Friday, November 19, 2010

How to find women disgusting: A Do-It-Yourself guide.

He was cured, all right.
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) are endlessly fascinating. For men who want to have nothing to do with women, they sure spend an awful lot of time thinking about women, talking about women, obsessing about women.

And oftentimes, it seems, the women they obsess about the most are naked women. Which brings us to one of the central conundrums of the MGTOW "movement," or "community," or whatever it is: How does one square one's desire to have nothing to do with women with one's desire to put one's penis in them?

Not surprisingly, this is a topic that sometimes pops up, as it were, on MGTOW forums. Recently I ran across one such discussion archived on Don't Marry.  A late-twenties guy calling himself grasser asked the assembled MGTOWers how he might go about reducing his sexual desire for those sneaky, sexy, evil women:

Here’s the problem: I despise American women, but some of them look hot anyway. I pretty much stay the hell away from them as much as possible. Still, I’m a guy with normal drives and impulses, and sometimes I just gotta have it. It’s very annoying, and distracts me from other important work. I don’t like to watch porn either. Fuckin waste of time. I’ve been going to the gym everyday to lift weights, do cardio, I eat 3 square meals a day. How do you reduce desire for the female sex – besides going gay, of course.

No one suggested he look into that last option -- MRAs and MGTOWs tend to be pretty thoroughly heterosexual. But they did have a number of specific ideas. One jokingly suggested that marriage would kill his sex drive pronto; another suggested that just talking to a woman for any length of time would do it: "After half an hour of her heroic autobiography, poor wally will be as limp as overcooked pasta." Another suggested he let time take its toll, as the sex drive declines with age. And of course there was the age-old standby, furious masturbation. And if you couldn't stand celibacy any longer: hookers.

Many of the suggestions were a little more, well, original:

I was told that eating Tofu will help cut down your sex drive. Buddhist monks in Japan are known to eat Tofu to “cool” their desire.

Train in kung fu, chi kung, yoga to control emotions and libido.

And for those with less interest in Eastern ways:

If you are white make latent racism your ally. (Not a moral solution but a practical one.) When you see a hottie imagine how many black dudes she sucked off. Try to picture them frosting her face.

But the most popular suggestion had a touch of Clockwork Orange about it: Using a sort of MGTOW version of the Ludovico Technique, train yourself to think of women and their sexy sex organs as repulsive. As one put it:

Remember that they stink. The “natural feminine scent” that they have nowadays is every bit as sexy as a skunk.

Another chimed in:

These words have gotten me through it:

“It’s just a stinky hole.”

Another quoted from a strange "Pep Talk For Brilliant Sex Restrainers" on the website celibacy.info:

Realize her body is full of the various cruds that makes up the human body (this is a favorite of the Asian sages). Excrement is sitting in her, all sorts of fatty deposits, weird impurities and drugs, gristle and bone, etc. She has bacteria in her mouth, and when she wakes up it stinks. Even if she seems pretty, there is even more putrid bacteria in her lower orifices. She farts and defecates just like any animal. Try to visualize her skeleton beneath the skin, muscle, fat and fascia. See, she’s not really a turn-on after all.

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm off to wash my brain with mind-bleach.

63 comments:

  1. This has been a fascinating expose on the lives of OCD sufferers within the men's rights movement. Tune in next time for recipes to use up all those leftover potatoes (and men, remember to remind your ladies of the difference between a scrotum and a Yukon gold! A lack of vigilance could be very painful).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is it really THAT difficult to relate to the situation of being physically attracted but mentally repulsed? Have you never met even ONE woman whose body was attractive but whose personality was utterly toxic? If not, then you must enjoy one incredibly sheltered and privileged life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David: Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) are endlessly fascinating. For men who want to have nothing to do with women...

    Who says MRAs do not want to have any relationship with women?

    Many of us are married, have children, have a good relationship with their female relatives and with women working in the same company...

    However MRAs advice men to be careful. I see no reason why men should force themselves into dysfunctional marriages, unwanted children and painful divorces.

    ReplyDelete
  4. whoever is talking about OCD, i hope you've thoroughly read through the most updated version of the DSM.

    primatology studies have shown that females are usually the instigators of permiscuity when given the chance, and my guess is that since the women's rights movement, and with this vestigial monogamy thing lingering around, men are getting the brunt of women being unfaithful and in general, not living up to older expectations of heterosexual female behavior.

    the danger is probably that they've gone from one extreme, which was probably having unrealistic expectations of their women, which lead them to this new extreme, which is to have equally unrealistic expectations of women in a different form.

    if it works for them there's nothing wrong with it in my opinion. sounds a lot like radical feminism from the masculine end. interesting stuff.

    very cultish though. an anthropological study for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yohan, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) is a "movement" that overlaps with the MRM and that is explicitly about men avoiding women; I'm not suggesting that all MRAs avoid women.

    Cold,

    "Is it really THAT difficult to relate to the situation of being physically attracted but mentally repulsed?"

    No, not at all, if we're talking about individuals. But it is difficult for me to relate to someone feeling that way about ALL women or ALL women in the west, or whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting that you speak about AVOIDING of women and not HATING of women...

    MGTOW is NOT a movement for avoiding of ALL women, but gives advice to avoid some certain groups of women and to reject some female individuals with a certain way of behavior and this for a good reason.

    Even the text of your example is about 'American women' and not about 'ALL women'.

    To say 'ALL women in this world' is by far not the same as to say 'ALL women in the west' or 'ALL American women'.

    Often the reason for this advice are not these women themselves, but existing laws in those countries, which create a situation which makes any contact with any female a risk for any male.

    USA is famous for such laws with busy lawyers exploring legal loopholes and a dating scenery, where mistrust prevails.

    Another country to mention is UK, where divorce means a disaster for any man and where it is legally possible to claim alimony even 40 years after divorce.

    Some Scandinavian countries are not known to be friendly and family-minded towards men, but these are countries with little population.

    As you see, it's not even about 'ALL Western women'.

    There is no law existing which says men must socialize with women even if this is clearly a disadvantage and a risk for them - men have the right to remain single if they prefer it this way. Men have the right to reject certain females and to say NO. - The shaming language in return from feminists does not disturb me.

    MGTOW also recommends men to gather more information before doing something which they might regret later on. Check it out and decide carefully and slowly.

    If you sign a marriage contract, you should be informed about what this means for you in case of divorce. If you accept children from a previous relationship even in co-habitation with a woman, you should know about possible consequences as a father, even if you are not the biological father. If you meet a woman drunk during parties and bargirls and you take them to your private rooms, you should know about your risk. If you feel uncomfortable in your own country, get on an airplane and check out the world outside of your own nation and see how is the situation beyond the borders.

    Of course for you to read this must make you feeling uncomfortable as a 'male feminist', but can you explain me what is wrong with that?

    Are you married? Do you have children? I do not think so.

    I do not want to be the husband and father of this woman and her daughter in UK, what about you?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1330689/Portrait-VERY-modern-14-year-old-Tattoos-piercings-drinking-alcohol.html

    And this is a good example of a woman you should avoid when looking for a girlfriend...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331470/Glamour-girl-wannabe-Samantha-Merry-cried-rape-clear-drug-debt-jailed-18-months.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. To be fair, Yohan, a lot of 'men going their own way' *do* say that stuff about "all" women. Look at the quotes from Christopher from Oregon was talking about just a few posts back in this blog.

    That said, in the interests of fairness, I have to ask our host if he thinks separatist feminists are as bad as "men going their own way." I have heard many "lesbian separatists" and the like say the same things about men these MGTOW say about women.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yohan: "Interesting that you speak about AVOIDING of women and not HATING of women..."

    True, but if you notice, the guy asking the question in the getting-rid-of-desire discussion did say he DESPISES American women.

    vagrant: I'm no fonder of lesbian separatist misandry than I am of MGTOW misogyny. Both are bad.

    ReplyDelete
  9. thevagrantsvoice said...
    To be fair, Yohan, a lot of 'men going their own way' *do* say that stuff about "all" women. Look at the quotes from Christopher from Oregon


    You have to see 'Christopher from Oregon' within his own small mindset. He was never out of USA, maybe has not even a passport, and for him 'all women' means 'all American women, regardless their race'.

    You cannot blame him, he cannot compare.

    These young American men are quickly changing their mind about women when there is a chance for them to get out of USA.

    USA is a wide area, long hours in an airplane to get away and very short vacation for most people, often not able to speak any other language than English ...

    Most angry complaints from men about their local women are men from USA, most hateful response is from US-feminists. That's for sure.

    We men outside of USA are often astonished - USA is the most productive country in this world but personal communicaton between men and women is very much disturbed. Mistrust prevails.

    David: the guy did say he DESPISES American women

    There are only about 150 million American women, but over 600 million Chinese women in mainland China ... over 500 million women in India ... etc.

    I do not think he despises all women worldwide.
    How does he know? He was never outside of USA.

    For sure, American men outside of USA are not considered to be 'women-hater' and they are also known as very honest and rarely accused for criminal behavior. - Exactly what is happen to them inside the USA, nowhere else are so many men in jail but in the USA. I wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  10. @yohan,

    Christopher and other MRA's so full of hate for American women do not represent the majority of men in the U.S.. And most American women are not the evil creatures with malicious intentions that MRA's describe. I do not run into these MRA's who hate women or the "evil" women out to exploit them often in my daily activities. Men aren't crowding the borders trying to exit the U.S. en masse. Most men I know - married, single or divorced - are pretty happy overall and not blaming women for their personal problems and all of societies ills. I think people like Christopher very likely have bigger problems that have nothing to do with women at all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As far as why American men seek foreign brides, there aren't that many who do that. I think that most men who are seeking foreign brides are seeking a woman they can control, who will be more likely to be submissive, obedient and compliant and not likely to leave them. Men who seek to dominate an American woman in a relationship are very likely to be left.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Feminists have made it illegal for american men to talk to women on foreign dating sites without registering and having a back ground check in some states, so men marrying foreign women must represent some sort of threat.

    Christine, you are mapping the characteristics of certain personality disorders on to most men that want to marry foreign women. So I your eyes, if I married a woman from a country other than my own, chances are that I have psychopathic characteristics and an irrational desire to control women? Your theory is somewhat unlikely.

    It more likely that these men are looking for a partner that is less likely to have an abrasive personality, dominate, be high maintenance and to use the courts to bleed them dry and kidnap their children than it is out of some irrational desire to control a woman.

    Mainly I think men that aren't attractive or wealthy enough for the home market start to look over seas.

    ReplyDelete
  14. and the american feminist depiction and stereotyping of foreign women as doormats is feminist myth. The distribution of dominant and submissive personalities is uniform the word over.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Eoghan,

    From the time you started posting on this board, you have manipulatively taken so many things people say and twisted the meaning up, added words and phrases that were never said, and embellished it to suit your own purposes. There is no honest discussion with you which is why I have been generally ignoring you and why I will be completely ignoring you from now on.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Christine, point to where I twisted your words...

    is it where I twisted

    " I think that most men who are seeking foreign brides are seeking a woman they can control, who will be more likely to be submissive, obedient and compliant and not likely to leave them. Men who seek to dominate an American woman in a relationship are very likely to be left"

    into

    "mapping the characteristics of certain personality disorders on to most men that want to marry foreign women. So I your eyes, if I married a woman from a country other than my own, chances are that I have psychopathic characteristics and an irrational desire to control women?"

    In which case, closer to the truth is that you dont like hearing what feminist thinking and rhetoric sounds like when its played back to you.

    If its about the stereotyping of foreign women are doormats, american feminists, who have never traveled a day in their lives often stereotype women from other cultures as doormats, just as you did.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "american feminists, who have never traveled a day in their lives often stereotype women from other cultures as doormats, just as you did."

    Well, no. Christine didn't say the women were actually doormats; she said that most men seeking these brides do it because THEY are seeking doormats, and they believe these women are doormats.

    ReplyDelete
  19. That said, I think Christine is right: it's time to ignore you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. David... Christine didn't say the women were actually doormats; she said that most men seeking these brides do it because THEY are seeking doormats, and they believe these women are doormats.


    Who cares about such gossip? Except US-feminists?

    No other country in this world has such ridiculous discriminating laws like VAWA-IMBRA trying to cut down or to delay considerably the number of international marriages between US-men and foreign women.

    Considering USA as a country full with people of any kind you can imagine, this rejection and prejustice against foreign women-only is remarkable.

    Foreign men are not rejected - neither by US-feminists or by MRAs, so why are foreign women?

    The immigration of entire families is no target of rejection either in US-politics.

    Luckily we in Europe do not have such problems. I never heard about a German feminist, speaking out against a marriage between a foreign wife and a local man.

    Why are only US-feminists showing up with arguments like that?

    And about foreign women in poverty, foreign women as doormats, foreign women as prostitutes, uneducated foreign women etc...

    It would be good for you to take a look outside USA, did you ever travel abroad? Beyondthe US-borders? - There are many foreign women who are neither poor not uneducated, nor doormats or prostitute and some of them are nevertheless married with a husband from USA and EU. If you like that or not, is irrelevant, as this is not your business.

    About US-men in general, yes, they do have the right to look for a foreign wife - feminists cannot outlaw this, but they try to make it more difficult for BOTH of them, for the US-man AND for the foreign woman.

    It's me, me, me - and no foreign wife is welcome - competition is not much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Christine said...
    As far as why American men seek foreign brides, there aren't that many who do that.


    If this is true, why do you need even laws, created by feminists and sponsored by millions of USD funds out of tax-payers money to restrict these few men who are looking for a foreign wife?

    I think that most men who are seeking foreign brides are seeking a woman they can control, who will be more likely to be submissive, obedient and compliant and not likely to leave them

    This is what you think, but what means 'submissive, obedient' by your definition?
    Can you give me some examples?

    And is it wrong if you are married to a wife, who not likely will leave you? What is wrong with that? is it better to be married with a woman, who will likely divorce you soon, like all these marriages among US-celebrities?

    ReplyDelete
  22. @yohan,

    Where a man is controlling, dominating, a woman with the expectation that she be submissive, obedient and compliant, I define that as an abusive husband as I know what actions people take in order to force another human being into submission, obedience and compliance. I do not expect you, or other MRA's, to view it that way as they make it clear they expect to dominate women and are angry over having been left. And considering my reference to a wife leaving her husband was said in the context of a wife leaving a husband whose goal is to dominate her, I will say that those men should not be surprised when they are left - by any woman, American or foreign. No one has to live that way. Your comparison of women leaving men who are dominating and controlling them to celebrity divorces is so far off-base to what I said, it's ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @yohan,

    Who said foreign women are all poor, uneducated, doormats, or prostitutes?

    BTW, my younger brother, an American, is married to woman from Uzbekistan, and she has a college degree she earned outside of the U.s.. They met in Afghanistan, and they live in Florida. She is not poor, uneducated, a doormat, or a prostitute.

    I have been outside of the U.S. borders and have lived in New York City where many foreign women live, and were welcomed into this country.

    I really don't understand why you and Eoghan twist things people say into something different and make up things and claim we said them when we didn't. It's so manipulative and immature. Or else you just spout off words without reading what was said. There is no honest or intelligent discussion to be had with either of you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I should clarify that SOME MRA's make it clear that they expect to dominate women, not all.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Christine

    You said

    "As far as why American men seek foreign brides, there aren't that many who do that. I think that most men who are seeking foreign brides are seeking a woman they can control, who will be more likely to be submissive, obedient and compliant and not likely to leave them".

    Ive heard this stereotype from american feminists over and over, american man seeking over seas wife cast as a psychopath and the overseas women cast as doormants. If its not what you actually believe, I suggest that you dont parrot the cliche as if you do.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "american man seeking over seas wife cast as a psychopath and the overseas women cast as doormants."

    Twice you have attributed the word "psychopath" and "doormat" to me which I, of course, never said. But that is just you - you lie a lot. You make up stuff constantly and say people said them when they didn't. You're a manipulative liar. And a troll.

    Here is what I believe, Eoghan. I believe that many members of the MRM are abusive men who bully and beat their girlfriends and wives into submission and compliance because they think they are superior to women and entitled to control and dominate them. I believe that some MRA's want to marry foreign wives because they believe they have a better chance of finding a woman who won't stand up for themselves - whether this is true or not. The MRM didn't earn the reputation as an "Abuser's Lobby" for nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Christine

    You said

    "As far as why American men seek foreign brides, there aren't that many who do that. I think that most men who are seeking foreign brides are seeking a woman they can control, who will be more likely to be submissive, obedient and compliant and not likely to leave them".


    You just do not like the way is sounds when its played back to you and you have since changed what you siad in your mind, but that doesn't mean that you didn't say it. You are correct is saying that you didnt use the words "psychopath" and "doormat" but you did use the characteristics of a psychopath and a doormat to stereotype the two groups.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Eoghan,

    There is something seriously wrong with you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "You are correct is saying that you didnt use the words "psychopath" and "doormat" but you did use the characteristics of a psychopath and a doormat to stereotype the two groups."

    No she didn't. Once again you are blatantly misrepresenting what she has said.

    If you continue to blatantly and repeatedly misrepresent what others are saying I may have to start deleting some of your posts. That sort of thing is against my comment policy, and I think I need to start enforcing that more stringently so as to avoid having discussions constantly being derailed by untrue nonsense.

    That applies to everybody, regardless of ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  30. David, you are showing your bias or having a reading malfunction.

    Chriatine said

    "As far as why American men seek foreign brides, there aren't that many who do that. I think that most men who are seeking foreign brides are seeking a woman they can control"

    (an irrational need to control and dominate is a marked characteristic of psychopathy)

    "who will be more likely to be submissive, obedient and compliant and not likely to leave them"

    (describing foreign brides with characteristics that we attribute to what we call a "doormat")


    Sorry David, Im right here.

    ReplyDelete
  31. A desire to control does NOT equal psychopathy, by any stretch of the imagination. It is one out of a large number of possible characteristics of a psychopath.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath

    And again, Christine saying that some men seeking foreign brides are looking for submissive women does not mean that Christine is herself saying that these women are submissive or "doormats." Indeed, she has stated (emphasis added by me):

    "I believe that some MRA's want to marry foreign wives because they believe they have a better chance of finding a woman who won't stand up for themselves - whether this is true or not."

    This particular discussion is OVER. Any further comments by anyone on this will be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  32. To clarify: Discussion is OVER on the topic of what Christine said. Discussion of this blog post and related issues can and I hope will continue.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Then MRA's who want to control and dominate women have psychopathic characteristics. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sorry David. I saw your comment too late.

    ReplyDelete
  35. David, you just edited what Christine actually said to change its meaning.

    She said

    ""As far as why American men seek foreign brides, there aren't that many who do that. I think that most men who are seeking foreign brides are seeking a woman they can control"

    and you changed it to

    " believe that some MRA's want to marry foreign wives because they believe they have a better chance of finding a woman who won't stand up for themselves"


    Christine, anyone with an irrational desire to control and dominate others likely has some form of personality disorder and or psychopathy regardless of what sex they are or what gender they belong to.

    ReplyDelete
  36. edit - regardless of what sex or political leaning they are.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I said both in different posts. And I meant both.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Eoghan, this is a perfect example of why it is pointless to discuss things with you. I quoted Christine word for word, from a post of hers you obviously didn't bother to read.

    You didn't even bother to look for the quote before accusing me, in several different comments, one of which I have deleted, of editing her comment to say something different.

    That is what's called a "reckless disregard for the truth."

    This discussion really is over now.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I would be interested in a discussion of the merits and demerits of controlling. May I ask the feminists here, is there any scenario in which you feel that control (i.e. authority) within a relationship -- by one partner over another -- is ever merited? And a second related question is how can one enforce boundaries without doing so in abusive or excessive ways?

    Two questions, neither of which are in themselves an expression of my opinion. I think that they are necessary questions to ask, because it seems to me that every feminist commenter that I have ever read in a forum or on a blog equates control with abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Christine,
    I think you have hit the nail right smack on the head. I won't mention specifically what I am referring to, since David said that particular conversation was over.

    Willy said: sounds a lot like radical feminism from the masculine end. interesting stuff.

    Agreed. Very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  41. John, your questions are perfectly legitimate.

    But you HAVE expressed an opinion on this subject, just not here. Reading the Standyourground forums the other day, I ran across a post of yours that says in part:

    "Although our law-based system can and does arrive at just outcomes (sometimes), in my view it is inferior to a patriarchal system, especially in achieving just outcomes in matters that are related to family. A patriarchal system vests authority in the one who is most responsible for the wellbeing of the family, namely the father."

