Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Ladies! Stop assaulting us by dressing like slutty sluts

Dirty whore flaunting her sexy arms.
Oh, you foul, filthy women, why must you continue to oppress men with the power of your evil sexiness? I've been spending some time recently reading a tiny internet forum with big ambitions. "The CoAlpha Brotherhood," the site's Mission Statement notes, "is an attempt to abandon feminist society and collectively create an independent sub-culture based on patriarchal values." High on the CoAlpha agenda: get women to stop dressing like such sexy, sexy sluts.

The head CoAlpha, a fellow calling himself Drealm, laments the situation he finds himself in as a man living "in a university town that's overrun with young girls," a man continually assaulted by the sight of women in clothing more revealing than a Burka:

As you can imagine, my university town, Berkeley California, is one big liberalized hypersexual runway show. I'm forced to stare at hundreds if not thousands of women a day, all of whom bring sluttiness to all new pinnacle.

He is forced -- forced, I tells ya! -- to stare at these women with lust in his heart, and presumably in his trousers as well. How unfair is that?

[T]he only time it's enjoyable looking at promiscuously dressed women, is if you can have them on the spot. So if a woman is a hooker or a stripper, then it's enjoyable to watch them. However, if a woman is completely unattainable, then it's mentally and physically unpleasant to look at promiscuous women.

So, ladies, if you're not going to put out, or at least give the poor fellow a free lap dance on the steps of Sproul Plaza, cover up.

Women, out of respect for men, should dress in a way that doesn't excite men. A woman dressing provocatively and leaving a man in an unfinished state of excitement is the equivalent of a man dressing in such a way that causes a woman to have a sudden onset period. Simply put dressing provocatively and then suppressing male urges is an assault on men's sexuality.

And if you assault a man like this, he might just have to rape you -- in self defense!

I cannot on a primal level get passed my sexual urges when looking at sluts. ... [t]he only thing I want to do to a slut is rape them. ...  If I extrapolate this observation to society, I think it's easy to see why in a slut society women will be more prey to rape. ... Simply put, dressing like sluts brings out murders, rapists and sadists in men. ... A society based on sluts, might as well be a pro-rapist society.

Ladies, really, do you want to bring out the murders and rapists in men? Forget tight t-shirts and skinny jeans. Just say no to halter tops and short skirts. Think: what would I wear if I were Amish. or Muslim, or perhaps Hindu.  

Seeing as Berkeley is also a multi-cultural haven, I sometimes have the pleasure of being startled by the sight of conservative muslim and Indian women. ... The only thing I want to do is help them. Yet the only thing I want to do to a slut is rape them. These muslim and Indian women are very beautiful, so it's not as though I'm not attracted to them. It's just that dress codes in both sluts and modest women operate as agents for activating different hardwired impulses in my psyche.

And seriously, no man can be expected to actually curb his baser impulses to rape and murder ALL the time. They're hardwired! So don't set him off by wantonly exposing your arms and legs and perhaps even some of your even sexier parts. Dress as if the ozone layer has gone poof and every little bit of exposure to the sun will burn your flesh like steak on a grill.

[T]he point of modest clothing is to cover up anything that excites men. ... to cut off all triggers that excite men. In my opinion this starts with skin coverage. The more a woman's skin is covered, the less she excites men. This is why short skirts and low cut tops are antonyms of modesty.

Tight clothing is also very dangerous.

[C]lothing should not exaggerate a female's body shapes. This is why I still think jeans can be immodest on women, because a tight pair of jeans will accentuate a woman's legs and buttocks. High heels meet the same conflict as tight jeans, while they may not show extra skin, they accentuate a woman's legs and buttocks.

And watch out with that evil, sexy hair of yours.

Uncovered hair isn't as much an immodesty crime, but I still feel raw long hair can excite men. Long hair's affect on men can be counteracted with a scarf or veil.

So what should a nice modest young gal do? Cover up. Cover everything up. Rent yourself a copy of Witness, and sew yourself some clothes that are really motherfucking Plain.

Or, I suppose, you could always crawl into a garbage bag and hop.

NOTE: This post contains sarcasm.

46 comments:

  1. @David Futrelle:

    "NOTE: This post contains sarcasm."

    Translation:

    Hey, MRAs! You are all straight up rapists and rape apologists, just like the co-alpha Web site that I am citing here. I am NOT being sarcastic. I am being totally, 100% serious. Rapists! Menaces to society. Controlling abusers. Threats, the whole lot of you!

