 90 minutes, but sensing he was cornered, his primary concern was not himself or his victims or Lloyd’s distraught family. It was Mary-Liz. “I’m struggling with how upset my wife is right now,” he said, taking another deep breath. “I’m concerned that they’re tearing apart my wife’s brand new house.”At 7:40 p.m., nearly five hours after it all began, Williams caved. “I want to, um, minimize the impact on my wife,” he said.And the potential for catastrophic failure can be every bit as high for knowledge workers as it is for laborers. Robinson cites the follow-up investigations on the Exxon Valdez disaster and the Challenger explosion. Both sets of investigators found that severely overworked, overtired decision-makers played significant roles in bringing about these disasters. There’s also a huge body of research on life-threatening errors made by exhausted medical residents, as well as research by the US military on the catastrophic effects of fatigue on the target discrimination abilities of artillery operators. (As Robinson dryly notes: “It’s a good thing knowledge workers rarely have to worry about friendly fire.”)In place of (costly and arguably inhumane) warehousing of the mentally ill, the plan for decades in Washington state has been to provide aggressive outpatient case management. Psychosis, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety and others are all treatable diseases. The notion—and it’s not a bad idea at its core—is to use an army of social workers (state employees) to keep mentally ill people in the community engaged with treatment and the community safe.Over the same decades, our investment in social services has dwindled. Right-wing propagandists like the Seattle Time’s editorial board, Tim Eyman, and everyone you know who has uttered the phrase ‘a more efficient state government’ are directly responsible for our social service network being gutted, the many safety nets being left tattered and unmanned.Aktiviarum tends to blather off on tangents about how X isn’t really like the pope, while insisting that we must judge PUA’s by their merit, based on their status in the PUA hierarchy. Therefore we may be justified in assuming that he believes PUA Adam is some important PUA, and more credible than others. On the other hand his criteria is vague PUA Adam being in the PUA hiearchy elected by popularity. and we have no metric on which to base this supposed popularity. As a result it’s nothing more than a No True Scotsman Argument, at its coreCreated by Marija Juza and Nikola Djurek, a Ph.D. in type design and owner of Croatian Typonine, Balkan is a new typeface system that consists of Latin and Cyrillic scripts: it is based on the study of a phenomenon known as Balkan sprachbund, a term used to describe neighboring languages whose sound and grammatical features have merged because of their proximity. The typeface system also represents an attempt to identify the features shared by some South Slavic languages and alphabets like Bosnian, Montenegrin, Croatian and Serbian.
“We have focused on the dual-literacy that characterizes Slavic peoples, many of whom use and transliterate both Latin and Cyrillic alphabets” the authors say. Some people do have something to hide, but not something that the government ought to gain the power to reveal. People hide many things from even their closest friends and family: the fact that they are gay, the fact that they are sick, the fact that they are pregnant, the fact that they are in love with someone else. Though your private life may be especially straightforward, that should not lead you to support policies that would intrude on the more complicated lives of others. There’s a reason we call it private life. You may not have anything to hide, but the government may think you do. One word: errors. If we allow the government to start looking over our shoulders just in case we might be involved in wrongdoing—mistakes will be made. You may not think you have anything to hide, but still might end up in the crosshairs of a government investigation, or entered into some government database, or worse. The experience with terrorist watch lists over the past 10 years has shown that the government is highly prone to errors, and tends to be sloppily overinclusive in those it decides to flag as possibly dangerous.
What do you think? Is the irrelevant text a real hindrance to finding my argument?
Oh wait, that’s not what he meant. He meant that blathering on about tangents makes it hard to figure out what was really meant? Stuff about women’s mags, and prison populations and unwed mothers as distractions from the actual topic started out as… Aktivarum trying to be clever and insert his idea of what the glossary terms for feminism and PUA ought to be
Which, being nonsense, were refuted. Which gave him a sad. Which caused him to plaster walls of irrelevant text all around the idiocies of his main arguments.
Silly me. I just keep reading what he says, ignoring the persiflage (it’s not that hard), and talking about his points, which seem to be too much for him, and so he goes off on tangents about who is a real PUA, and how Feminism “makes excuses for women” and any number of other wall of text attempts at diversion.
Aww, you think Tucker Max is real. That’s kind of adorable.
To put it in simple terms in a list of over 20.000 items used for instruction you get 0 hits on Roissy. Tucker Max would qualify as PUA if getting tail was all needed. Do you think Tucker Max is a PUA yes/no?
I don’t think he’s, “real” at all. If, however, what he wants is tail, and he’s getting it. i.e. he’s picking up women, then yes, he’s some sort of PUA.
But I want to see the query string you used. If I put in “PUA Tucker Max” I get About 13,500 results
When I put in PUA Roizzy” Google corrected it to Roissy, and gave me, About 25,300 results Showing results for PUA roissy. Search instead for PUA roizzy
PUA Roosh gets About 29,300 results
For plain PUA I get About 17,300,000 results
For PUA Seduction I get About 1,630,000 results
PUA Training I get About 453,000 results
PUA Instruction gets About 874,000 results
PUA Masters gets About 518,000 results (and your boy paul is there… promoting Mystery and Gambler… because they are great teachers, or somthing… of course he says it’s all sort of tongue in cheek. Then again, the number one hit I got was a 500 internal server error).
PUA Master gets About 2,090,000 results, with the eighth being about how much the PUA community could learn from Borat)
So using Google to “prove” that Roissy, or anyone, is/isn’t a PUA is bullshit. Garbage in, Garbage out.
…there are so many levels of incoherence here that I’m not entirely certain, but it looks like you just claimed that the only reason women get into relationships is to make babies. In which case, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. (Also, apparently all lesbians are just really confused about how babies are made? And the huge majority of women who use or have used some form of birth control do so because…we just really like taking pills, and are so dumb that we don’t realize birth control is a thing that prevents you from giving birth? I’m stumped.)
@ArkTroll; Well, you deserve some sort of award for stamina: I’ve never seen anybody go on for so long against the two amazing rhetoric experts we have here (and I’m an English teacher, but on the literary/cultural studies side, not the rhetoric side–I know enough to know how fucking amazing both of them are, not only in dissecting but constructing arguments). You haven’t even descended into nasty personal attacks (well a few passive aggressive digs, but nothing compared to our TRU TM TROLLZ).
But why?
What are you getting out of this? If it’s fun to blather on (and I’m sure Argenti and Pecunium are having fun), great, go for it: you’re providing them fun and giggles, and the rest of us get to watch with awe the prolonged trainwreck.
But you came in apparently to convince somebody here (presumably Lord David; we’re just his lickspittle minions and toadies) that their definition in the *GLOSSARY* is wrong.
If that was your goal, I think we can chalk this one up as a resounding failure. Not only have you not convinced anyone here on the minion level that your definitions are better than the Official Manboobz Definitions, you’ve gone a long way to convincing us that the desire to mock misogyny in all its forms is a Good Thing because of all the misogyny you’re throwing out.
So: you have not and will not convince anybody. You haven’t shown us anything about you personally that would make any of us want to welcome you into the manboobz community (yes, I know, I’m just one minion, but I think I can be fairly sure there wouldn’t be any dissenting votes–even from our TWU TROLLZ (I think trolls dislike other trolls coming in and taking ALL the attention away). Not a single word of the glossary, nay, not even a punctuation mark will change.
Nobody is convinced.
I’m sure some misogynist lurkers support you in email, but I’m betting a large percentage of lurkers and readers who don’t comment won’t even bother to read through the walls of badly written text (fuck, I skimmed most of them myself because I only read incoherent and badly constructed text carefully when I’m being paid to do so).
If you have as good a luck picking up all the INCORRECT WOMAN (and dude, I have to say, I love that phrase, and was thinking about incorporating it into some of my sig lines since I am 56 years old, happily child free and decided to be so when I was a sophomore in high school (OMG THAT BABY BEING BORN PORN), and (get this) LIVING.WITH.A.WOMAN. And cats. And dogs.
In fact, I strongly suspect most of us incorrect women will give you a wide berth.
But, hey, have a happy life, bucko!
Oh, and p.s.: your listing of feminist superstars (AHAHAHA) is pathetic.
Is that ALL you have?
Although, points for knowing more than Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanis.
Some of the major feminist influences on me:
Joanna Russ
Adrienne Rich
Carolyn Heilbrun
Robin Morgan
bell hooks
Gloria Anzaldua
Paula Giddings
Donna Haraway
I read Freidan, de Beauvoir, Dworkin and MacKinnon and a large number of others (I became a feminist in the early 1980s and spent years reading everything I could find in print, in multiple genres).
There is no such thing as a feminist superstar because there are multiple branches of feminism, and I cannot think of ANY SINGLE feminist whose words are given Superstar Status.
Have you actually read any of the feminists whose names you drop?
Oops, forgot Jacqueline Jones Royster and Angela Davis.
Polliwog:
“…there are so many levels of incoherence here that I’m not entirely certain, but it looks like you just claimed that the only reason women get into relationships is to make babies.”
No I claimed women get into relationships for emotional reasons (for example Love). Those emotions are however designed to produce children and help children survive through childhood.
“In which case, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.”
Yes great answer saying nothing.
“(Also, apparently all lesbians are just really confused about how babies are made? And the huge majority of women who use or have used some form of birth control do so because…we just really like taking pills, and are so dumb that we don’t realize birth control is a thing that prevents you from giving birth? I’m stumped.)”
Apparently you dont get the fact that human emotions pre-dates birth control with 1000s of years meaning regardless of birth control or not love does exist. And regardless of being able to have children or not thats the purpose of those emotions.
Thanks for keeping the answer short and compact though,
Pecunium:
“I’m in favor of, “interesting person, then sex”. I happen to tend to the (big shock), “That person looks attractive”
Well, This means essentially you looking for (survival) value in another person. Thats what attractions is: Value. Most girls think rock stars have value thus most rock stars attract more girls than you do at the same time. Value is the central concept here.
“let’s see if they are interesting, and chat them up”
You assume you can tell how interesting a person is by just chatting for awhile. I dont buy this superficial stuff. Most people have “personas” and it takes a good while to get past them. A chat or two doesnt say a lot of a person on a deeper level.
Thats why in PUA you decide if you wanna keep seeing her after a lot of other stuff already happened showing your true characters.
“Then I’ll test the waters to see if I’m sexually attracted. After that I see if they are too.”
Ok, and if you find your dream girl and she is not interested in you sexually can you do anything about this (improving both your lifes) or were you just “not lucky”? Do you leave these things up to change and random events?
“Then we have sex, or not. And see how it goes from there.”
Same as in PUA, only we dont buy the “chat” part we know you are just meeting her persona thus we cant decide how interesting she is based on this superficial surface. Her being beautiful attracts for sex, the rest will show with time and doing fun things together.
“It works pretty well. I can’t say that I’ve had any long stretch of time when I wanted sex that I couldn’t find it. Not always the moment I wanted it. Nor even the week I wanted it but never more than a couple of weeks; which really means a couple of weekends, so call it a week, at most, of testing the waters.”
And PUA means having sex when I want to have sex not waiting 1-2 weeks, having more women to choose from and more likely the woman I really want is sexually attracted while it would seem if she is not into you, thats game over for you regardless how interested you were and how interesting she was.
Aktivarum, all that you’ve written (that I’ve read, because holy crap gibberish!) seems to be based on your assumptions about what motivates men vs women. Your assumptions seem to be further based on stereotypes and myths.
Please take a moment to consider that people are are complex individuals with individual emotions and motivations. Consider treating people as people, rather than as random and interchangeable representations of stereotypes and myths.
If you adopt this practice, you may find that your relationships improve for the better.
Also, WTF? Spending time talking with somebody is superficial, but having sex without getting to know somebody is deeply psychologically revealing? You are wrong and backwards.
that’s the crux of it. he think its his right to tell women how they think. the rest is just window-dressing.
Well, This means essentially you looking for (survival) value in another person. Thats what attractions is: Value. Most girls think rock stars have value thus most rock stars attract more girls than you do at the same time. Value is the central concept here.
Wow. I am amazed.
I’ve not seen a purer example of mindless drivel, of rarified; distilled: quintessential, blather; full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, in years. I’d say in my life, but that’s probably not true. I mean I used to hang out on usenet forums where army guys, and wannabe army guys spent time. It’s possible that Hindenloser, managed to surpass the lofty heights of nonsensical incoherence you’ve attained, truly you have demonstrated an amazing mastery of the form.
I tip my hat to you sir.
You assume you can tell how interesting a person is by just chatting for awhile. I dont buy this superficial stuff. Most people have “personas” and it takes a good while to get past them. A chat or two doesnt say a lot of a person on a deeper level.
That’s because you (and the PUA crowd) are amateurs. I’m not. Give me a reason, and about an hour, and I’ll know about someone than they (and most certainly than you) think possible.
But I’m a professional at that. Got paid to teach the skill to others, for fifteen years. I’ve got credentials†. Thanks for asking. It’s part of why I say the PUA crowd is a bunch of ignorant pikers.
Ok, and if you find your dream girl and she is not interested in you sexually can you do anything about this (improving both your lifes) or were you just “not lucky”?
I was just not lucky. Seems I wasn’t her dream guy.
Do you leave these things up to change and random events?
Not quite. I leave them up to how the two of us feel about each other. Meeting people, that chance. I met my present primary at my girlfriend’s wedding. I met the other important relationship I was having at the time because one of her boyfriends happened to be invited to a party I happened to be able to attend because I was visiting my fiancée while she was doing an internship 400 miles from our house. When I was living in Tenn. I was invited to give the keynote at a seminar on interrogation/torture in San Francisco, and she decided to come.
From there, well you see how chance and random events play out.
And PUA means having sex when I want to have sex not waiting 1-2 weeks, having more women to choose from and more likely the woman I really want is sexually attracted while it would seem if she is not into you, thats game over for you regardless how interested you were and how interesting she was.
Which is why I say you a proto-rapist, if you’ve not already committed the occasional rape. Because the key thing you are missing is that I am having sex with someone because we are both interested in it.
If I don’t want to wait…I don’t have to wait. I know a number of good bars, or clubs, where the people who are attending are looking for no strings attached sex.
But when I want something for more than the evening… I have the patience, self-control and (for want of a better term) adult restraing, required to not feel I need to force someone to fuck me right away.
Orgasms are easy to come by. Self-respect is harder to recover.
Now I’m off to the LCBO, and then to see if there are any decent boardgames at the comic store in Markham. Try not to hurt yourself with the answers you promised in response to my request.
(speaking of which, where are your credentias? Or Paul’s? Or DeAngelos? What about Gunwitch, have you disowned him for taking his, “art” to the logical extreme? is Mystery one of your, “MPUA”? How about Gambler?
@Pecunium: Just to wander slightly ot for a moment; this quote really resonated with me
OMG!TEACHING too.
From a quick question in class, to tests, to paper topics, to all sorts of things–poor questions lead to that same conclusion.
With every breath he takes, and every word he makes, more and more ArkTroll is revealing himself to be steeped in the load of steaming bullshit that is evo-psych.
BTW, BINGO!
I’ll get back to troll in one moment, I’m sure my reply to him is going to go into mod over the length.
Dracula — Thank you 🙂
Ithiliana — Thank you as well, I am most honored to be counted among the greats on manboobz, that’s some serious competition.
Pecunium — I don’t even know what to say for that award besides thank you, and that I am truly and humbly honored to be counted among your Royal Assassins.
me — I can’t afford to visit any of the countries that practice FGM
troll — It has nothing to do with what you can “afford” its the fact that the places doing what you want has a way worse result than the place you are criticizing. You dont wanna live there, you just want the luxuary of attacking us while needing no better alternaives whatsoever.
you — So… they are doing something which is worse than someplace else and therefore we need to shut up about what they are doing? That makes no sense at all. This is not atypical for you, but it is even moreso than your usual gibbering mush.
And if what they are doing is so bad (e.g. FGM) not doing it is a better alternative.
Oh is that what he meant? I couldn’t make heads or tails of that gibberish. I think he might be trying to say I can’t be against FGM because the US is worse — though the only point he’s mentioned so far is our prison industrial complex and idfk wtf makes him think I’m ok with that.
“Yep… the Guru Style. He tells you how successful he is, and makes up theories; with jargon, to make it seem more plausible. But he can’t describe it in plain language. It’s too secret. One has to be initiated.”
Yeah my already typed up response to him has “so it’s a cult?” I’ll explain that here, have a list from wiki —
1. People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations; — oh holy shit check, he specifically described this as a good thing!
2. Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized; — that one’s an obvious yes as well
3. They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group; — just do what I tell you and you’ll get all the girls…check
4. They get a new identity based on the group; — potentially? they’re too isolated and jargon-y for me to tell
5. They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled. — that can also be redefining words, which they do; they also encourage isolating your partners, and mock mainstream culture
So um yeah, PUA is looking a lot like a cult…
“‘Also fatherlessness has clear correlation to criminal young men.’
I assume you mean children in family with a single parent who happens to be a woman, not those produced by asexual parthogenesis.
Accepting that to be the case, you’re right. It’s why Iceland, with almost two-thirds of births being had by single mothers is so much more a hellhole than Sweden, where it’s only 50 percent, and the US is a paragon of non-criminals, because we only have a 40 percent rate of unmarried women having children.
Maybe it’s not about single parents, but about the support network for single parents and their children?”
I think he meant the inverse of how you read it — that putting young men behind bars leaves their children fatherless, which is admittedly an issue with our system.
Oh and my point about NSA sex was that CL hook-ups and other one-night stands make it clear that that’s what it is, a one time thing, maybe future sex if it’s good sex, little to no chance of a relationship. Versus his whole “start banging her and if I like her we’ll work from there” — it’s dishonest, whereas NSA, in my experience, is honest about what it is. (I’m not interested either, but I’ve no issue with “you wanna have sex now? not a relationship, just sex?” “sounds good!” = enjoy guys!)
“And PUA means having sex when I want to have sex not waiting 1-2 weeks, having more women to choose from and more likely the woman I really want is sexually attracted while it would seem if she is not into you, thats game over for you regardless how interested you were and how interesting she was.”
Aww, I think he’s trying to mock you, aren’t you in a committed LTR?
First off, psych degree — I can write 30 pages on math, the length of this isn’t bothering me any. Second, holy shit is this a lengthy reply.
“How do people get confidence? By successful repetition. How do you know what to repeat? By trial & error. People test things to see what works.”
Um, you seem to have forgotten there’s a psych degree here…citation needed on that confidence thing, particular attention should be paid to ensuring the study you cite is actually discussing interpersonal confidence and not, say, confidence at underwater basket weaving. Whether the obect of your tests has its own reactions is rather important (and hey look, more treating women like objects!)
“Cant teach what? Opening? DHV? Escalation-ladder? As I wrote above the key is knowing what you are supposed to do and then repeat it till you get confidence doing it, getting a PUA to give feedback makes improvement much faster.”
Can’t teach any of it in words that make goddamned sense (see everything Pecunium said about gurus). And “escalation-ladder”? Refusing to take “I’m not interested” is rapey enough, flat out saying you should “escalate” things from there is really not helping your cause any.
As for the confidence part — it is truly, dumbfoundingly, easy to get “false confidence” — thinking your good at something either because no one has told you otherwise or because someone falsely told you that you were good at it. So we still need a citation that PUA improves your odds over not-PUA (you need a matched pairs design for this study, or I’m just going to mock the methodology).
“Another stupid label, how about learning which group promoted calling everyone not agreeing labels like “hater”?”
…That sentence is not a sentence, please try again.
“No, I am trying to find out if they are students or PUA:s worth mentioning, since the people I mention are recognized as MPUAS I think my sources are better than just a couple of students.”
Yeah only a certain “type” is worth mentioning? That’s a No True Scotsman…either that or we can finally kill Palin’s “I’m a feminist” and be done with that debate — she wants the label, thus we kind of have to put up with her and just ignore her, arguing she’s not a feminist because “I said she isn’t!” is an NTS (in her case one could argue that pro-life = not a feminist, but since there’s no standard definition of feminist that explicitly requires one be pro-choice, it’s an NTS). Likewise, since the standard, common, definition of PUA does not mean “must teach PUA” you cannot claim that non-teachers are not PUAs. I believe this part was about Roissy? Who calls himself a PUA? Thus he is one.
“My issue is not intent cause my intent depends entirely on the women I date.”
Ok so when you refuse to take an “I’m not interested” it’s her fault you won’t leave her alone? Now you’re straight up victim blaming, and really, really not helping your cause any.
“2. Won´t you just say its snake-oil salesmen tricking people? So even if I show you a site hosted by 4 well known MPUA:s telling how people can use PUA to find a girlfriend would you accept that PUA has no intent and depends on what guys want and what the girls they meet are like?”
That’s not a link about how to maintain a relationship, it’s a link acknowledging that picking people up at bars is unlikely to lead to a long term relationship. Considering you claimed way back in the beginning a week ago that women’s magazines sell how to maintain an exclusive relationship, you’re going to have to do better than that.
“I am afraid sometimes you sound like the same person. Thus mistakes can happen. Specially when you frame arguments with lots of irrelevant text.”
First, all the irony. Second, yes, we both fans of proper logical arguments, and I’m fairly sure we’ve both studied Greek and Roman oration and argumentation. I imagine facing two people who actually know how to argue might make us sound similar, but we both have unique, non-default, avatars, it’s fairly simple really — he’s a mushroom, I’m a ninja.
“Well to PUA:s this is simply wrong. Since personality is part of what is being taught you cant teach against who you are.”
Let’s pretend I concede that you can’t teach against who you are (this is bullshit as every religious closeted queer would readily attest) — citation needed on that whole “to PUAs this is wrong” — you need a study of PUAs that disproves the null hypthesis that no more PUAs than non-PUAs think this is “simply wrong”. (And I highly doubt you’d find that more PUAs than average think you can’t teach against your personality, but should you manage to dig up a study saying such, please, please, ensure it is not merely a correlation but a causal effect.)
“‘our insistence that “elite-teachers” are in fact like everyone else is because they are.’
Again, thats not true in PUA.”
…is PUA a cult? If the hierarchy leader got hit by a bus is there a clear structure for who would take over?
“Lots of PUA:s have girlfriends. I just showed one of the high ranking. You not accepting rank means you decide rank doesnt matter in PUA. You however have no say in how PUA view rank. PUA neither obey nor listen – to you.”
See above, also, pretty sure that last “sentence” is any appeal to force. (Threats are both a fallacy and explicitly against the comment policy, so don’t try to score a point for an appeal to force.)
“‘Please see above re: fallacy of composition, and note that Steinem (and likely Adam too) is not some superstar every feminist everywhere bows to’
So you say. Are you saying feminism doesnt have rank at all or do you intend to mention a larger superstar than Steinem showing that such people exist?”
Feminism does not have rank. There you go. No, seriously, we don’t, feminism profressors are not above critism, not even if they’re tenured and major universities; which, unlike PUAs, does actually happen.
“I dont objectify women. Women objectify women. Read Ariel Levy she seem to understand this better than you do. Also thats a negativist advice. You are not saying how guys can succeed better, you are just complaining on what I am saying.”
I’ve read quite enough of your recommendations already, but I find it amusing you think this is a zero-sum game where you can’t objectify women because some women already do. Also, “that’s negativist advise” — so “don’t pick your nose” is invalid as advice? (And for the love of all the gods man yes I am complaining about what you are saying, every other sentence is a fallacy!!)
“‘Ooooh now you’re keeping your women? Most women don’t want to be kept women, they want a partner, not an owner.’
Those two things mean the exact same thing. Guys “keeping” a woman means they wanna keep seeing her. Your theory on it meaning something else without any importance whatsoever!”
“Those two things” = buy an antecedent; since you didn’t, I can only assume you mean “partner” and “owner” mean the same thing, and that’s a level of dumb too low for me to try parsing. As for “my theory” — you failed to form a sentence, please try again.
“Not at all. I understand thats your personal opinion and since there is a deep need for feminist theory inventing excuses to control the way guys speak and behave it does not surprise me. You just let the theory dictate the message for you, thinking is then not needed.”
Oh it’s just how men treat women we care about? That’s why you keep citing how women objectify women and a feminist who’s speaking against this? Also, my degree was in psychology, said that already, you know what undergrad psych teaches? How to parse the bullshit from theories. Nice try on the insult though.
“‘(hint, friends with benefits is a non-asshole solution to wanting more than one partner)’
Thanks for that opinion on people descibing MLTR”
Jargon, invalid, try again. Wtf is an MLTR? I tried google but only got Michael Learns to Rock
“Not at all, first you demonstrate, then you describe what happens in an own lingo PUA uses other people cant understand. Thus you can discuss how to pick up a girl in front of her and she still dont get what is being said. Non-PUA people not understanding is intentional.”
Ok so it is a cult then? Artists do not use their “own lingo”, not without explaining what they mean anyways. Eg if I said “do a watercolor wash” and you said “what’s a watercolor wash?” I’d explain it. Yes demonstration helps, but you could learn from words and pictures, eg a book, the internet. As for “you can discuss how to pick up a girl in front of her and she still dont get what is being said” — that’s manipulative bullshit, an abusers game, potentially gaslighting, none of this is helping you any.
“‘…You did it!!! We have a No True Scotsman! *cheers* Wtf makes Roissy not a PUA?’
In one word: Hierarchy!”
In one word: Cult! (I’ll get back to that accusation since I realize that’s going to sound like an ad homenim)
“‘Why should all PUAs not be given equal weight as to what PUA is?’
Cause all PUAs are not equally good.”
So the fuck what? Whether a painter is any good at painting is moot to whether they can tell you what painting is. (No, really, is it not painting if I’m using a sponge? Or does that depend on whether I’m any good with a sponge? This is clearly nonsense.)
“Neither of those are true and the ability to describe game doesnt matter more than a great painters ability to describe what he does.”
For about the 5th time now, painters can describe what they do. Demonstrating generally helps, but it isn’t required, and if you’ve almost got it then a verbal explanation works just fine.
“‘Steinem controls exactly one person, herself, anyone is free to ignore her, there’s no feminism cabal that’ll throw people out for not taking her advise’
If you believe this you dont understand how women are controlled. This is evolutionary. Women needing to do certain things to survive and still doing them today.”
This is ev-psych bullshit and has fuck all to do with Steinem, another red herring from the peddler of fish. (Complete with an attempt to call me an idiot, I think PUAs call that negging?)
“‘Someone revoke my feminism card, I have no idea who that is… (yeah I’ll google, but point stands)’
Which feminist thinkers and writers do you know of? Except Robin Talmoch cause obviously you have her ideas on sexist language. How about Catharine MacKinnon? Know who that is and what opinions she has? Or maybe its Betty Friedan?”
Nice try there peddler of fish, but who I read is about as relevant as what books are aboard ISS. The goddamned point was that there is no feminist cabal to care what I’ve read, no secret handshake, no jargon that we won’t explain. (Also, it was a joke)
“‘oooh so tell me, oh omniscient one, why do women get into relationships at all then?’
Cause of the emotional needs designed to produce children. (that question is really really stupid)”
“Cause ev-psych and you’re an idiot for not knowing that” — ev-psych is stupid, and that’s my polite term for it. It’s irrelevant however as this is what you’d said before (and what I was replying to there) — “I did not talk about women cause most women dont need relationships for sexual or social needs.” — apparently emotional needs are different from social needs? I’ll accept that actually, I still require a citation that isn’t BRAINFAX!! though. (And if you pull an ev-psych citation I will spend an entire comment tearing it apart, try for a simple study of what women say they want in a relationship, versus what men say they want.)
“Benefitting THEMSELVES yes, Benefitting other men? Men normally compete against other men and women normally choose who they think are winners No! Google “Apex Fallacy” and “Apexuals” if you have an honest interest in the subject.”
Oooh Pecunium! Howard! You’re just trying to get a leg up on the competition by being feminists, it’s not that you actually think women are humans like yourselves or anything! (Is anyone else reading “apexuals” as “people attracted to apes”?) — As for googling, we get you, the spearhead, stonerwithaboner, nothing resembling a legit source. In other words you pulled a theory out of your collective ass.
“‘and the other 50% into whether it benefits other people (or at least doesn’t harm them, context dependent).’
Communists in Russia and China thought the exact same thing. They were wrong and so are you.”
I’m counting this as an Reductio ad Hitlerum since it’s a reductio ad communism. And you need proof the communism is the same as saying people do actually give a shit about other people (and that that alone was why Stalin and Mao failed at it).
“‘I’ll be sure to tell my friend with benefits that, should be laughter inducing. (And I’m serious here, this is going into email right now)’
You do know what general statements mean right? It means being her friend doesnt improve your chances. Its still possible its just a worse strategy than PUA getting MLTR.”
Do you? I’m not the one who keeps making grand sweeping statements without calling them generalizations. (And again, what’s MLTR?)
“USA are worse at pro-active work. USA wait for people to become criminals and then police put them in jail. Sweden try to prevent crime happening. Guess which country gets less criminals? Also fatherlessness has clear correlation to criminal young men. Which USA should know, not cause USA give a shit about men (they dont), but cause USA has racist history and fatherlessness a big problem among black people.”
Ok assuming you’re blaming the US’s racism for our soaring prison rate…I agree… As for the rest, the only part I can make logic from is that putting young men behind bars leaves their children without a father, which is also an actual true fact and a problem. What this has to do with pro-active anti-DV work is beyond me, but yes, we’re very prone to simply writing off criminals as not worth the time or money. This is entirely off-topic though.
Um…that first line is quoting yourself…I’m putting my lines in bold since you’re arguing with your own previous statements — citations at the end of each line, uncited lines are all from this comment
How in the everloving fuck does not getting explanations for why they don’t leave increase the odds they’ll leave? Without explanations why they don’t you cannot do anything to negate those facts, and negating the factors preventing them for leaving helps them be able to leave — logic, you really truly suck at it. This isn’t remotely a matter of intent, it’s a matter of the difference between someone making up excuses for their actions and someone trying to understand and negate actual reasons why something happened. Non-DV example — how did Deepwater Horizon occur? By your logic — who the fuck cares, that’s just making excuses for BP! By real logic — we must find out to prevent it from happening again. (With note that since oil rigs are not sentient there’s no ethical issue in forcing changes, DV victims are sentient and thus must agree to changes to their lives)
you — “Guys have lower standards for sex and higher standards for investing in relationships – Girls dont.”
me — “Says someone who’s made it clear he doesn’t want female friends, so where’s this opinion coming from? Citation needed”
you — I never said I did not want female friends, thats just your personal assumption. I said when I look for sex partners I dont look for pals. Women dont normally sleep with pals thus if a guy wants to have sex he is better off not being seen as “pal”
It’s your personal assumption re: standards for relationships, I was question where that assumption comes from since it seems unlikely to be what your female friends have told you, I’d really prefer an actual citation anyways. Also, citation needed on that “don’t normally sleep with pals” and particularly a citation showing a causal relationship between men not being pals with women and improved odds of sexytimes with that woman. (Matched pairs again, since there are serious ethical issues with forcing the issue)
you — “Actually it has nothing to do with PUA or me, its normal male behavior. Men have sex with more women than they have relationships with. Thus opinion on this is opinion on male gender in general. When “Male Studies” begin 2013 you can get this info in intellectually describing language.”
me — “Yet a-fucking-gain — citation needed”
you — Citation on what? Male studies 2013 or on guys having sex with more people than they have relationships with?
That the latter is “normal male behavior” — note that the inverse of normal is abnormal, not uncommon. You need to prove it’s abnormal not to have more sex with women than relationships. (And since you’re thick as bricks, abnormal means not just uncommon but undesirable.)
you — “Well known PUA-intructor David DeAngelo calculated about 80% of the guys he was teaching want a relationship – they just dont want it with any woman who they want to sleep with.”
me — “So are PUAs shittier than average at picking potential girlfriends, or did you just decide that 4 out of 5 guys want to have sex with people they don’t want relationships with? And that somehow PUA is the only solution to that?”
you — Neither, I told you most women are not what these guys are looking for and they dont intend to lack sexlife while searching.
Again you reply to not-what-I-said. What I asked was whether DeAngelo’s survey was representative of all men, or whether non-PUA stand better/worse odds than that 80% figure. (Can I could this as an Argument to moderation? Or is ignoring the potential logical explanations and pulling nonsense just another red herring?)
you — “Does that work for you or is it absolutely essential for women to go to my bed naked NOT to have sex?”
pecunium — “I’ll say it again. If one person joins another one in bed, and they are both nude, it’s not consent.)”
you — Well I guess then she is the one committing a crime cause you are not allowed to jump into other peoples bed without consent. Thats the problem with your theory. Either we both consent or none of us do.
Are you really so daft as to not see that your own example implied you were inviting her into your bed? You could still revoke consent, but the implication was that your consent was not in question. Should she insist on jumping into your bed while you’re telling her not to (or after telling her not to) then yeah, she does not have consent. If you’re lying in bed asking her to join you? Then joining you is consented to. But sex is not, you’ll need to clarify that sexytimes are the goal, not sleepytimes or backrubtimes or whatever.
“‘In which case, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.’
Yes great answer saying nothing.”
That was saying you’re hilarious, that’s not nothing.
“Apparently you dont get the fact that human emotions pre-dates birth control with 1000s of years meaning regardless of birth control or not love does exist. And regardless of being able to have children or not thats the purpose of those emotions.”
…apparently you have no clue how old birth control is. Another troll I can give history lessons to! Birth control was well documented in antiquity, at least as far back as the Egyptian Dynasties. We’re talking 1850BC here. So um yeah…
And do try and explain how the purpose of love is babymaking in light of gay and lesbian couples.
“Thats why in PUA you decide if you wanna keep seeing her after a lot of other stuff already happened showing your true characters.”
More abuser logic — don’t let her know how you really are until she’s too close to just run from you.
“‘Right, and that message is, “Fuck ‘em, and forget ‘em”.’
No, the message is do what you want.”
From anyone who seemed to understand how to respect another human being, I’d agree, but since you don’t, let’s amend that to how it should work in reality land, k? “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” — Confucius
Argenti: I think he meant the inverse of how you read it — that putting young men behind bars leaves their children fatherless, which is admittedly an issue with our system.
Even if he did… Iceland still ought to be awash in Crime, and Sweden too.
They aren’t, so his theory it (wait for it)…. A load of fetid codswallop.
Aww, I think he’s trying to mock you, aren’t you in a committed LTR?
I’m in a committed LT poly-relationship; which follows a different, committed LT poly-relationship (that one was ten years… we’d known each other for a couple of years, were friends and decided to start dating… you know that thing he says doesn’t happen).
As to the award, you earned it.