    ReplyDelete
  42. @John Dias...there is a big difference between controlling someone and enforcing boundaries. Controlling another is basically about attempting to make another conform to your idea of what they should do, be, think, say, etc.. Boundaries are about controlling and protecting yourself and not at all about making another bend to your will. If "enforcing boundaries" has anything to do with getting someone else to bend to your will, then it is control and using the word boundaries is a misuse of that word. Telling a partner to do or not do something, then backing it up with a threat or pushing them around until they comply (which some may call enforcing boundaries) is violating that person's personal boundaries. Setting healthy boundaries with another will not be construed as excessive or abusive. My favorite books on boundaries are "Boundaries" and "Boundaries in Marriage" by Drs. Townsend and McCloud. I have given many copies of those books to domestic violence victims. They're awesome. I recommend them to anyone who is having issues with another person attempting to control them.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Christine "there is a big difference between controlling someone and enforcing boundaries" Bravo, this is so true.

    @Dias "May I ask the feminists here, is there any scenario in which you feel that control (i.e. authority) within a relationship -- by one partner over another -- is ever merited?" In a romantic relationship? No. To quote Christine, because she said it so well "Controlling another is basically about attempting to make another conform to your idea of what they should do, be, think, say, etc" Your partner is not your property, nor are they your inferior. In fact, the very notion of someone being a "partner" and of them being controlled by the other is contradictory. Partners work together or as a team, they do not work as one in authority over the other.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @DarkSideCat...exactly. And why should any woman choose a man whose priority is to be her "boss" when there are so many awesome men out there who have a sense of fairness and equity in relationships? My parents have been married for 46 years and they are partners and are happy. My Dad has never controlled my Mom. He has never made unilateral decisions for the family. They make decisions together. My Mom is, in fact, more responsible than my Dad is. The difference between a man like my Dad and a man who is bent on control in a relationship is that my Dad cares about what my Mom wants in addition to his own wants. Controlling people are self-centered and MEAN and have you walking on eggshells to try to prevent them from throwing temper tantrums over little to nothing. Women lose respect for controlling men - it's hard to respect a man who throws temper tantrums, or worse.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @ Christine

    'Women lose respect for controlling men - it's hard to respect a man who throws temper tantrums, or worse'


    Interesting sentence, but why so single-sided?

    MEN lose respect for controlling WOMEN - it's hard to respect a WOMAN who throws temper tantrums, or worse.

    What about that?

    But there are differences, women are protected by various laws for their behavior, like VAWA, but men are not.

    In any case, the victim is the woman, never the man.

    Christine: why should any woman choose a man whose priority is to be her "boss"

    Same should apply also to the other gender, and why should any MAN choose a WOMAN whose priority is to be HIS "boss"? Or not?

    And how to get away from a controlling woman as a man? As I said, the victim is always the woman, under any circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @John Dias,

    Since you asked...

    The many, many rules that men have made up for women and try to force them to live by...those are man-made rules, you know. God has no such list of gender roles. That "place" women are "supposed" to be in, some selfish, power hungry men made that up. The long laundry list of duties women are supposed to perform for men, selfish men made all that up too. If women were "naturally" submissive then men wouldn't have to threaten them and beat them to force them into it. They would just "naturally" be that way. But, of course, they are not and never have been. Male supremacy is nothing but a tool for the extremely selfish who set up a relationship to be all about me, me, me.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @yohan,

    I answered it that way because John Dias, a supporter of a patriarchal system in which one partner is in authority over another, asked. In a patriarchal system, it is the MAN, who is the authority. Are you the self-appointed Manboobz blog police, following behind everyone telling them how they SHOULD have commented/answered or what? Dude, I'm not always going to answer things how you think I should, and I'm not going to follow up your policing posts to me reiterating that I know women can be abusive and men can be victims over and over. EVERYBODY knows that. I've said it several times in past comments. In these comments, I'm addressing the man as authority as in a patriarchal system. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I believe that responsibility justifies authority. If you take on more responsibility than someone else in a particular area, then it would be controlling of that person to make demands of you because they haven't invested the same effort as you have in fulfilling your obligations. Compared to someone else, if you invest a disproportionate amount of effort on fulfilling a certain responsibility, then it is your prerogative to "shrug" at any time, even if the fulfillment of your responsibilities benefits others. You are not anyone's slave. That is why it is justified for a parent to have authority over a child; it is the parent who is providing for the child's survival needs, comfort, and moral direction. Or what about a live-in guest, an adult who says they need to live under your roof while they get on their feet? Aren't you entitled to revoke your provision at any time, and while they live under your roof aren't you also justified in placing reasonable expectations on them so that they're pulling their weight? If they sit there lazy and never make an honest effort to contribute, then it is they who are controlling you if you are somehow obligated to support them without the corresponding authority to back off from supporting them at any time. Control over oneself is freedom, and this implies control over one's obligations. If it benefits others that you fulfill your responsibilities, then you have some leverage; as long as they depend on you, then it is legitimate for you to have some expectations on them. So long as reciprocity occurs like this, in a symbiotic relationship, there can be harmony. But there is disharmony and injustice when one adult pulls the other one's weight and has to ask the dependent one for permission to be relieved.

    ReplyDelete
  51. In the context of an intimate relationship, who is the "authority" or is more responsible party in certain areas of the relationship would need to mutually agreed upon rather than unilaterally decided and forced on the other person as is the in abusive relationships. "Authority" over another person is a dictatorship, not a relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  52. In the context of an intimate relationship, who is the "authority" or is the more responsible party in certain areas of the relationship would need to be mutually agreed upon rather than unilaterally decided and forced on the other person as is the case in abusive relationships. "Authority" over another person is a dictatorship, not a relationship.

    Corrected version of the above comment...was on the fly when I initially posted it so messed it up.

    ReplyDelete
  53. In divorce, one spouse appeals to an authority that supersedes that which was established within the relationship by both spouses. The spouse who files uses government power to dictate to the other spouse a host of obligations that were not necessarily agreed upon prior to the marriage. That government power is unleashed via the family court. Failure to comply with the court's rulings can result in wage garnishments and/or jail time via a contempt-of-court decree. And so if both spouses previously agreed that one of them would provide financially while the other nurtured at home, that prior agreement is violated precisely when the State's authority is invoked.

    Government authority is based on coercion, which in turn is based on violence. Coercing someone by proxy is still coercion.

    In the aftermath of a divorce, one former spouse remains obligated to continue to provide financial resources to the other. But the reverse is not true; a stay-at-home nurturer is no longer obligated to meet any nurturing obligations that were once in place (and by mutual agreement). The court-ordered obligations are all one-sided. And again, deviating from the court's decrees subjects the violator to State-imposed violence. Isn't that coercion? Isn't that dictatorship?

    If you want to be released from your marital obligations (i.e. if you want to file for divorce), then it's only fair to release your spouse from theirs too. But that's not the case in our law-based society, which perpetuates injustices and sows disorder.

    ReplyDelete
  54. John Dias: In the aftermath of a divorce, one former spouse remains obligated to continue to provide financial resources to the other. But the reverse is not true...

    In Central Europe we found the focus of complaints by men was not about some obligations directly after divorce, but about a missing time limit.

    Therefore alimony or other claims (see below lottery winnings!) are now limited in Germany to 3 years, formerly 15 years. After that time, it's finished and both ex-spouses are expected to continue their life financially without depending to each other.

    However US/UK law differs from Continental Europe, and in some cases women are getting back to their ex-husbands up to 40 years after divorce demanding support. 'you have now more than me, give me money'. - It's no joke, the ex-wife can show up anytime until you die demanding financial support even from your lottery winnings.
    Btw, she can even claim support after your death, if there is some certain inheritage left over, like income from rented rooms, interests from savings, life insurances etc.

    Such laws MUST be changed, but feminists are against it of course. Why to work if you can get money anyway?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331925/Lottery-winner-Nigel-Page-pay-ex-wife-2m-left-10-years-ago.html

    Lottery winner ordered to pay £2m to ex-wife even though she left him for another man... TEN YEARS ago

    ReplyDelete
  55. Regarding that lottery case, I'm not seeing where he was ordered by a court to pay her anything. It appears he chose not to fight her in court and decided himself to pay her. The ex-wife very well could have lost that case if he'd followed through in court. An ex-wife in the U.S. just lost an attempt to get additional money from celebrity Michael Douglas when he made big profits from the Wall Sreet sequel.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @ Christine

    You are right, the entire text was changed by Dailymail during the last 12 hours or so.
    Only the headline is the same as before, it says:

    £56m lottery winner ordered to pay £2m to ex-wife even though she left him for another man... TEN YEARS ago

    First lottery winner successfully sued by an ex-partner

    Mr Page is thought to be the first lottery-winning husband in the UK to be successfully sued for a slice of his winnings.


    These sentences are new:

    A relative yesterday confirmed that the couple failed to include a legally-binding ‘clean break’ clause at the time of their divorce.
    The out-of-court settlement is understood to include a gagging order preventing either party from talking about it.


    It is ridiculous, that (in some feminist countries only) you can show up as an ex-wife decades after divorce demanding money, claiming he has more money now than I do...

    ReplyDelete
  57. David, your commenters are so engaged (and some of them are completely insane)! Where did you find them? I would totally delete half their butts!

    ReplyDelete
  58. They (well, the insane ones) wandered over from some Men's Rights/MGTOW blogs/forums, and they just won't stop posting. I don't delete them because, you know, free speech, and also they sort of conveniently illustrate some of the points I'm trying to make about the Men's Rightsers.

    ReplyDelete
  59. LOL, David left out the important detail that he went out of his way to troll sites like The Spearhead and leave links to his blog because he WANTED attention from MRAs.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yes, when I started this blog I left a handful of comments at MRA sites. Cold here, however, arrived as part of a "cluebatting team" rounded up on an MGTOW site, including some people who did nothing but post nonsensical spam just to pester me. I didn't have anything to do with that.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Cold said...
    LOL, David left out the important detail that he went out of his way to troll sites like The Spearhead and leave links to his blog because he WANTED attention from MRAs.


    David is also trolling frequently the Niceguy-forum with a fake-ID.

    There would be no problem for him to introduce himself and to write polite feminist-minded comments to the sector of 'opposing views'.

    The Niceguy-Forum is robust and not into editing and banning.

    He prefers however to search for some angry MRAs reading their complaints in the RANT sector, copy/paste them in his own blog after taking them out of context and mixing them up with his own words...

    After doing this he feels insulted for being called a 'disgusting mangina' by one of our members...

    ReplyDelete
  62. If by "trolling" the spearhead, you mean leaving a small number of polite comments, yes, I trolled it. Maybe 3 comments, maybe 5? Something in that general vicinity. (How many dozens -- hundreds? -- of comments have you posted here?)

    If by "trolling" the niceguy forum you mean reading it, I guess I trolled that too. I've never even looked in the "rant" section there, but I guess I should.

    Unless I've forgotten something, I posted one obnoxious comment from that site on my blog which, trust me, wasn't any better in context than out of context, and no, it wasn't from the "rants" section; I encourage anyone who wants to register there and look at the comment to do so. (See my post "The Stepford Solution.")

    And, no, I didn't "mix it up with my own words." I posted a screen capture.

    So in other words, you're pretty much full of shit again. Either you're lying deliberately, or you don't care enough about the truth to bother to check anything before writing it, or you're delusional.

    In the future, I;m simply going to delete comments like this rather than check your facts for you.

    ReplyDelete
  63. What really shocks me about everything argued by MRAs or whatever other names they're giving themselves now is that they specifically direct their hate toward Ameriskanks, Americunts, and American women...but then can't figure out why American women leave them.

    Any man/woman who "hates" the opposite gender in their own country really does need to expatriate, date foreign women, actually "go ghost", or go gay.

    I don't understand the bizarre parallel between "hating these bitches" and being angry that those bitches don't want to sex them.

    It's troubling that these men STAY. Let me speak for all American women and say that we COMPLETELY agree that you need to NOT date (or try to date/sleep with) women here. Or reproduce. Ever.

    You would think they'd realize that if OTHER American men have no problem with American women....that the problem is with them personally.

    I guess that would be a bit too introspective.

    Lol...can't imagine why the American ladies would want to shun these guys and not date them! After all...what woman DOESN'T want to be with a man full of seething hatred and psychopathic obsession at the same time!!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis