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.
Even saying that stupid citation about women having sex more often with rapists is true, I can come up with a very obvious reason why:
YOU CAN’T SAY NO.
Of COURSE I’m going to say no to people asking to have sex with me! I’m a human being, not a vending machine. So yeah, if I CAN’T say no, and am getting raped, I might be having “more sex” with you, because I have no choice in the matter.
Except, you know, RAPE IS WRONG. And even ignoring that obvious fact, quantity != quality. My husband might be having sex less often with me because he respects my wishes, but it’s way better for us both! God, what the fuck is WRONG with people.
“Actually, no. She is pressured to look the way that gets more tips, but her employers don’t care…” — that’s why I included the “preferred” caveat, he attacked that and I explained it, but the thread is long and you probably didn’t see that yet.
Re: female sounding handles — mine’s a bastardization of Latin masculine nouns! (Let’s not discuss that it’s aeris not aertheris k?)
LBT — “YOU CAN’T SAY NO.” — I know right? This has gotten epically stupid. He’s actually arguing with me that that’s the same as wearing make-up. “God, what the fuck is WRONG with people.” — were I to do ev-psych studies my first question (and I’m serious here) would be whether we’re selecting for stupid.
Honestly, I couldn’t tell what the hell troll of the day was going on about at all, so I just waited till now. Seriously, it sounds like the bizarre argument, “well, if you STEAL from people, you’ll have more money than if you ASK for money, so obviously you should steal!”
Also, just out of curiosity, you seem cool. I’m in the Northeast US. You?
LBT — one state south of new england, is your blog/site’s “(at)(domain name)” at the same domain? (that seems kinda obvious now that I ask >.< ) — grew up in CT so I'm up there sometimes, I'll send you an email?
Yup, that one works. And I’m in MA. (Due to South upbringing, I never quite got clear on what exactly was ‘New England.’)
New England is, per wiki — Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, MA and CT — most people include NY because calling the Canadian border mid-Atlantic is weird (and they get nor’easters, so weather and politics wise its similar). New Englanders aren’t clear on what’s New England though XD
This entire troll derail can be summed with two graphics — xkcd and Pecunium’s.
This is only true to a certain point, because employers are usually required to make up the difference if tips + wages don’t add up to the non-waiting minimum wage. It’s not a common occurrence, and given the hours most wait staff work is probably not going to hit until well after concerns over being able to pay the bills, but it does give employers a reason to put at least a little pressure on employees over tips.
“This entire troll derail can be summed with two graphics — xkcd and Pecunium’s.”
I was apparently wrong, xkcd makes this meta.
PsychoDan: I know, and I factored that into the equation, but a waiter who isn’t managing to make minimum wage, isn’t able to survive on the job, and so will have to leave in any case. The real issue is making it past minimum wage to living wage.
Argenti:
The problem PUA solve is men having to be in relationship (for sex) before meeting a girl they actually like. The problem is not dumping, the problem is being in the relationship with wrong person (hoping for change) in the first place. As opposed to the idea wrong people just need a little more training and therapy for the relationship to work.
I know what Womens Magazines are saying. I also however know Its not news, its not facts, its entertainment its purpose is selling beauty products. The cover normally has a beautiful woman.
Regarding your first question – No! You do not force anyone to do anything. You present people with choices and then they as individuals choose what seems most fun to them ATM.
Women sexually repressed by women is shown here. Roy Baumeister & Jean Twenge “Cultural repression of female sexuality”
” — feminists are against the idea the whole “too slutty” thing, so please try again.”
There are at least two flawed assumptions in this statement. First feminists (like all political groups) are defined not what they say but what they DO. Second feminists are not defined what they are against, they are defined by what they promote. *** Thus in what way do you mean the society feminists wanna build would prevent girls from doing the slutty thing?
“You think it a good thing that if she comes onto you she can always accuse you of rape later? Well, you aren’t an MRA is all that proves…”
First you interpret “force” where there is none. Now you interpret rape when I talk about making a woman want to have sex. If making women want to have sex she had not planned having was illegal most rock stars would be in jail. As shown in the book “Why women have sex” by David Buss and Cindy Meston women have sex for lots of more reasons than just the romantic notion you are interpreting as needed for it not to be abuse, assault or whatever.’
Regarding “feminists against” playing hard to get see above ***
Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resistance to sex. Muehlenhard, Charlene L.; Hollabaugh, Lisa C. show 39,3% do
“you cannot rape” => “ABORTION!!!”
I am not talking about rape, thats just your personal mis-interpretation failing to observe the difference between forced to sex you dont want – and being made to want sex (you do want). I never talked about forcing people – You did. You throw in words like force and rape – I dont!
“And no, abortion has nothing to do with economics”
No, but it has a lot to do with having sex. I just pointed out the stupidity of an argument based on the solution being not having sex.
“I don’t care if he’s the pope, it’s still an anecdote and not a statistic.”
Its an elected hiearchy, he is representative – thus not just anecdotal.
“rape can also be coercion” => “but women wear make up!” — yeah just go fuck off.”
Rape is not making people want to have sex. If it was women would commit rape when making men want to have sex. Rape means being forced to do things you dont want. Not being made to want things.
“I only like you for your body” =/= respect, if you can’t wrap your fucking head around that I’m not explaining it.”
If nothing else about you is worth admiring than her body that is not my fault. 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. If you dont agree with this then would you please explain how HER clearly putting more effort into her body than other things of value is my problem?
She get the respect she earn by the effort she put in things of value. She dont get respect for putting time in things I dont care about. Her ignoring other aspects guys like except her body how come you put that on MY shoulders?
“You made the valid point that one cannot judge how good a partner is in bed until you’ve done such, I said I was saying that’s correct, but still a factor in whether to continue the relationship…wtf does your reply have to do with this?”
Yes but I clearly stated most sex do not lead to relationships and since PUA is about sex it includes both relationships AND casual sex – more of the latter cause thats how few girls actually put effort into things guys like – with exception of looks.
“Point stands that asking people who they find attractive in a study means jack all about who they actually date. “More attractive” =/= “the only person presented who I’d fuck””
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.
“Wearing make up versus refusing to take a no? MILES APART.”
Wearing make up changing a no to a yes from a guy versus wearing a social persona changing a no to a yes from a girl. Is that still miles apart?
“Men sometimes wear hair gel, and fancy clothing, hey, I beat that’s even PUA advise! This the same as a girl refusing to take a no from you? Some girl you have no interest in who just will not leave you alone?”
Yes men sometimes improve looks, women somethings improve behavior, most people do all the things however men do one thing more, women do the other thing more.
“Argh, remind me never to use modifiers — one man is an anecdote, he could be Brad pItt and he’d still be an anecdote.”
Problem is off course there are lots of such guys. My point in using Tiger Woods is not his money or fame – but his messages freely avaible online and him effing lots of women known for physical attractiveness.
“Are PUAs not men? Then “guys in general” includes PUAs.”
PUA:s are not representative of men in general. Men in general have relationships whith girls they do not like while the point of PUA is not needing bad relationship for sex and thus never being in one unless its a girl they really like.
“And now it’s “hardly their choice” that their method of meeting people means most of the people they meet “aren’t girlfriend-material”? You just contradicted your first point here, the one about PUA solving exactly that problem”
Most girls are not girlfriend material today and thats not the guys fault. Most women simply dont care what guys like (cause of misandry). PUA solve the problem with bad relationships. Not the problem with girls unable to “woman up” as Heartiste put it.
“she is preferred by her boss, customers and society to wear make-up, be sexy, whatever — doing so is required to make enough to survive as waitstaff however.”
That would mean male waiters cant survive at all. Are you saying men cant be waiters? Or maybe you mean a guy waiter has to be funny?
“Nicely done ignoring how many celebrities are in industries unrelated to looking attractive — eg singers. And photoshoots pay shit, because “publicity is good!” (which is true to a degree, but merely showing up for a photoshoot does not pay well)
Neither of those things are unrelated. Promotion/shoots is the reason singing pays so well and singing live as well as on TV is completely related to how sexy you look. When you are sexy more people look at you. Motley Cruel not looking like Motley Cruel “tough rebel guys” would mean millions less in paychecks.
And women looking like motley cruel would not have 1/100th of the audience cause most guys do not think women looking and acting tough is interesting and/or sexy. Feminism not LIKING this fact is not same as feminists being able to do anything about it.
“See above FFS, re: singers, and being an actor/actress should NOT automatically make your life open to public scrutiny”
True, I was not talking about most people, I was talking about stars. If you are just a singer you dont need to promote. And you get paid accordingly. When you are a star – like Beyonce – your paycheck is off course directly larger when you promote sexy.
“They can’t get the money without product placements =/= hollywood only exists because product placements, please try again.”
No Hollywood doesnt exist cause of product placements. The large blockbuster movies of today however do. When Hollywood last made that kind of large movies they made huge losses and then it took the computer technology of today to make that kind of movies again.
“Irrelevant — relevant question would be if anyone would give a shit if Obama or Edwards wore glasses instead of contacts. Or, better yet, whether any of them are expected to wear make up in the first place”
The relevant question – in your case – would be if people cared if they first wore contacts and then suddenly changed to glasses. If they cared Edwards first had hair cut nice and then suddenly started not having it that way.
On Constitution Darksidecat said constitution is about putting a check on the majority. I responded constitution is about putting a check on the goverment. I clearly did not agree with cat since goverment and majority is not the same thing.
Aktivarum, women not doing what men like is not misandry. It’s called being a distinct human being with wants and needs of their own. If you don’t like it, too bad, but it’s not misandry.
Motley Cruel? LOL.
Nancy:
“Ah yes, the old, “all women are prostitutes” argument beloved of EP promoters.”
Who used the word “prostitute” here? No I did not say women are prostitutes, neither do most people refer to legal lobbyism mean the same thing as illegal bribery. However regardless what you call it census in several countries show much larger correlation for sex and resources for guys than for women. For instance Sociologist Henry Laasanen (“Womens sexual power”)
After examining the material he concludes:
Reservations for the translation from finnish.
“Although if you had two identical men, but one was rich and one was poor, why wouldn’t you choose the rich one? That means they are identical in every way, except that by one single metric one is superior.That’s hypothetical of course, no two people are exactly the same, even twins
Yes, Identical as a choice doesnt exists. Thus the point here being men do not choose the richer person as often as women do. Regardless of what women like in guys its more likely to also be a rich guy. Regardless what guys like with women its less likely to require her also having money.
It doesnt matter to guys whether women choose money or just something often true for guys when they have money cause even if money itself is not the reason clearly its something harder for guys with money to be in posession of, for instance women like confidence – Surprise! Poor guys have less of it. Men like youth/looks/family skills, Surprise! Women having those are more financially diverse.
“And of course that’s not what EP promoters are talking about. EP promoters actually believe that if you had a hot 25-year old guy with no money and an ugly 25-year old guy with money, women would feel *sexual desire* for the ugly guy because of his money.”
No they dont. Also you cant use the words like hot/sexy cause that implies more than looks. However what they say is compare a 25 year old pretty guy with no money with a 25 year old not pretty guy with lots of money and women will be more likely to compete for the guy with money not cause of his money but cause of this other “regardless” thing from above more likely to be true.
“I know that sounds insane, those of you who are not familiar with the core beliefs of EP, but this is exactly what they posit – that women are sexually aroused by money.”
Yes it sound insane and thus you might assume the interpretation is wrong in favor of – they are crazy 🙂 What they say is women are aroused by “whatever it is” which is more likely to be true for guys with money regardless what it is. Often given answer is confidence. Women think its hot with confidence and guys unsure of themselves are not hot regardles looks.
“There are gold diggers of course – of both genders. What EP does is take the concept of gold digging and turn it into an innate sexual preference, not an opportunistic financial scheme – but only for women.”
The girls who are gold diggers would go for the guy with money even when lacking “regardless” You can compare to lobbyism making politician lean that way while bribery means they do exactly as paid to do. Golddigger would be bribery. Normal statistics on women would be lobbyism.
They dont say that at all. But even if they did they dont necessary have the reasons you assume they have just cause a theory assumes peoples reasons instead of actually discussing with them.
Here is an op-ed, written by EP promoter Helena Cronin, in which she argues that the British government should have a mommy-track and a daddy-track system for employment in order to promote marriage. It promotes marriage because it ensures that men have more money than women. This op-ed was originally a policy paper called “The Evolved Family.”
Yes I can see that. However you make the same mistake here as was earlier done by Argenti talking about what feminists are against (women playing hard to get). The point is not what you think of these ideas. The point is what are your ideas? If you dont present any ideas I dont have any choice but conclude we either follow the advice of Cronin & Curry or we just dont care about the problem adressed.
Thats not me thinking Cronin & Curry has good advice. Its you too occupied with attacking them you dont even present any options. However your reply was great. While you attack EP and give reasons for a discussion on EP (which is interesting), other people went ad hominem with repeated attacks on me as a person.
Ugh! So much argument by verbosity. It’s exhausting, and I wasn’t even engaging him.
Thank god.
Oh, wait, you think they’re better? Huh. WEIRD.
…you are a lying sack of shit.
Oh, you disagree? Well, you don’t present any ideas. If you don’t present any ideas on how to fix the lying sack of shit problem, then I have no choice to conclude we must follow my ideas, or maybe you just don’t care about the lying sack of shit problem.
…
IF THAT WASN’T CRYSTAL CLEAR LET ME BE EVEN SHORTER.
YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.
“The problem PUA solve is men having to be in relationship (for sex) before meeting a girl they actually like. The problem is not dumping, the problem is being in the relationship with wrong person (hoping for change) in the first place. As opposed to the idea wrong people just need a little more training and therapy for the relationship to work.”
Congrats, you’re at least defending the parts that are just decent advice in general now.
“I know what Womens Magazines are saying. I also however know Its not news, its not facts, its entertainment its purpose is selling beauty products. The cover normally has a beautiful woman.”
Ever read one? No you haven’t, I already asked and you said as much, this would be like me saying that magazines for dog owners only contain pretty dog pictures (it’s the first example I can think of of something I’ve never read) — you’re still calling “how not to get raped and murdered” enterianment the same as the artcle about Johnny Depp’s nail polish though apparently.
“Regarding your first question – No! You do not force anyone to do anything. You present people with choices and then they as individuals choose what seems most fun to them ATM.”
You just refuse to listen to anything but a screaming no — which is rapist logic.
“Women sexually repressed by women is shown here. Roy Baumeister & Jean Twenge “Cultural repression of female sexuality”
‘ — feminists are against the idea the whole “too slutty” thing, so please try again.‘
There are at least two flawed assumptions in this statement. First feminists (like all political groups) are defined not what they say but what they DO. Second feminists are not defined what they are against, they are defined by what they promote. *** Thus in what way do you mean the society feminists wanna build would prevent girls from doing the slutty thing?”
And now he’s an expert on feminism too! The MRM must not exist if political groups are defined solely by what they promote, because those guys are only against things, they promote nothing (ditto the pro-life crowd who only exists to protest Roe) — I never said feminists want girls not to do slutty things I said feminists do not think slutty behavior is inherently bad. Which is relevant because you seem to be arguing that all women shame their friends for being sluts, which is patently untrue — your point was men have to isolate their girlfriends because her friends will shame her, to which I countered that that’s completely false if her friends are feminists. You got my position 100% backwards in other words.
“First you interpret “force” where there is none. Now you interpret rape when I talk about making a woman want to have sex. If making women want to have sex she had not planned having was illegal most rock stars would be in jail. As shown in the book “Why women have sex” by David Buss and Cindy Meston women have sex for lots of more reasons than just the romantic notion you are interpreting as needed for it not to be abuse, assault or whatever.’”
No, first you interpret rape to require force, which it does not (you want statutes? I can dig those up easily enough) — Now I’m interpreting “b) even if she take initiative she can later say it was his fault.” as “if she takes initiative (acts like a slut) she can always claim he made her do it” which would be a false rape accusation by the MRM. Re: rock stars, you do get that plenty of people want to have sex with them and when they force the issue they do get arrested? The only reason those arrests don’t tend to go anywhere is they’re rich enough to hire good lawyers. Re: other reasons to have sex, FFS see above and learn to read, I have not, not once, said that women do not have sex for pleasure, I have said that feminists support that.
“Regarding “feminists against” playing hard to get see above ***”
Yep, got what I said backwards, again.
“Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resistance to sex. Muehlenhard, Charlene L.; Hollabaugh, Lisa C. show 39,3% do
‘We argue that, given society’s sexual double standard, token resistance may be a rational behavior. It could, however, have negative consequences…'”
Yeah those negative consequences include being raped and are why feminists do not support playing hard to get (you may want to google “enthusiast consent” — and ensure you have it)
“I am not talking about rape, thats just your personal mis-interpretation failing to observe the difference between forced to sex you dont want – and being made to want sex (you do want). I never talked about forcing people – You did. You throw in words like force and rape – I dont!”
No, you refuse to talk about rape by coercion, insisting rape = force and bringing up every tangent you can think up in the process. Rape does not require force, refusing to let her say no is also rape! And at least one other person here has said the same, so try replying to people who aren’t me?
“No, but it has a lot to do with having sex. I just pointed out the stupidity of an argument based on the solution being not having sex.”
Except I never argued not to have sex, I said not to have sex unless your partner says they want sex! To which you tried to accuse all women of insisting that their right to be sluts writes economic policy (we can all still scroll up btw)
“‘I don’t care if he’s the pope, it’s still an anecdote and not a statistic.’
Its an elected hiearchy, he is representative – thus not just anecdotal.”
Pecunium, I’m going to need some help with this one! If the pope says [thing] you’d then claim all Catholics do [thing] because the pope said? So all Catholics are in favor of shuffling pedophile priests and against birth control? (hint, most Catholics loathe the former, and about equal number of Catholics and non-Catholics use birth control; but those statistics are apparently moot because the pope said!) …and he’s not elected, he’s appointed by bishops…
“Rape is not making people want to have sex. If it was women would commit rape when making men want to have sex. Rape means being forced to do things you dont want. Not being made to want things.”
Rape is in-fucking-deed making people have sex by refusing to listen to the reasons they’re saying no, like “I’m tired”, “I should get going”, etc — you continue to compare wearing make-up to refusing to accept a no (which is coercion, and again rape does not require force) — if she wore a halloween mask such that you had no idea who she was, and said she was someone else (someone specific, eg your girlfriend’s friend pretending to be your girlfriend) — that would also be rape — I never said the hair gel and whatnot of PUAs was rape, I said refusing to accept a no is rapist logic.
“If nothing else about you is worth admiring than her body that is not my fault. 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. If you dont agree with this then would you please explain how HER clearly putting more effort into her body than other things of value is my problem?”
Not disrespect, but not respect either, which was what I’d said initially — that most women do not want to have sex with people who do not respect them. I still don’t get how you’re supposed to know anything besides her body if you pick her up at a bar/club and go have sex, but it’s not a problem if that’s what you both want — respecting her as a human being at least will get you further with most people though.
“She get the respect she earn by the effort she put in things of value. She dont get respect for putting time in things I dont care about. Her ignoring other aspects guys like except her body how come you put that on MY shoulders?”
Because you’re an asshole — you have proven, time and again, in this thread, that you do not respect women as fellow human beings. That’s a requirement of not being an asshole, whether you want to get laid or not.
“Yes but I clearly stated most sex do not lead to relationships and since PUA is about sex it includes both relationships AND casual sex – more of the latter cause thats how few girls actually put effort into things guys like – with exception of looks.”
Argh, ever occur to you that meeting people at bars and clubs may lead to a biased selection of people? The girls in the library have working brains (but are looking for books, not sex…usually) — and considering you only seem to care about getting your rocks off, I’d not be surprised if you only count looking good as being of interest to guys thus turning this point into a catch-22 circle. Don’t look attractive = worthless; look attractive = only worth her looks.
“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 are so clearly incapable of actually reading studies…rate them on a scale of 1-10 on what measure? Point was that she may rate a guy as a 5 looks wise, but decide he’s really funny and she likes hanging out with him and *poof* random make-out session! (But I know PUAs think only 9s and 10s get laid)
“Wearing make up changing a no to a yes from a guy versus wearing a social persona changing a no to a yes from a girl. Is that still miles apart?”
There’s a serious difference between trying to crack jokes when you’re just feeling awkward (social persona) and refusing to accept an “I’m not interested.” You’re comparing apples to oranges in other words.
“‘Men sometimes wear hair gel, and fancy clothing, hey, I beat that’s even PUA advise! This the same as a girl refusing to take a no from you? Some girl you have no interest in who just will not leave you alone?’
Yes men sometimes improve looks, women somethings improve behavior, most people do all the things however men do one thing more, women do the other thing more.”
…good for them? No, seriously, if improving themselves makes them feel better about themselves, regardless of sexytimes, good for them…what in the everloving fuck does that have to do with refusing to accept a no is rapist logic.
“Problem is off course there are lots of such guys. My point in using Tiger Woods is not his money or fame – but his messages freely avaible online and him effing lots of women known for physical attractiveness.”
There are also lots of people into BDSM, so all people must be? Anecdote is anecdotal.
“PUA:s are not representative of men in general. Men in general have relationships whith girls they do not like while the point of PUA is not needing bad relationship for sex and thus never being in one unless its a girl they really like.”
*sigh* again, you’re lumping decent advice (dump or don’t date people you don’t like) with asshole advice (refuse to go away until she’s forcibly insisting you must)
“Most girls are not girlfriend material today and thats not the guys fault. Most women simply dont care what guys like (cause of misandry). PUA solve the problem with bad relationships. Not the problem with girls unable to “woman up” as Heartiste put it.”
Most people don’t care what other people like because they’re people with agency and their own wants and desires. Or you think men try to be what women like? Clearly not if you’re calling the problem misandry and not the social isolation of the computer era.
“‘she is preferred by her boss, customers and society to wear make-up, be sexy, whatever — doing so is required to make enough to survive as waitstaff however.’
That would mean male waiters cant survive at all. Are you saying men cant be waiters? Or maybe you mean a guy waiter has to be funny?”
Try replying to Pecunium or PsychoDan, they already discussed this.
“‘Nicely done ignoring how many celebrities are in industries unrelated to looking attractive — eg singers. And photoshoots pay shit, because “publicity is good!” (which is true to a degree, but merely showing up for a photoshoot does not pay well)’
Neither of those things are unrelated. Promotion/shoots is the reason singing pays so well and singing live as well as on TV is completely related to how sexy you look. When you are sexy more people look at you. Motley Cruel not looking like Motley Cruel “tough rebel guys” would mean millions less in paychecks.”
Great so you are also unable to understand that there are entire subcultures of music going on outside the media’s eye — they’re still expected to look good whenever the mass media gives a shit. And no, it’s not related to how well it pays, filling concerts and selling records is what pays
“And women looking like motley cruel would not have 1/100th of the audience cause most guys do not think women looking and acting tough is interesting and/or sexy. Feminism not LIKING this fact is not same as feminists being able to do anything about it.”
Um, at what they’ve made, 1/100the the audience would still be pretty damned well off…except I doubt you’re right on that either, most people are interested in music for what it sounds like.
“True, I was not talking about most people, I was talking about stars. If you are just a singer you dont need to promote. And you get paid accordingly. When you are a star – like Beyonce – your paycheck is off course directly larger when you promote sexy.”
Yeah clearly not getting how any job with an agent works, it’s way too off topic to bother trying to explain. Short version is you do what your agent wants, period, end of discussion, or you’ll be finding a new agent (which is career hurting even if you’re a subculture singer and not in hollywood)
“No Hollywood doesnt exist cause of product placements. The large blockbuster movies of today however do. When Hollywood last made that kind of large movies they made huge losses and then it took the computer technology of today to make that kind of movies again.”
…CGI didn’t exist more than 2 decades ago…so when was “last made” here? Star Wars paid plenty well…actually, don’t answer that, because it is completely irrelevant to either PUAs or the motherfucking glossary.
“‘Irrelevant — relevant question would be if anyone would give a shit if Obama or Edwards wore glasses instead of contacts. Or, better yet, whether any of them are expected to wear make up in the first place’
The relevant question – in your case – would be if people cared if they first wore contacts and then suddenly changed to glasses. If they cared Edwards first had hair cut nice and then suddenly started not having it that way.”
Yes, those would be relevant, care to answer them?
“On Constitution Darksidecat said constitution is about putting a check on the majority. I responded constitution is about putting a check on the goverment. I clearly did not agree with cat since goverment and majority is not the same thing.”
At least we can stop going in meta circles about that then, you still mean constitutionalism, not “constitution” but whatever.
Shit I lost my page breaks editing that in textedit, sorry!
🙂 Happens to the best of us.
Hey, you do realize that most reputable literature on the subject contradicts you, right?
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/conleys-casual-sex-research-sexual-strategies-theory/
Read. Consider. Rejecting the study without consideration is an automatic failing grade.
…wait, what do you do with all the girlrock bands that prove you wrong? Joan Jett? Do you just ignore them?
And, yeah, there is total sexism in the way female stars are treated versus the way male stars are treated. Nobody disputes
Isn’t your whole shtick about how PUA can change the landscape? About making things better? Be consistent!
tough = not sexy?
I suspect Emilie Autumn would disagree. That’d be a live shot from:
But yeah, that must negate what she looks like, that’s it, I’m sure. /sarcasm (Tea anyone? XD )
Or P!nk. Her whole schtick is a hard-partying hard-rocking fighting rock and roll star. Her sales are a lot more than a tenth of the Crue. And, frankly, I think she does it better than them. But that’s just me.
P!nk is an excellently ironic choice, she’s on the cover of June’s cosmo. (Again with thanks to Cliff Pervocracy for the source)
I know! It’s like a tough rock and roller who’s also a girl is a totally mainstream idea now, and only folks with their heads stuck in the past don’t realize it! Wowzers!
… Usually I’ll feel bad so nakedly mocking a guy.
But not somebody who pops out a gem like this.
There’s so many layers of misogyny bound up in this that I don’t even know where to start….
Howard:
Hey, you do realize that most reputable literature on the subject contradicts you, right?
No I dont. Professor Terri Conley of Michigan U does the mistake of assuming logical knowledge trumphs emotional reality. Typical social theory: Let me show you an example:
Yes Christy Brinkley (picture) got good response for males cause she doesnt look past childbearing age.
“Read. Consider. Rejecting the study without consideration is an automatic failing grade.”
Actually they never did any study on real life. They instead let people think up answers in a classroom. They say when approached women assume the guy is a creep thus according to them the only way to get honest answers from a woman on being approached is no guy approaching her at all.
“…wait, what do you do with all the girlrock bands that prove you wrong? Joan Jett? Do you just ignore them?”
No I dont ignore the female rock musicians at all. I just say they are smaller and less popular in rock while female musicians are huge stars in the styles focusing on hotness, not toughness.
“And, yeah, there is total sexism in the way female stars are treated versus the way male stars are treated. Nobody disputes”
I am sure Shakira, Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, Kylie Minogue, Madonna, Beyonce Knowles and Britney Spears feel very very victimized. Where was the sexism again?
“Isn’t your whole shtick about how PUA can change the landscape? About making things better? Be consistent!”
Not at all, I refer to PUA as a way for guys to keep away from bad relationships by not needing relationships for sexual reasons and thus only being in them with girls they really like.
Time to ID some fallacies! One’s too broadly applicable to be worth applying specifically: (fallacy list from wiki)
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion
Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)[18] — conflating what all PUAs do when it helps his case
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning.[27]
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[32]
Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can’t possibly respond to all of them.[35]
Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[16]
Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position[60] — everything I or anyone else has said about rape or abuse (so many times this rant is going to end with the comment policy)
“Actually I never said feminists do not attack womens magazines. I said they do not attack womens magazines because the mags give women more power over men by trickery (game). Also the attacks are based on the straw man fallacy. Neither PUA nor Womens Mags tell what you should do. They both tell you HOW you do things if you want to.” — you can’t straw man wtf magazines are about, see Argument from ignorance below, and also — Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a “real thing” something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
And “some” specific examples —
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).[13]
The most common criticism of PUA is not of function but of ethics. Most people think of love and sex as a game of chance.
Well, women do not need to isolate guys from their guy friends cause when a woman wants to sleep with a guy, HIS friends are not allowed to do 1/10 of the stupid things a woman allow from her friends when I am trying to pick her up.. I asked several women about this and they often claim they try to “protect” their friends
Feminists supporting one woman is against a different woman. — this is also from the dept. of make shit up dept. (that’s intentionally redundant)
Many studies show women are less interested than men in taking risks and making sacrifices. How did feminists respond? They killed Larry Summers carreer.
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. Also, do you think the SMS Tiger Woods sent his mistresses was respectful?
False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[24]
“I only like you for your body” =/= respect, if you can’t wrap your fucking head around that I’m not explaining it.”
If nothing else about you is worth admiring than her body that is not my fault. 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. If you dont agree with this then would you please explain how HER clearly putting more effort into her body than other things of value is my problem?
She get the respect she earn by the effort she put in things of value. She dont get respect for putting time in things I dont care about. Her ignoring other aspects guys like except her body how come you put that on MY shoulders?
Respect or disrespect = false dichotomy, one can lack respect while not being overtly disrespectful
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[26]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
Well, I did not discuss advertising in general and I don t agree the products arent working as advertised. I see in fact people who depend financially/personally on them using them with success.
Their proplem with PUA is not that PUA doesnt get more phone numbers – I guraantee you – we do! Their problem is the fact PUA didnt “happen” to get phone numbers but actually had this and purpose and acted in ways that speed up the process and give a better odds succeeding. — twice over, once for the phone numbers, once for the assumption of “their problem”
False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
Voting do not require interest in politics. According to several newspapers more women voted for Hillary Clinton that time when she started crying. — also an appeal to ignorance:
I did not talk about why they earlier voted for Obama I expressed what made them change their mind.
She might actually have won had she played more on it being so hard for her – however that is not the way she wanted to portray herself.
If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
Rape is a crime of violence. Using your logic would mean a normal sales call would be equal to committing armed robbery. Neither salesman, nor robber accept no. However in the real world being a salesman/PUA is allowed, being a robber/rapist is not. — simply making shit up doesn’t seem to be a fallacy? or I can’t figure out which it’d be? (this is also a straw man of what I said)
Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
As told, it is the male counterpart to womens magazines.
They are about tricking men to want to go to bed to you giving you the woman power and choice whether she want free drinks, dating or sex – putting men in the role giving women whatever she think she needs.
Actually, none of them said that. They say IF you already are dating a guy and want it to be exclusive this is what you can do. The rest was your subjective opinion regarding why they would say anything at all.
We were not even discussing advertising.
You seem to not know what business Cosmo is in. It is a magazine for entertainment. They dont sell the articles, they sell products using entertaining articles to lure people in. The “advice” you speak of is entertainment for women – little stories to socialize about, The real message is the advertisements. Hair Care, Make Up, etc is used by women to attract men. PUA is used by men to attract women. Selling PUA is like selling make-up.
You dont really need to “read” a picture of lipstick colors or eyeliner-use. But you are correct the text is mostly pointless shit – entertainment – making people seeing the paid content – how to become beautiful – and btw what is on the magazine cover again?
Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded — basically this entire discussion, but these three need noted —
A published study on “token resistance” showed 50% of women refused sex with guys who respect their no. Guys according to half the woman population should “risk it”
Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resistance to sex. Muehlenhard, Charlene L.; Hollabaugh, Lisa C. show 39,3% do
“We argue that, given society’s sexual double standard, token resistance may be a rational behavior. It could, however, have negative consequences…”
That’s also potentially — Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion[48] — everything “only PUAs get laid” or remotely like it is an appeal to the consequence of not getting any as well
—-
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.
—-
Typical example: Rock stars… Where do you see successful female rock bands? Female Maiden? Female Metallica?
No I dont ignore the female rock musicians at all. I just say they are smaller and less popular in rock while female musicians are huge stars in the styles focusing on hotness, not toughness.
Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.[34] — sorted by type below
“And saying no equals refusing sex? You are not entitled to sex.”
Awesome argument! Tell me what purpose free abortions have cause if sex is so un-important I cant see why the state should help women with abortions. Isnt the entire issue unless state helps with abortions women cant have sex as much as they want?
Or maybe you meant men having sex is not important for you. Your ability to have sex when you want and need (feeling entitled) should be everyones economical problem?
Appeal to authority – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.[46][47] — the entire tangent about the pope, basically every statistical source (the rest were just plain irrelevant, classical red herrings)
Well fact is two philosophy professors have analysed feminism and written books about it.
One of the three researchers writing about Free Will is Kathleen Vohs, Associate professor of marketing so I am pretty sure they do know the subject.
There is no such thing as “straight” psychology: There are clinical or experimental psychology. Evolutionary psychology is the newest revolution in experimental psychology. Before the evolutionary approach there was the cognitive approach. — at least he had the sense to drop that one when I mentioned that’s what my degree is in?
Pinkers Ph.D is in experimental psychology.
I am pretty sure he as a better grip on the subject than you considering his points was suported by Diane Halpern.
Its an elected hiearchy, he is representative – thus not just anecdotal.
Problem is off course there are lots of such guys. My point in using Tiger Woods is not his money or fame – but his messages freely avaible online and him effing lots of women known for physical attractiveness. — also argument from ignorance (lots of such = unprovable and vague)
Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. — and also — Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).[56]
Yes, that must be the reason well known PUA Adam had his girlfriend on lots of workshops.
One guy from the world ranking. Not just anybody but somebody important.
Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient’s judgment
Do you have any idea how crazy its sounds telling me the problem with a MALE ONLY space was that women were not asked for permission? — also Fallacy of the single cause
According to which bible? — maybe, maybe not, can I get a theist to judge if that was intended to anger me?
Yes it sound insane and thus you might assume the interpretation is wrong in favor of – they are crazy
While you attack EP and give reasons for a discussion on EP (which is interesting), other people went ad hominem with repeated attacks on me as a person. — Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. — try making actual arguments instead of tossing out fallacies so fast you meta fallacy with shotgun argumentation
That comment policy I said I’d end with —
If you’re especially, or persistently, offensive, disruptive, or tedious, I’ll put you on moderation, which means your comments won’t go up until I get a chance to look at them, and maybe not even then. — I’d highlight which parts of that sentence are relevant, but you’re being especially and persistently offensive, disruptive and tedious, congrats I guess
Grossly misrepresenting another person’s argument, or simply lying about them, another big no-no. Unless you’re a troll who’s obviously and hilariously wrong about everything; then I may keep your comments up for the lulz. — stop straw manning the points about rape and abuse! (and everything else, but especially that)
…Ha! Oh, wow. Thanks for the laugh. I haven’t heard such a ridiculous line in quite a while.
True. But you didn’t read everything, did you? Nope, or you’d have seen this.
One might think that this would affect the results, but in fact the numbers for the iterations that replicated the original CHSP scenario matched their results pretty well, indicating that what people said they’d do was a good indicator of what they in fact do when they don’t know it’s a study.
Replicatable? Science? What? Sorry, it’s all gibberish! Thanks for playing!
Okay, first, “science in the lab isn’t real!” Nice. Thanks.
Second. Liar.
That’s not what they said, and it’s not what the study said. They said that women associate that particular transaction with a very high-risk scenario, and that if we work to factor the risk out of the scenario women are as interested in casual sex as men. That is not remotely the same as the way you frame it.
Give me strength. “I don’t ignore them, they just aren’t as big as Motley Crue!” Motley Crue?? REALLY?
Ugh.
Yeah. Okay.
Oh, you. I see what you did there.
I hereby dub thee sir ‘it’s not sexism if it didn’t happen to me!’
Thanks for playing.
“If they’re successful, then anything bad that happens to them doesn’t count.”
“If they made money then the way that they have to fulfill expectations and put up with sexist attacks in the media and actual attacks and stalkers and violence don’t count.”
I think you are, again, disingenuous to the point of inducing vomiting.
Thanks for that.
…and they can do that without PUA?
No?
So it’s changing things?
For the better or for the worse?
Oh, just individuals!! I see what you’re doing there–you believe in individual change, not systemic change! So you believe large groups of individuals can change, but not that we can change a culture!!
I’m so glad that’s true! So I guess we’re still living in the 50s! I’ll snap my fingers and my little woman will fetch my pipe and slippers, vacuum in pearls, and then I’ll teach a down-home lesson to our 3.5 children!
Oh, wait.
Huh.
It’s almost as if you’re just making this stuff up as you go.
This part of the SST description just sounds so damn silly to me. Women evolved to take advantage of a behavior that men evolved to not have? That sounds like a winning evolutionary strategy right there. And that’s ignoring the common evo-psych assumption that men and women somehow evolved as entirely separate species. Or that being able to find a mate was a larger selective pressure on our ancient ancestors than being able to not die.