Yeah can't imagine what's wrong with the ultimate objectification of women... eye rolls
On a related note:http://www.yixingteapotsale.com/teaname.htm
Better than being with a feminist that's for sure.Random Brother
Actually, this comment, from a different thread on that forum, cracked me right up:"... but still i like the ladies shaved when i see hair that doesnt belong it is like they are trying to be like men, women with pit hair, pussy hair,etc are a symbol of feminism and female disobidience to their natural role"Don't you women know that having something as natural as pubic hair is being disobedient to your natural role?! Stop trying to be like men by having hair that doesn't belong!!
You know, Mr. Futrelle, I think he does raise an interesting issue, though. This is just me, but I had a conversation with a futurist a little while ago (a futurist, for those of y'all who don't know, is someone who's very interested in the future--specifically, how advancing technology and science will change both society and daily life in the years to come).This fellow had been having a conversation with a woman about this new life-like female android thing that came out recently in Japan. It still has a ways to go, but she found it "creepy"--it was like a Stepford wife, essentially. When my acquaintance grilled her further, she said she was afraid it would be a replacement for real-life flesh and blood women.A good point, and one that some might say lies at the heart of feminist objections to not only "stepford wives" but also to less advanced sexbots, sex dolls, and (for some feminists, not all) pornography in general. But here's how my acquaintance responded:"Men had been threatened by androids taking male roles for years, by replacing us in the workforce. All those robots building cars and computers in factories? They are robot men. Do you have any idea how much misery men (and their families) endured as droves of (male) blue-collar workers lost their jobs to automatons who performed their "masculine" duties better than they were ever able to? Now we have robot women. It's inevitable."So I have to wonder--and you, Mr. Futrelle, or Tec, or a MRA or anybody can answer if they wish. If a Stepford wife--or sexbot, or whatever, is the "ultimate objectification of women," aren't the androids and robots we see on factory floors, which are doing the jobs actual flesh and blood men used to do, for the most part--the "ultimate objectifications of men?" If you're opposed to Stepford wives (or sexbots) because they either allow men a degree of freedom from women or "objectify" women in some way or whatever, should you oppose the sorts of automata my buddy mentioned due to doing the same to men?Genuinely not trying to troll or anything here, but it is something I've been thinking about. Guess that's what I get for hanging around a sci-fi forum...
Other computers aren't objectifications of men, the gender of the workers is incidental. The replacement of workers with computers is the objectification of the worker. It says that there is no value in the humanity of the worker, only his work, and that a computer sufficeintly provides what the worker could provide.So what is the value of humanity? Do we need it to fasten a bolt on an assembly line? Do we need it to draft a legal document? Do we need it to craft a novel? Do we need it in a lover?It's an interesting question, but I think most people would say it is needed for the lover and the novel. I would draw the line after the bolt fastening.
To further clarify, the role of life partner and lover (the role filled by a stepford wife) is a complete identity. When you replace it with a computer, you have completely objectified the person who acted in the role.A man who fastens bolts identity is only a small percent bolt fastener. When he is replaced with a robot, his skill as a bolt fastener is objectified, but the rest of his identity remains human be devalued as far as bolt fastening goes.
And finally, it is interesting that it has long been noted that factory work is dehumanizing. The conditions, the repetition, the boredom. The lack of space for human intellect or creativity.Perhaps it is the other way around, perhaps the men on the factory floor were doing the jobs of robots, and now that robots have caught up they must go back to doing the jobs of men, jobs that require humanity.Then again, factory work isn't the only work where humanity has been devalued.
I don't know why women would be afraid of those replacements, I really don't. Real-life flesh and blood women should relish the moment when these replacements have been refined to the point where they can also reproduce real-life flesh and blood males and women can cease to exist and not have go through life trying to abide by men's contradictory rules of how they are supposed to be. Think about it...He could easily program his bot to not take away men's jobs, to stay home and cook, clean, etc., and then he could come home from work and berate it for being a parasite on the fruits of his labours, staying home on its butt all day while he worked hard.He could easily program his bot to be a virgin 'til they married, then program it to be Jenna Jameson in bed on their wedding night, and then after having the incredible orgasm that he had so longed for (don't worry, the bot won't be programmed to want an orgasm, too), berate it for being a lying whore and slut because it was able to give him such an incredible orgasm.He could easily program his bot to offer to pay for both, or at least its share, of the dinner and/or movie tab, and then berate it for trying to usurp his role and emasculate him. Later on, after requesting the obligatory blowjob in return for his having paid the tab, he could berate it for always expecting that he will be the one that has to pay for both of them.
Oh, and the bot certainly won't have any of that nasty pubic hair to symbolize its disobedience, either. It'll know its place, by golly!!
From a discussion of feminist men ...The link is broken, please fix it.
I think that "futurists" and anti feminist tech are on to something in making the connection between gender roles and technology. What enabled the dual income family and the changes in the female role was technology - the pill, the surplus of female friendly jobs, the domestic mod cons that allow people to work a full day and still have a reasonable standard of living without a full time person at home ... all down to technology.
Good point Eoghan. In fact, women leaving the home would not have been possible if there was no longer a full time job at home. No more bread baking, clothes washing, dish washing, floor washing, rug beating to fill up an entire day. Of course we could have reached a point where either men or women stayed home to do these things, or both worked part time, but social structure generally needs a kick like change in technology to change.Also ties in to what I was trying to say before. Saying that a factory worker is "replaced" by a robot is like saying a woman is "replaced" by a washing machine. The entire person is not replaced, the person's work is replaced, and whatever humanity the person lent the the work is lost. The more rote the work, the less need for humanities' touch.When a sex bot is developed, it does not replace a man or woman. If we buy that it is a replacement for a sexual partner than it replaces the man or womans sexual work, which some would argue requires quite a bit of humanity and much is lost by replacing the person with a machine. However, we could also see it as an upgrade from a hand rather than a replacement of a man/woman.
Link fixed. I actually have a post or two planned about MRAs and sexbots. But I think in this case the guy is talking about a real woman who would behave like a pliable, non-threatening, non-thinking, non-demanding sex robot.
Yeah, in the case of the Stepford wife the actual person is not only replaced but destroyed. It is the ultimate rejection of humanity in favor of machine.
Well Sandy, women have been having sex with machines for quite some time, its a huge market. Alternatives for men are depicted as shameful and wrong, there is strong opposition to a normalized and safe sex trade from big feminism and the religious right and already there is opposition to sex bots from feminists, on top of that guys that are excluded from the sex market are given shameful labels .. "loser that cant get a date", "creep" and so on...One area of liberation from gender roles the MM seems to be interested in is liberating men from the sexual power that women hold over men, if there ever was to be a technology that negated the need for sexual relations with real women, it would be enormously liberating for men..and I suspect that some of the craziness that David finds on these sites is rooted in sexual scarcity.
@Vagrant's Voice"So I have to wonder--and you, Mr. Futrelle, or Tec, or a MRA or anybody can answer if they wish. If a Stepford wife--or sexbot, or whatever, is the "ultimate objectification of women," aren't the androids and robots we see on factory floors, which are doing the jobs actual flesh and blood men used to do, for the most part--the "ultimate objectifications of men?" If you're opposed to Stepford wives (or sexbots) because they either allow men a degree of freedom from women or "objectify" women in some way or whatever, should you oppose the sorts of automata my buddy mentioned due to doing the same to men?"You completely misunderstand me, Vagrant's voice. I'm not opposed to sex-bots, or porn, or sex toys, or whatever. Men want to be with sex dolls go right ahead. No, seriously. And why not? You think women wouldn't want a man-bot?What do you think dildos are? Hell, man-bots would be pretty cool. In fact, get a man-bot that looks like Robert Pattinson and sign me up! (I would consider it a piss-poor replacement for a real human relationship though). I'm sex-positive generally and advocate anyone doing pretty much whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't involve animals or children or any other non-consentual sex(rape). Men choosing anything that makes them happy is fine by me and more power to them. But sex toys et al. - that's not what we're talking about here at all, and that's what needs to be clear because you don't seem to see the very, very big difference. In Stepford Wifes, women are literally replaced with an object and though not specified, they are killed, destroyed, no longer existing. If you haven't seen the movie I suggest you check it out (the original). It's a metaphor for the women's objectification and the commodity model. Characterizing it as simply men choosing to use sexbots over women (and, as I said, though not specified, the idea that women would use menbots) is a fallacy then. It is literally replacing women with an object and throwing away and destroying the original, simply because the original had sentience - original and ultimately uncontrollable thoughts, feelings, and actions. Objectification and ultimately, gendercide - that's what Stepford Wives are.
Just to be doubly clear, I'm not in any way advocating for the objectification and/or replacing of actual men - living human beings - with robots. It would be a piss poor replacement for a romantic relationship and/or sex with a real man.
As usual, 1 comment taken out of context from a long thread.The link changed and it is now from another MRA-forumThis thread is called:All American men are feminists just like the women and the OP is starting with:I realize now that American men have the women they truly deserve. Why do I write this? Because everywhere I turn, it is the men doing their best to push me into female-domination. When I criticize a woman or women in general, or, heaven forbid, American women, it is the men who admonish me, make fun of me, insult me and mock me. Therefore it's now my belief that the problem is that American men have no standards and simply buy into all the lies. And?One of my current coworkers claims to have spent 23 y in the Navy. I always wondered why he wasnt getting a pension. .....Then he starts claiming that I should get a Stepford wife or marry a Japanese life-like doll. I really brought out the mangina in him yesterday. .....Now I dont get upset at someone having a different point of view from me. What upsets me is people claiming I am a loser, etc, for not wanting to live their feminist lifestyle. Of course David is upset if somebody says something like that...
@EoghanYes, a vibrator is in the same class as a sexbot. Like I said, you can see it as replacing a sexual partner, in which case you are losing what humanity brings to sex (quite a bit). However, it can also be seen as improving the hand.I see it more as the second, but people do use sex toys in both capacities. Male sexuality has a long way to go in terms equality. Men are at once supposed to have insatiable sexual appetites and never supposed to resort to self stimulation. When they do it is seen as pathetic, because a man is defined by his conquest of women.While women need permission to be sexual, men need permission to not be sexual. They need permission to be defined by other qualities if they wish. And they need permission to engage in self gratification without shame.
The man is shameless. And look what Tec is trying to say now, sexbots = gendercide?
What? That's not what Tec is saying.Tec says "I'm not opposed to sex-bots, or porn, or sex toys, or whatever. Men want to be with sex dolls go right ahead. No, seriously. And why not?"
Tec is saying that the Stepford Wives shows gendercide, because the women are actually replaced with robots. That is the women are destroyed and replaced with robots.Do you have trouble reading?
"The link changed and it is now from another MRA-forum"Huh? Scroll down. The quote is from comment #3 in the thread, posted by the OP.
(Sandy said... Yeah, in the case of the Stepford wife the actual person is not only replaced but destroyed. It is the ultimate rejection of humanity in favor of machine.)David changed the link already to another MRA forum, which does not require registration.Where does it say, that women should not be replaced but destroyed?Anyway, this is entirely wrong, as MRAs never support such crazy statements like 'to destroy all women', but they recommend to reject and to ignore certain groups of malicious and greedy women. MRAs also recommend men to refrain from any private relationship with women in some certain countries as their laws are biased against men.Simply said, MRAs advice men how to avoid some serious mistakes in their life.
@Yohan"Where does it say, that women should not be replaced but destroyed?"When you use Stepford Wife to describe the sex-bot. If you'd seen this movie, that's exactly what happens."Anyway, this is entirely wrong, as MRAs never support such crazy statements like 'to destroy all women', but they recommend to reject and to ignore certain groups of malicious and greedy women. "Oh noes! Just like they're not rape apologists and abuser excusers...eye rollsYou actually are saying MRAs would NOT choose to replace all womankind with some sort of automaton - whether a robot or a 1950s-style housewife who is completely under her husband's control - when several of their comments indicate exactly that? Bullshitter.That being said, MRAs have every choice to "go there own way" just you know, without any raping or otherwise exploitation of women, please.
There are sex toys that are made specifically for men, too, and they've been using them for quite some time. Vibrators for women came into being at a time when women were thought to be (and prized if they were) completely asexual, aside from "for reproductive purposes".Guys that are excluded from the sex market are given shameful labels as are girls who are included in the sex market.Men are shamed for engaging in self-gratification whereas women not so much. However, men are cheered for their sexual conquest of women (not referring to conquest in a rape sense) whereas women are shamed for their conquest of men. And from what I have read at MRA sites, they don't seem to mind that double-standard......well, as far as keeping slut shaming alive, that is.
"Where does it say, that women should not be replaced but destroyed?"What I said was: Yeah, in the case of the Stepford wife the actual person is not only replaced but destroyed. It is the ultimate rejection of humanity in favor of machine.That's what happens in the movie Stepford Wives. The women are destroyed and turned into robots.
The sad tragedy of all this is: the guys who actually need these lady droids will not be able to afford them. We know that for a fact. Think George Clooney (or any normal male) will want one of these?Please, please, can we start a Make-a-Wish for Manboobz organization?Dork and droid: it's a love match!
Yohan: "David changed the link already to another MRA forum, which does not require registration."No it's not. The link was originally wrong, now it's fixed.
Okay, now I get what you're saying, Tec. My apologies for misunderstanding you. However, in defense to the OP, I don't think he meant to imply gendercide, I think he was just talking about wanting an artificial woman and didn't know about the murder part in Stepford Wives.
(TEC: Oh noes! Just like they're not rape apologists and abuser excusers...eye rolls.....Bullshitter......That being said, MRAs have every choice to "go there own way" just you know, without any raping or otherwise exploitation of women, please. I recommend TEC to consult a psychiatrist and to stop to look horror-movies about zombies etc...It seems you are suffering severely of hallucinations - you see too many MRA-rapists day and night, in the street, in the supermarket and even in your own bedroom. About going our own way, yes, we MRAs are doing this. Whaaahhh, the MRAs... they are going their own way.About rape apologists and abuser excusers, you should better look up the sad story of male feminist Kyle Payne.
Yohan, every comment you make repeats one of two tired points:1. Feminists are bad too, see X feminist.2. You're all haters. I hate you.Maybe you can save yourself some trouble and create a fillable comment template.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sandy said... Yohan, ..... You're all haters. I hate you...... Maybe you can save yourself some trouble... You still don't get it. We told you many many times, MRAs do not hate anybody.I feel sorry for you, you must be a very lonely bitter person trolling the internet. And now I am going home, and have dinner with my family... bye for now
Sandy.I wonder if that double standard that you mention is all that relevant now? I also notice that women are often the first to slut shame and attach value to the male that is attractive to many women. As for double standards, thats the only one we hear about but when we think about it, there are far more sexual double standards that effect men and work in favour of women than there are the reverse.Some examples, man with a younger woman is pathetic and a pervert, woman is liberated and a couger. Woman with a faux penis is liberated, man with a fauz vagina is a pervert and a loser. If a man cheats he is wrong if its a woman cheating the man must be doing something wrong. Male sexuality is often portrayed as dirty and dangerous, female sexuality is portrayed as beautiful. Rape and sexual abuse are ok when its female on male, when its male on female its the crime that trumps all crime. When a female school teacher is with an underage student, its labelled seduction or an affair, when a male does its labeled predatory rape. When a woman is jealous she just is protecting her relationship, when a man is he is a controlling psycho, and men aren't really supposed to talk about the double standards that affect them, where as women are encouraged to talk about the one sexual double standard that doesn't work in their favour..You'll notice that a lot of those double standards I mentioned are enforced by women.Katsthats a good point, if a man is not well off enough to have value in the sexual market, how are they going to afford a sex bot? At the same time, a sex bot might be cheaper and easier in the long run for someone looking to avoid litigation and personal relations with a female.Kats when these guys are talking about separatism and sex-bots, its in reaction to women like you that equate the sexual and human value of a man with how much material and social value you stand to gain from having sex with him. Many guys are now conscious enough to reject this objectification and gender role that is by and largely enforced by females, many view female to male objectification as darker and more sinister than male to female. Sandy, can you see Kats sexual double standard re. objectification?
It is perfectly fine with me if MRA's practice "going their own way" as there will be less risk for women to become involved with a man who is out to expoilt her for their own needs based on ridiculous ideas of what they should be, do, say, think, etc.. There will be less risk of a woman becoming involved with a man who will pop her around for not meeting the MRA's unrealistic expectations and resisting his control. Women will have better odds of finding a partner who understands women and knows how to have healthy relationships with them. The drawback is those MRA's who practice "game" in order to exploit women for sex and other benefits.
I shouldn't have said exploit women for their own 'needs' in comment above...it should have been for their own 'wants'. The bot would be a good substitute for MRA's seeking to rule over a woman and have her submit to him and serve him. They don't recognize women as human anyway, but as a tool to serve them...clean their homes, cook for them, raise their children, give them sex, agree with them, and otherwise submit. What selfishness.
ChristineIm not sure that many of these guys want to rule over women at all, "going their own way" is a rejection of legal and social inequality and increased personality disorder related behaviour eg. narcissism, abuse... you will find the odd ejit saying something to the effect of wanting obedience, but using those odd comments to stereotype the meaning and members of the whole movement is just the same fallacy that David repeatedly uses here on this blog And women wont have better odds of finding a partner. When monogamy/marriage breaks down, what we have is a PUA paradise and unofficial harem system or a system like any of the great apes have.. 20% of the males (the ones with resources) having sex with 80% of the women (hoping to gain socially and financially), thats evident in the casual sex scene and from what I know, the distribution of stds. Whats more stereotyping men engaging in casual sex as "The drawback is those MRA's who practice "game" in order to exploit women for sex and other benefits" is just another way of saying, men having causal sex without paying women some long term price for it is shameful and wrong, isn't it? So here you are openly trying to use shaming tactics to enforce objectification and gender roles.
while I take it that you support women in having casual, no strings sex...Sandy, see the sexual double standard?
@eoghan...many, many MRA's are quite open about their "superiority" over women and their desire to exercise control over them. It's a common theme throughout the MRM community.
PamIts not, and the idea that men have an inherent need to control women as a group, is feminist political rabble rousing, that myth was arrived at by taking the characteristic of a minority of people with personality disorders, pretending that only men with PD have these characteristic and then mapping them on to men as a group. You dont seem to contribute anything here bar backing Davids false premises and I think before you throw stones at other's attitudes to gender roles and sexual double standards you should look at how women enforce them, as I said to you above."Whats more stereotyping men engaging in casual sex as "The drawback is those MRA's who practice "game" in order to exploit women for sex and other benefits" is just another way of saying, men having causal sex without paying women some long term price for it is shameful and wrong, isn't it? So here you are openly trying to use shaming tactics to enforce objectification and gender roles, while I take it that you support women in having casual, no strings sex..."Men shouldnt have to pay women for sex and there should be no same in having casual, no strings sex. If you are saying that men should pay a long term price to women for sex, and that seeking casual sex is somehow dirty or wrong you are no different from some oddball on an obscure blog saying so crap about traditional domestic roles for women, same crap different perspective.
@Vagrant's VoiceIt's pretty clear that many MRAs would want an automaton - whether flesh or metal - with no free will. If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt though, go right ahead. Personally, I've done that for a long time, and now I don't because always, given enough interaction time, they leave no doubt. Take a look at Eoghan and Yohan's rants about false rape and male victims and then their rants recently illustrating that they don't respect consent...@Yohan - with regards to MRAs being rapists and apologists, in your own words, "the truth hurts don't it?"@EoghanThere are so many things wrong with your posts. Let's look at a small snippet of the underlying assumptions, just of the top of my head:1) A majority of men would prefer sexbots to women2) A majority of women would NOT prefer sexbots to men but in fact3) NO women would prefer sexbots to men so that4) There will be a large disparity between men and women looking for partners and this is the result of5) The tired "men want sex/women want intimacy" meme that goes a little further to say6) Women don't have sex for enjoyment, in fact 7) Women don't enjoy sex at all it is just8) Women are gold-diggers looking for a man to exploit which are part of 9) The exact stereotypes you go off on are part of feminism* because10) All feminists are anti-sex and anti-male*In fact the stereotypes you describe are part of the whole slut/virgin dynamic that is you guessed it - the Patriarchy (TM) and feminists are trying exactly to deconstruct those stereotypes.MRAs on the other hand, have no problem espousing said stereotypes against women, so really you're raging against the flip side male stereotypes that you yourself support and proselytize... doublethink or what?
Christine said... @eoghan...many, many MRA's are quite open about their "superiority" over women and their desire to exercise control over them. It's a common theme throughout the MRM community. It depends what you consider as superiority or control. Maybe you can explain. I got more the impression over the last 30 years or so, that most feminists are very unhappy and lonely people, who envy and even hate the existence of functioning families.Of course, if a family - often 3 generations sharing the same rooms - should function over decades without falling apart, there are rules to be respected by everybody in this family regardless if it is the husband/father, the wife/mother, the children or the grandparents.Within a family you cannot just do what you like, you have to consider the other ones next to you. - This is something what feminists do not understand. Their response is often so-called shaming language.MRA = superiority, control over women etc... - that's nonsense talk.MRA means to say NO to feminist unreasonable demands.
Only problem is Tec, I didnt make any of those assumptions in the first place, with one exception maybe, I say that most women practice hypergamy meaning that female attraction and objectification of men involves the mans having material and/or social resources, as a few of the feminist confirmed with their posts.As usual you are making a large post based on things are aren't true.This whole blog and 99% of what the feminists here say, is based on misrepresentations and fallacies.
Eoghan, I would disagree that a lot of the double standards you posted are realities. But for the sake of common ground: there are sexual double standards against both men and women and they are enforced by both men and women. The fact that women enforce double standards against women and men enforce them against men does not make them less relevant. In fact, if it were not for the help of men in oppressing men and women in oppressing women, sexism would much more easily be overcome.
Yohan, when you say hateful things like "you must be a loser" it shows that you are hate. Or at least dislike or have disdain towards. I was being flippant with the "You guys are haters, I hate you."
Yohan, also it is really funny that your response to my "template" post flips the template. "You hate MRAs. You are a pathetic person." I think I will design the fillable template for you.
SandyWith respect, I think that you will only see the double standards that feminism promotes as the double standards, when double standards that are not given feminist approval are discussed they are deemed not to exist, but only by feminists as you can see with the out of hand dismissal of everything and every piece of independent research that does not conform here. Men discussing their roles and the enforced roles that women and feminism promote is deemed incorrect speech and thought. I think that is demonstrative of just how far behind men are of women in terms of gender role liberation and addressing the double standards that affect them. As for the women needing permission to be sexual, its mainly just left over rhetoric from the last century thats no longer relevant in todays world or media. If women hold back sexually, its generally done for self serving reasons as opposed to following societal norms that dont really exist any more. It also serves to keep feminism going, the sexist wage gap, gendered abuse and this idea that women are some how more sexually restricted than men are all outdated, now falsified and political.
Eoghan, that is not true. I see many double standards that hurt men, just not all of the ones you list. I think some of your "double standards" are overstated. For example, a woman who uses a strap on is seen as a pervert in many circles.I agree that men are far, far behind women in terms of liberation from their gender role. Even acceptable dress of men demonstrates this. A certain vein of homophobia also demonstrates this: the vien that focuses on effeminate men.However, you have overstated the advances in female liberation from gender roles. Women are still no free to be as sexual as men (while men are not free to be anything but fanatically sexual). There is still stigma against women for sleeping around, engaging in one night stands, etc. Furthermore, there are still societal norms that injure women every day. An assertive woman is a bitch, an assertive man is simply assertive.
(Also I'm not a feminist, in the sense that I do not frequent feminist blogs, although of course I am concerned with gender equality. As a divorce attorney, I'm actually a disillusioned men's rights supporter. I am extremely frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the men's rights movement.)
Sandy said... Yohan, when you say hateful things like "you must be a loser" it shows that you are hate.Yes, I agree, many feminists say that to men out of various reasons, like being married with a foreign wife, or in case of interracial partnership or being unable to pay alimony because being out of job and living already indegent in a van etc. Men are not always rich CEOs, they are also frequently found living on the poverty level, in prison, homeless etc. etc. There are many men who are poor off and ridiculed by feminists.Western men feeling unable or are unwilling to socialize with American girls = loser etc.'You must be a loser', that's standard feminist rhetoric against men.This shows that feminism is a hate-movement using shaming language against men all the time.Thank you for pointing this out!
It's funny that you say "you must be a loser" is feminsit rehtoric when you used it against me.You must be a feminist! And party of a hate movement!No, Yohan, just because there are hateful people like you and some feminists in a movement does not make the movement a hate movement.Also like I said, it is more disdain and dislike than hate, I was being flippant when I used the "hate" word. As in "I hate you guys!"
"PamIts not, and the idea that men have an inherent need to control women ... you should look at how women enforce them, as I said to you above."What's not? Actually, this is the first post in this thread where you have addressed me, so I'm not sure which of your other posts was meant to be addressed to me."You dont seem to contribute anything here bar backing Davids false premises..."That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But how, then, would I be seen as contributing, in your opinion? Only if I negate David's premises?Was your entire post directed at me, or just the first paragraph, as I don't recall saying anything about "practicing game", etc. And actually, I'm not really supportive of anyone, be it men OR women, having casual, no strings sex, especially if they're not up front about it with their current partner, but that doesn't mean that I go around condemning and shaming those who do engage in casual, no strings sex, I simply don't go around extolling the virtues of casual sex.
@EoghanSo you concede that your assumptions that I posted about previously are true; and then say I'm a liar? Fuck man, you're stupid..."As usual you are making a large post based on things are aren't true.[With the exception of the] whole blog  99% of what [MRA trolls] here say, is based on misrepresentations and fallacies."
Sandy said... It's funny that you say "you must be a loser" is feminsit rehtoric when you used it against me......No, Yohan, just because there are hateful people like you ...Somewhat strange statement from you and reading back even using search utilities, I cannot find any comment from me, where I used the word 'loser' against you.Maybe you mistaken me for EOGHAN. YOHAN and EOGHAN are two different persons.I do not know who is EOGHAN.The feminist shaming language with the word 'loser' is real however from feminists against men, who in any form are unwilling to accept this hateful ideology and are trying to arrange their own life in a different style.
TEC: Take a look at Eoghan and Yohan's rants about false rape and male victims and then their rants recently illustrating that they don't respect consent...TEC, I really think you need a psychiatrist, false rape allegations against men done by malicious women are the reality, male victims do exist and you cannot deny that they do not exist. Yes, male victims do exist, plenty of them. With no consequences for the accuser fabricating stories out of her fantasy.-----And about consent, what did I write in the other thread?http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/paul-elams-vanishing-post-blaming-and.htmlMy advice as MRA to all men is to prevent such a situation from the beginning on. Stay away from such questionable places like bars full with drunk women inside and do not join strange parties full with drugs.Do not socialize with drunk and crazy psycho-girls and never invite them to your own private rooms. .....If I (the man) say NO - and I have the right to do this even to a woman in a feminist country, call me a misogynist for that - I need not to ask her for her consent. Consent for what? Consent from her because I say NO to her? Do you really think I need the consent from a woman, when I say NO to her?Are you crazy?Do you think, I am the fuck-machine for any woman crossing my way? Available on request by any psycho-girl?If you really insist consent must be given from the woman to allow a man to say NO to her, you are plainly stupid and any discussion with you is on the brink of idiotism.
Are you being deliberately obtuse about the issue of consent from the other thread, Yohan? NOBODY was saying or implying that you needed consent from a woman when you've said "NO". NOBODY.What was in question was your statement, "A woman who says YES and agrees to go with her new boyfriend to his private rooms at 2:00 AM the same night cannot be considered to be a victim of 'rape', if she regrets it a few weeks later suddenly out of whatever reason."What might have been misunderstood by commenters was what the woman was saying "YES" to in the above scenario. Where you might have been meaning that she said "YES" to sex (sex understood to be intercourse in this instance) and THEN agreed to go to his private rooms may have been understood by others to mean that she was simply saying "YES" to his invitation to go to his private rooms, the issue of "to have sex" not having yet been broached. Based on that possible misunderstanding, what commenters thought you might be saying was that in simply saying "YES" to go to his private rooms she was also consenting to have sex with him.
@YohanOh I have a psychiatrist thanks. He agrees with me about women-haters like you though...(In other words, shaming language, not going to work on me. Also, rain is wet...)You and Eoghan made very disturbing comments about assuming consent e.g. when a woman goes up to a man's apartment.And when did I ever say that a man couldn't say no? That's ridiculous. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never made such comments. Men have every right to say no. It's called being a human being. You're the one who claimed otherwise....
Tecyou cant just repeatedly say things that arent true, you clog up the blog here with nonsense. I find that women like you that will so very easily make false accusations to do with rape, which is exactly what you are trying to do in your misrepresenting me here are usually the same women that claim that women lying about rape isnt a problem.Of you are going to accuse me of making "very disturbing comments about assuming consent" you should back it up somehow, otherwise its just another false rape accusation.
Tec said... @YohanOh I have a psychiatrist .....You and Eoghan made very disturbing comments about assuming consent .....And when did I ever say that a man couldn't say no? You need really a psychiatrist, and no, I did not make VERY disturbing comments about consent.You do not like to hear advice from MRAs telling every man to stay away from Western psycho-grrls and never to bring them to a private room.For me the consent is irrelevant. AVOID such females, and if you cannot and she asks you for doing her a favor (sometimes she expects money for that) say NO!That's a good example about a girl and her mother, link below. - VERY modern feminists, the new family, but the MRAs advice is to stay away from both of them. In case there are any troubles, false accusations etc. it is the fault of the man/ and even it could be the fault of a boy despite he is still a minor. I am not talking about consent, TEC. I am talking about to say NO. - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1330689/Portrait-VERY-modern-14-year-old-Tattoos-piercings-drinking-alcohol.htmlPortrait of a VERY modern 14-year-oldShe's got two tattoos, body piercings, drinks alcohol and sleeps with boys (and the middle-class mother who allows it all to happen)
Prediction: Despite the fact that Yohan just urged all men to refuse sex altogether with volatile women, rendering the question of consent irrelevant, some feminist ideologue (which is the typical feminist) will come along and extract the following words from his comment above and claim that he is a rape apologist:"For me the consent is irrelevant."
Tec, you are having some reading malfunctions.Sandy.You have to look at the facts in the ground rather than feminist cliches. I can point to media, legislation, dress codes, fashions behaviour and many real world examples that demonstrate that female sexuality is more free than that of male. I can also point to the fact that we all know about the variety of female orgasms there is and that most people arent even aware that men have a variety too and the majority of men have never experienced their full range.If you are going to state that male sexuality is less free than female, can you provide real world examples of legislation or fashions or media, something to back up what you are saying. And I think that the modern depiction of men as frantically sexual has come from the misandric rhetoric of feminism. Virility and male sexuality has always been admired as a positive thing, until feminist rhetoric dehumanized it by using the behaviour of rapists and pedophiles to stereotype it.
John, reread Pam's comment above. THAT's the statement we're referring to when we talk about the consent issue. It's ambiguous. Nobody's taking anything out of context. http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/stepford-solution.html?showComment=1290082417881#c8742413004095500683
David, it's not ambiguous at all. It's as clear as day; the woman expresses her consent to engage in sexual intercourse with the man who she later accompanies to his home; she later regrets her consensual decision, and falsely accuses him of rape. Yohan advised men against taking such women home in the first place, which is why it's obvious -- rather than ambiguous -- that he did not make a pro-rape statement. It is a very clear statement that men would be well-served to avoid making risky decisions to have consensual sex with women who could later falsely accuse them with impunity.If you didn't perceive the clarity, that is a deficiency of yours. However, if you knew perfectly well that Yohan was advising against a sexual encounter occurring in the first place and yet you decided to conflate it into "rape apologism," then you and your allies should be ashamed for being the liars that you are.
@Yohan "For me the consent is irrelevant. AVOID such females, and if you cannot and she asks you for doing her a favor (sometimes she expects money for that) say NO!" It would be best to avoid saying that you do not care about consent, especially because you are currently kicking up a fuss about being accused of saying just that. What you are talking about, the right to say no when asked for sex or a favour, is what we call 'consent'. You see sex takes two (or more) people, all of whom need to consent. What you are advocating is that men not give consent to certain situations. Fine, don't give consent to people in these situations if you don't want to, I would never say you should be required to do otherwise, even thought I think your reasoning is bizarre and sexist, because people have the right to refuse consent to sex for any reason they please, even reasons others may think are foolish.@Dias, the commenters made it very clear exactly which comment of Yohan's they are talking about and it is not the one you reference. Pam said "What was in question was [Yohan's] statement, "A woman who says YES and agrees to go with her new boyfriend to his private rooms at 2:00 AM the same night cannot be considered to be a victim of 'rape', if she regrets it a few weeks later suddenly out of whatever reason.""
**headDESK**If a man does not heed Yohan's advice and he invites a woman to his private rooms, are we to understand that it is implicit in his merely inviting her to his private rooms that he is also asking her to have sex (that being intercourse) with him? THAT is what is ambiguous in Yohan's statement.I'm glad that some folks here understand what I'm trying to make clear, as I was beginning to question my command of the English language.
@Pam:"If a man does not heed Yohan's advice and he invites a woman to his private rooms, are we to understand that it is implicit in his merely inviting her to his private rooms that he is also asking her to have sex (that being intercourse) with him? THAT is what is ambiguous in Yohan's statement."An absurd interpretation by you is not evidence of rape apologism by Yohan, nor of ambiguity by Yohan. But it is evidence of your own dogmatic view of the world, where everyone is either on your side or else on the side of rapists. That is the way that an ideologue thinks and perceives the world. You jumped to a conclusion, and it was a conclusion that was not reasonable -- that is, not reasonable from the point of view of a non-ideologue.
@DarkSideCat:"@Dias, the commenters made it very clear exactly which comment of Yohan's they are talking about and it is not the one you reference."Another mistake (or deliberate omission?) by you about my understanding. That exact comment is what I was referring to.But here, for the sake of even more clarity I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that the woman did not explicitly tell the man, "I want to have sex with you. Let's go to your private room now," and instead she only said, "Let's go to your private room now." Assume that sexual activity occurs and neither party obtains explicitly expressed verbal permission from the other -- nor does either party explicitly object to the other. If both were drunk, and neither explicitly expressed consent nor explicitly expressed refusal to consent, then which of the two is a rapist? Answer: neither of them.And yet, in Yohan's post, he points out that the woman can regret her drunken sexual episode and transform it in her own mind into an episode of rape, in order to justify her lack of judgment (either to herself or to others, such as a husband that she had been cheating on). If she's drunk and she has sex with a drunk man, under the laws and within our culture this situation makes him vulnerable to her bogus rape allegation and it also makes her vulnerable to a genuine rapist somewhere out there.Read Yohan's comment and tell me that it means anything else. There is no other plausible explanation.
@John"An absurd interpretation by you is not evidence of rape apologism by Yohan, nor of ambiguity by Yohan. But it is evidence of your own dogmatic view of the world, where everyone is either on your side or else on the side of rapists. That is the way that an ideologue thinks and perceives the world. You jumped to a conclusion, and it was a conclusion that was not reasonable -- that is, not reasonable from the point of view of a non-ideologue." And I guess that what you consider non-ideologues cannot distinguish between jumping to a conclusion and asking a question for clarification.NOWHERE did I state that I had interpreted ANYTHING Yohan said as indicative of rape apologism by Yohan. That's a more-than-absurd interpretation by you of my asking a question regarding a statement that others might have been misinterpreting. Yohan either did not realize or was being deliberately obtuse about the statement that he made that others might have misunderstood and reacted towards.
@Pam:"NOWHERE did I state that I had interpreted ANYTHING Yohan said as indicative of rape apologism by Yohan."And I quote, from Pam:"What was in question..."...referring to the accusatory (not inquiring) comments that others had made. You are an apologist for those accusing fingers, seeking to justify them (and thereby aligning yourself with them) even as you simultaneously feign righteous indignation because I have called you on it.
And on the subject of absurd interpretations, because some may have misunderstood Yohan's meaning in his maybe/maybe not ambiguous statement and are reacting to that, Yohan has jumped to the conclusion that those who are questioning his statement, the statement that I tried to point out what was ambiguous about it, are telling him that men need permission/consent from a woman for them to say "NO" to her. This is what Yohan says in response to those who are questioning that issue of "implied consent":"Do you really think I need the consent from a woman, when I say NO to her?Are you crazy?Do you think, I am the fuck-machine for any woman crossing my way? Available on request by any psycho-girl?If you really insist consent must be given from the woman to allow a man to say NO to her, you are plainly stupid and any discussion with you is on the brink of idiotism."Talk about absurd!!!
"You are an apologist for those accusing fingers, seeking to justify them (and thereby aligning yourself with them) even as you simultaneously feign righteous indignation because I have called you on it."Whatever flips your switch, John.
This thread shows clearly the malicious intention of feminists. - Absurd interpretation by deliberating twisting my words around, cutting entire sentences out of context.It is very clear to me, that feminists must hate MRAs. They hate the advice from MRAs given to men.And what is the advice from MRAs? What am I telling to men since many years which makes feminists so angry?I say it again, to make it clear again:Men, go your own way. It's all about PREVENTION.Stay away from women offering you sex for one-night stands, stay away from bars and parties which are always with alcohol and drugs.Do not socialize with these people.You cannot trust them.Say NO!If you say NO to all these women around you, you need not to think about consent from them. Might be feminists will use shaming language against you (see this thread and comments against me) if you reject them, but why should you care?There is no law, which says you must ask for consent from a woman to say NO to her.MRAs recommend men to use their time and money for something else - don't waste your money for sex with girls, better buy a motorcycle or car, pay off your house loan or save your money for YOUR future. That's the safe way to go for all men.
Pam said... **headDESK**If a man does not heed Yohan's advice and he invites a woman to his private rooms, are we to understand that it is implicit in his merely inviting her to his private rooms that he is also asking her to have sex (that being intercourse) with him? THAT is what is ambiguous in Yohan's statement.If men are not doing what MRAs (Yohan)are advising them, it's their risk. We cannot help these men.Feminists cannot blame the MRAs for that.I answered about this situation already in this thread, I clearly said, if a man is going ahead and brings a drunk woman who says YES into his private rooms, that such consent cannot be trusted.Such consent can be recalled, even days later.YES means sometimes NO, and how can a drunk man decide what is right and wrong while together with a drunk woman.I said many times, the best (and only!) way to avoid such troubles for a man, is PREVENTION.Say NO, even if she says YES.I said, don't bring bargirls etc. to your private rooms, don't visit such bars, parties...Do not socialize with these women.Of course feminists do not want to hear this.But to say to stay away from such women and to say NO makes me a rape apologist?-----Even UK judges disagree on this question and sometimes keep the drunk woman also responsible for her behavior.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444804/Its-rape-woman-drunk-says-judge.htmlWoman cannot claim rape just because she was drunk, a top judge declared yesterday.
There is a big difference between two people equally drunk (and therefore equally guilty in regards to sex with an intoxicated person) and raping someone you know is too drunk to say no, or purposefully getting someone drunk because you do not think they would otherwise consent. It actually isn't too hard to figure these things out. Would you let this person who had been drinking drive your car, keep an eye on your wallet, etc.? If someone is too drunk to be trusted with a car, they are too drunk to give free consent. Also, unconscious people are not consenting, ever. "She said her next memory was waking up to find Mr Bree having sex with her." If someone is passed out, they are too drunk to consent. If someone is "'continually throwing up'", they are too drunk to consent. Honestly, I have Aspergers and I can tell when these people are drunk off their asses, but, if you are incapable of telling when someone else is drunk, it probably is a good idea for you not to have sex with people who have been drinking, but not because they are wicked or liars, but because you do not have the requisite social skills for such an interaction. Also, if you can't figure out that people can't consent when not awake or when unconscious, it is best for everyone that you not try to have sex with other people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444804/Its-rape-woman-drunk-says-judge.htmlText from this link: A woman who is very drunk may still be capable of agreeing to sex, they said.They quashed the conviction of software engineer Benjamin Bree, 25, jailed for five years in December after a drunken evening with a 19-year-old student.The girl drank between four and six vodka Red Bulls and two pints of cider and Mr Bree was also drinking heavily.In this case in UK, both were drunk. It's about both sides accepting responsibility for their actions.For these top judges (2 of them women) it seems it is difficult to accept it as a rule, why a woman heavily drinking cannot be held responsible for her actions. Why is only the man responsible, despite he was drunk too?There are clearly different opinions and different laws about this complicated matter, how consent is given and how not. Even by top judges.Sorry, but I am not one of the top Judges of UK.I am only one of many MRAs worldwide.My advice: Don't socialize with these bargirls and otherwise drunk women. Best for you, don't drink too much and reject them all, even not willing to try. Ordinary men cannot carry out a deep legal study and decide what is consent and what not if they meet accidentally a woman. -Conclusion: Too risky. Say NO to her!http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444805/Graduates-double-sentence.htmlDon't have sex with an unknown woman and this man learnt his lesson, hopefully.His picture is everywhere in the news and the woman who was accusing him enjoys lifelong anonymity.For sure he does not hate women however, as his girlfriend and his mother is still on his side, according to this report.
DarkSideCat said... There is a big difference between two people equally drunk (and therefore equally guilty in regards to sex with an intoxicated person) and raping someone you know is too drunk to say no, or purposefully getting someone drunk because you do not think they would otherwise consent. Actually, this is not exactly true, because whatever is happen, drunk or sober, ONLY the man will face prosecution. Under any circumstances.Again, say NO, no unknown girls into your private rooms.http://www.thelocal.se/24244/20100107/Even in a bizarre case like that, these women were NOT charged for theft and false rape allegation. Charged was the man for buying sex.Feminism makes it possible.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.