    ...oh, and by the way, last 5 words of this post: I was only being sarcastic! (Where's your sense of humor, MRAs?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. David, since you have apparently given up on refuting actual MRM arguments and are just making post after post of cherry-picked quotes, can this be interpreted as you waving the white flag of surrender?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I say at the outset that I'm talking about a tiny internet forum. I make no claim that it is representative.

    Cold, I'll get back to that. At the moment I am fascinated by the many strange varieties of misogyny I find all over the manosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Some of the hand-picked quotes are entertaining and all, but as Cold points out...

    ...and - you keep saying "I'll get back to you on that"...

    Then, it seems like you never do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's almost as if I write about the things I'm interested in writing about.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  8. ou should have a crack at a legitimate issue from time to time.


    Anyhow, the hypersexualised female is really just a consumerism and media driven thing isn't it? Its mainly about making money, and of course its good for women in that it gives them increased leverage over some males.

    I can see how guys that are looking to run a long term mating strategy are put off, if they want to invest their life and resources in monogamy and offspring that are their own, they are looking at what is a high risk strategy under the present regime.

    Guys that are looking at short term strategy that doesn't involve reproduction fare better in this environment, which I describe as a transient harem system.

    I also believe that it is pointless bemoaning the death of monogamy and marriage. Its gone now. And only females can bring it back, but from their pov, marriage to the state coupled with serial hypergamy is the option with the most built in rewards, under the current regime.

    Also, if men were as aggressive in flaunting their sexuality as women, it would be police cars and sex offenders registers instead of rewards.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That is hilarious. I like the demands that your blog be serious dissertation, all the time.

    If you don't like the content of the blog, and the author does not change it in response to your comments, then read a different blog.

    ReplyDelete
  10. David: "It's almost as if I write about the things I'm interested in writing about."

    That's too funny! Ditto for the "men who should not ever be with women ever" tag. Thanks for the laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Do you not find Davids style of journalism on this blog insulting to your intelligence Sandy?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, it is David's blog and he *can* post whatever he likes, absolutely. I post what I like on my blog and don't really care whether anyone likes it or not. The difference is this:

    I don't advertise my blog as serious commentary.

    I don't claim to be representing any socio-political group or ideology. I'm not out to prove a point and I don't piggyback it to my serious journalistic endeavors, passively linking the two for my readers.

    Don't get me wrong, all the above is fine to do, but if you do it, at least admit that you're doing it and stop insulting your readers (supporters and detractors alike)by adopting the wide eyed innocent look and asking "who? me?" It's totally transparent.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eoghan: I think your problem is that you seriously use terms like "run a long term mating strategy".

    This really does scream eternally dateless.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What about "transient harem system?" That at least sounds ... sexy!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "This really does scream eternally dateless."

    LOL, yet another feminist speculating on a man's romantic life. It was annoying at first but now it's actually kind of amusing. A very pathetic kind of amusing, but amusing nonetheless.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  18. Lol....as head slut of Eoghan's 'transient harem system', I can assure you he's rather busy ;)

    And to the topic, the CoAlpha guys are dicks, there really aren't any sane people who are taking them seriously

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Rebecca
    could you elaborate on how mentioning a human reproductive strategy screams eternal datelessness, or was that just you know, standard feminist 2 + 2 = 5 type magical thinking on your behalf?

    David, transient harems are sexy.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tasha, they come across as people who have had strict and sheltered religious upbringings, I also suspect, and this might be a little harsh, that they are only "alpha males" when online.

    ReplyDelete
  21. yeah I kind of figured that, I didn't read much beyond how the part where this ass hat should receive pity because he's forced to look at women all day, its boring and stupid I really don't have time for it tbh. it's got kind of a Branch Davidian feel to it.

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

    ReplyDelete
  23. but when I measure it against life style bdsm there is nothing going on in this "co alpha" subculture that a variation of isnt going in bdsm.

    IMO, where "co alpha brotherhood" are going wrong is their judgmental attitude towards individuals that are living other lifestyles.

    ReplyDelete
  24. also, it would be common for feminism and feminist legislation to be against men exposing their sexuality in a deliberate way in society, so any criticism of this co alpha brotherhoods attitudes towards women dressing provocatively coming from feminists is hypocritical, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Eoghan, there is no feminist legislation against men wearing tight pants and/or exposing their hair, or, heck, wearing speedos at the beach. There is legislation (predating modern feminism) against men (well, anyone) exposing their genitalia, but that's a totally different thing.

    Also, this: "there is nothing going on in this "co alpha" subculture that a variation of isnt going in bdsm."

    Well, no, in that BDSM, including lifestyle BDSM, is based on the consent of both parties. BDSM doms/dommes don't try to impose their standards on other women/men in society, which is what Drelm is talking about in his post.

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

    ReplyDelete
  27. David, there is legislation against deliberately creating a sexual environment and a man deliberately dressing to draw attention to the shape of his cock would not go down well.

    Also, I already pointed out that "where "co alpha brotherhood" are going wrong is their judgmental attitude towards individuals that are living other lifestyles".

    Aside from that, there is nothing wrong with them creating their subculture and its tame compared to some of the lifestyle BDSM subcultures.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @David, thanks for that. Anyone who thinks that people who wear certain clothes are asking to be raped shouldn't be having sex with anyone, especially not BDSM. I am somewhat leery about 24/7 to begin with (I assume this is what is meant by 'lifestyle BDSM', which is not a term I have ever heard, which means I suspect it is not actually used in BDSM communities, at least not in the US), because it has extra risks. Anyone whose potential sex partner is talking the kind of rape apologist bullshit similar to co-alpha should run the other way, subs doubly so. A sub needs to be able to trust a dom to stop and to be safe even more than most people do. People who feel entitled to the bodies of random strangers and think that they get to impose their notions of gendered modesty on random people are not safe, period, especially when dealing with BDSM. Rape apologism and slut shaming do not help kinky people either, rather it hurts us. The notion that a sub is somehow unrapeable prevents justice for raped subs and makes it harder to express one's sexuality safely.

    @Eoghan "Aside from that, there is nothing wrong with them creating their subculture and its tame compared to some of the lifestyle BDSM subcultures." This is offensive and untrue. Entitled rape apologist sexism as expressed by CoAlpha is more risky within BDSM, not less. If I heard a dom in my aquaintance talking like this, I would consider them a serious threat to the safety of others. This behavior is not cool, and neither is your scapegoating of BDSM.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  31. DarksideCat

    Im not scapegoating bdsm.

    I think that these guys have some points, and that the vapidness of mainstream culture and the consumerism and media lead aggressive flashing of fertility and mating symbols by females for everyone within eye-shot is worth discussion. Tp put it in perspective..if men were dressing to flaunt obvious erections for example, there would be some negative consequences, commentary and likely harsh punishments and we wouldn't give that a second thought now would we? And if the genders were reversed, it would be called oppression.

    You know, reading through their site, there is a lot of good commentary in there.

    Its certainly more stimulating than feminist sites, most of which which seem to revolve around commentary on pop and consumer culture, feeding these things that would shrink dramatically if women just stopped paying so much attention and money to them.

    Back to Co-Alpha Brotherhood, as we are moving back on to a harem system the men that are not in the loop due to factors that are beyond their control are having to make a new culture for themselves, and thats exactly what these guys are doing. Also, men looking to be monogamous and avoid getting involved in toxic situations, litigation, scams, fraud and bad contracts, have to look outside of the present culture where relationships are heavily legislated and poor quality and abusive behavior towards men is rewarded and facilitated by the top.

    I think that everyone here should take the time out to read whats been said on these sites rather than judging them on Davids cherry picked comments, hyperbolic interpretations and general lowest common denominator journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "flashing of fertility and mating symbols by females " You mean their fucking bodies? Have you so objectified women that you can't think of their very BODIES as anything other than 'fertility and mating symbols'? You are thinking of women's skin as some sort of sexual object for you, rather than their own flesh. "if men were dressing to flaunt obvious erections for example," If women walked around with their panties soaked through because they were wet is a better analogy. You are assuming that women's bodies are sex objects or sex acts, they aren't, they are people's fucking bodies. Men show their skin all of the damned time. They even routinely go topless in public places. Because a man taking off his shirt in the heat, or putting on a nice pair of jeans to try and look nice is a person doing stuff, whereas a woman going topless in teh heat or putting on a pair of jeans to look nice is a filthy slut who deserves to be raped? Women's bodies and skin are no more public property than men's, and, if you can't manage to see someone in public and find them attractive without thinking they are evil and are asking for you to rape them, you are the problem, not them. Shit like this is also pretty damned insulting to men. You know, I think more highly of men than this, perhaps that is the difference between me and CoAlpha. I think that men can (and some in fact do) behave like decent human beings, and see women as human beings as well. I do not see male sexuality as so innately out of control and violent that if they see someone sexy, they will feel a burning need to violently attack and rape them. You want to know why rad fems see all men as rapists? Because they believe the same stereotypes about men as anti-feminists like CoAlpha. If you spend so much fucking time pushing the notion that men can't help being assholes or rapists, you are going to get some people to believe it, but disagree about the solution.

    The quotes here contain direct threats of rape and murder and say that people dressed in certain types of clothes are asking to be raped. Yet, somehow you can't see how fucked up that is?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Cat, great comment. Everyone who reads this blog should see it. I'm going to highlight it in a post.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Eoghan: ... men looking to be monogamous and avoid getting involved in toxic situations, litigation, scams, fraud and bad contracts, have to look outside of the present culture where relationships are heavily legislated and poor quality and abusive behavior towards men is rewarded and facilitated by the top.

    I think that everyone here should take the time out to read whats been said on these sites rather than judging them on Davids cherry picked comments, hyperbolic interpretations and general lowest common denominator journalism.


    Not much what I can add to this strong statement of Eoghan.

    If you are a young man, and just an ordinary wage earner, and thinking about a stable relationship you are in a very poor position.

    This blog of David is really full of scorn against men and I wonder why. David must be a very unhappy person.

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

    ReplyDelete
  36. DarkSideCat

    Never once did I say or think that women deserved to be raped.

    Well done for proving yet again that feminists cant get far into any debate without making false allegations about rape.

    ReplyDelete
  37. As I said in the other thread: She didn't insinuate that you were a rapist; she's talking about what Drealm, the CoAlpha guy, said in the comments I was quoting, and saying generally that if a particular guy can't look at women in public without thinking they're evil and wanting to rape them, that guy is the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  38. That guy is very sexually frustrated.

    Moving back to the harem system should be accompanied by a regulated and safe sex trade that the guys that are left out of the loop can use without any shame or criminalization, otherwise there will be problems as sexual frustration/repression can express itself in unhealthy ways.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Fantastic blog post (found this via Shakesville), thank you for pointing me to CoAlpha! I've been working a lot lately, and the laugh at these boys was much needed.

    Even funnier is the "they are too sexy!" alongside the pictures of "look how these girls aren't sexy ENOUGH!" (lazy masculinity, I believe they called it?) They can't get over their own Madonna/Whore complex long enough to recognize the hilarity of that. (My incredible boon, however, with the laughing.)

    And I would put money on that despite claiming to hate it so, CoAlpha is full of the pictures of the scantily clad women. You know, just to show people what the devil looks like....uhhh....yeeeahhh.... *coughcough*

    ReplyDelete
  40. I can not even fathom how this is all women's fault 'You can't wear what you like because if you do we will want to rape you'...'That poor man was driven by the feminist blushit idea. Do you even -read- what you're writing?'

    ReplyDelete
  41. Not particularly relevant to this post in particular, but - I can't stop checking out the links you've set up and they are HILARIOUS! THANK YOU DAVID!!!! I'd heard of people like those folks on the forums you link to existing, I've just never seen them before....it's like the world's weirdest zoo, all from the comfort of my own living room.

    Seriously, thank you! *SUBSCRIBED*

    ReplyDelete
  42. It strikes me how similar the mentality behind this is to the stuff from feminists like Gail Dines, where a woman in a bikini on a magazine cover, or the slutty behaviour of celebrities like Madonna, will supposedly trigger men to go out and rape random women.

    It's interesting just how little difference there is between the worst of feminism and the worst stuff from MRAs.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dave, this is pretty lame, even for you. Apologize and hang your head. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Not as a rape apologist, but as a normal human, it feels like an assault to me when women wear really revealing clothing, and I am a woman. I also find men in speedoes equally disturbing. If feminists can use the term "eye rape" for when men look at a woman and think of her naked, I think it is equally valid to say that women can be striking out sexually by dressing and acting provocatively. This does NOT give men or women the right to rape. It is disturbing all the same, and I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to a young man who is trying to stay monogamous or chaste to have to look at these women all the time. It is a physical difficulty, as men are wired to look at women. Again, not an excuse for rape. Sort of like when you drive by an accident, it is hard not to look.

    I would think that flaunting one's physical assets rather than one's intellect to get men would be seen as degrading rather than empowering. The sort of men feminists want are not going to be attracted to tits and ass, and the sort of men who are tend to be the ones feminists distain. This is another case of what I think is referred to as cognitive dissonance.

    ReplyDelete
  45. BQ, FWIW, he's not talking about women wearing thongs and pasties at the grocery store. He's talking about women "provoking" him by wearing nothing more revealing than jeans and t-shirts.

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis