Women are supposed to be the feminine gender and are supposedly built/hard-wired to support and give emotional companionship to men. The other day I needed a hug so I went on an IRC channel, and none of the women there gave me a hug, only two gay men offered to give me the hug (and one gave me). Women have really become crap in this era. People are crap, but women have really really lost a lot value-wise. What do you think of this phenomenon
I don't know, I think I usually clash with people no matter their gender or orientation lol but I do think there is a form of almost spiritual affection a gay man and straight man can have with each other. To me it's not all that sexual- but it is more warm and loving, which is better since sex can be so overrated - and yes, then I get all confused and get the typical 'crush on a straight man' thing that annoys me. It doesn't work if the straight guy is a dick- but that is kind of like a stereotype, many straight guys are just nice and protective.
Women don't always suck- but they do tend to withhold their affection more in a Fi way for people due to biological reasons. Try not to take it personal or get pissed at them that they aren't as huggy. It's like this in other mammals too lol - male tabby cats are more affectionate than the female ones etc. When a bunch of guys get together it tends to be more lighthearted and "gay" - if they aren't competing for female attention where they have to str8 male compete to get access to her sweet pussy. Because there is a natural pecking order- and even if you are the submissive non-Chad omega male, you aren't looked down for it and you just know your place. i've seen males in all-male atmospheres be really kind to each other- but it changes as soon as one female enters the room. It's bizarre that this happens but I've noticed it A LOT growing up.
I've seen many women in authority be especially cruel to any guy that isn't some 100% GigaChad :8* - and that's what they are picked on for a lot and people are cruel back to them as revenge. They attempt to gaslight reality to make it where the guy must not really be sweet or innocent or huggy as he appears - but he really actually is for the most part - they are just guilty and butthurt that's not their own preference. Also the sweeter guy can effectively call them out on their manipulations too and they really loathe that- so they must play a game where he must really be some evil misognist that hates women - when in reality it's more like they are just upset that they are every cliche the 'dark interweb' pokes fun of them for. Not 'all women' though, there are still some nice sweet girls that won't look down on you for not being a GigaChad or whatever so it's not a good idea to generalize but I think that's what it is you are describing? Even the alpha males that get to fuck these women don't even like or respect them either though because it's like blah lol. But they are using them and not getting their heart involved with it like beta/omega males do - that's why.
and yeah I mean many gay men know what it's like to be severely bullied so we can sometimes be a bit more understanding to people's vulnerabilities in a sense- not that we're better or perfect angels or anything (yeah right lol), just we often know what it feels like to be the kicked/looked down upon loser a lot you know lol.
but yeah ahh bro don't give me nice warm hugs that feel so good and then push me away and say 'no homo' that is just wrong. If it feels good just hold me longer. =/ lololol.
yeah it's weird, the "gay energy" between males tends to be more loving/affectionate and the hetero-erotic energy tends to be more chokey and rapey- like it's very sexual and heated to me but not very heartfelt, and kind of sadistic- even though I know that quite obviously there are gay relationships that are sadistic/unhealthy and straight relationships that are more loving. To be perfectly honest I've really wanted the more intense str8 rapey energy with another male without losing the affection ((like best of both worlds ya know?)) but it's weird because men usually don't hate each other as much as society wants us to or something lolol. And I guess they cancel each other out- how can really hatefuck somebody in a way where the fires aren't extinguished via pure spiritual brotherly love you know- but that is sort of the perfection I try to reach lol.
i hate this devaluation of women, which this is at least the second thread u've done about now. so far i have failed to discern women being worse than men or the way around in general. everyone can be a cunt. women are distant affection wise because... men are distant affection wise, and the other way around. they have some pretty good reasons and im getting a nasty vibe off of you.
targeting women as something more specific yet general to devalue signifies what? ESI broke up with his GF, started watching videos about how lame modern women are and lost cultural values.
you are still valuable and you dont need to devalue someone else for it.
ppl feel entitled to their truth, react as if ther reaction is already justified instead of trying to understand first. for women, they have presumptions about what men should be, that are not founded on compassion and understanding but on entitlement and personal gratification. This could be having no right to emotional expression, being tired, overwhelmed, no right to rest, no right to want to be understood or to give & receive too much affection, while simulatenously having no right to be too detached and cold (ppl need to be left alone sometimes and maybe crave affection in others and this wont always match with ur partner, u also have rhythms). "no right" meaning more of the sense other things having priority like work and chores, which also goes on both sides, and for some reason both insist they have it harder than the other and the other isnt trying hard enough. if u really cared about someone u'd voice ur concerns, but u wouldnt push them to harm themselves to serve you. relationships seem like mutual parasytism instead of love and understanding most of the time. is that due to stupid Sp firsts?
people legitimately do not love anyone. they base valuing someone on how good they are for their gratifiaction and survival. this is external. shit wont always go ur way, and when it doesnt u ned to blame ur partner for being too weak to handle it. this is what every institution, law and society is founded upon. narcissists. whoever isnt so focused on their own survival and gratification gets abused and selected out by those who are.
bruh
men need to reciprocateQuote:
built/hard-wired to support and give emotional companionship to men
women get exploited, they dont want too give themselvse in to someone abusive. people perceive others mistakes, and mistakes that arent there too. women are mad at men for good and bad reasosn, and the other way around. ppl are not tools for ur own emotional gratification that u can just push all of ur demands on. many men like power/authority figures like parents to their children think themselves entitled to abuse their women/children, which is the women/child's repaying them for feeding them, and this is supposed to be fair. at the same time some women do think themselves as trophies that the man can stay with if he "deserves" them, based on being their provider slave. children can treat their parents like that as well.
People generally don't value others deeply until they've been in certain kinds of hardship that's taught them the importance of this with suffering. Modern living is depriving people more and more of this lesson, and it's part of why people are becoming so alienated, unhappy, and apathetic or hateful. Those who do learn are most often men, because we bear more of the hardships of life. And part of that is because we seem to have an impulse to give free shit to women. Well, I have little doubt that the elites and feminists will kill us men off once technology reaches a certain point, so women might have to change back eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
I will respond to your blather this time, in blather-style way (to see if you like it):Quote:
Originally Posted by VewyScawwyNawcissist
When I say "devaluation of women" or that they "have lost value" I mean that the women of this era are not like the women (I presume since I have known no other) used to be. They have nearly completely lost positive qualities inherent to their gender that made them IMO to be commended and possibly superior. I have had a veil over my eyes regarding women for a long time, idolizing them, but after several negative experiences, I am now seeing the full reality of what the adjetive "women" has become in our present day. Harpies, gold-diggers, and shallow beings. You could argue that this is the fault of men, same as sometimes the argument is used that the way men are is the fault of women (their mothers) and it would be true, since by my own estimation, a large percentage of women have daddy issues, that cause them to perform very poorly on their interpersonal relationships and their love life in general. So society is fucked, in essence. There's a submerged iceberg that pertains to the psychological issues people have, that has to be brought to the surface and dealt with (and I'm glad I'm coming to this conclusion as I'm writing these words). Take note that this experience I narrated, happened in a lesbian IRC channel, where I didn't expressely identify myself as a male, however, I had an androgynous nickname and attitude was telling that I was probably not a lesbian. On another place, I'm sure some good, empathethic woman would have agreed to provide me the hug I needed. But what are the odds of finding such woman? Abysmal. Moreover, this hypothethical woman would probably have other issues which would make her a broken human being, such as being unfaithful (in case you haven't noticed, I have another woman I know in mind while I'm describing this). One more thing, don't say that I have a nasty vibe as if I'm a danger or whatever you are implying, because I'm going to punch a hole in your face ^^ .
Btw, I agree with your estimations that nowadays, nobody loves nobody (but I wouldn't blame it on Sp-firstness, rather on what I have aforementioned).
I am not sure this you are describing has to be "taught". Rather, I believe, the dehumanization of current society has to be unlearnt. Humans, I think, come pre-equipped with empathy and understanding towards their fellow beings, and love, it is negative experiences that mold us and harden our hearts for the worse, losing our innocence we had when we where children. I bet indigenous populations (like for example, south american indians) don't suffer from these problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman
It is said in some prophecy (I think it is the Kalki one) that in the world of the kali yuga, when the current civilization will end, that there will be more women than men. That doesn't seem the case from the most recent estimation, but after covid (which I believe kills more men than women) that might become true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
trigger warning for women.
this makes no senes. what are those qualities again. gender is a social construct, that takes biological roots. those are not separate, AND they are inseparable. whatever qualities a gender has, it has been socially conditioned and selected for over time. this doesnt mean its ineherently good.
and this is the kind of men who have been selected. abusive, assertive, irrational, presumptive, misunderstanding, resorting to impulsivity and violence so easily. u are entitled to being strong and used to, so u can use that threat, instead of actually adrressing the issues with urself, which is exactly what men did to women in old times, which by default is proof those women couldnt have been healthy. yet, the fact that they've been obedient is somehow revered today, again, by those men who've been used to forcing their way through instead of loving someone.Quote:
One more thing, don't say that I have a nasty vibe as if I'm a danger or whatever you are implying, because I'm going to punch a hole in your face ^^
why do you think someone who's been abused especially, owes someone they don't know, thats a potential abuser, a hug?
"can i have a hug" has the implications of "im a nice guy". if u get bitter when rejected it shows it was about forcing urself on someone else instead of understanding why they refuse.
i dont know anything about daddy or mommy issues, besides it seeming to be an excuse to devalue, mistreat and neglect someone's needs. like people saying "im not your mom" when refusing to love someone. this again can be unfair attitude of women towards men, but also the other way around.
do you know what is a danger? the unknown, fear of the unknown. it implies a danger. by default u are perceived as dangerous by someone who doesnt know u. by following ur mindset i can perceive the implications. u said u would punch a hole in my face, just for me implicating danger. when others see me as potentially dangerous, i know myself to be so in the first place, and my mind is processing possibilites about how to conduct myself without putting whoever im dealing with in unfavorable position, where i push myself over them, e.g. some guy being clingy after he receives the first hug, then feeling like his feelings have been betrayed, if she was leading him on, he becomes fixated on her, bc shes the only one who let him, but doesnt pursue things further with him, he thinks theres nothing wrong with him so she's being negligent of him (which can be true to varying extents), he starts stalking and threatening her. however the story goes. and theres possibility of him groping as they are locked together, which according to some theres nothing wrong with either, because it doesnt "hurt" her.
the yanomami kill each other out of jealousy for women, tho some of them share them. plenty of them are fcked in the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanoama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami_women
innocence? ignorance is not a virtue. koalaseach other because they are too stupid to communicate.
Well, I'm not sure either. Though children aren't really innocent. Freud should have taught people this, but we seem to have collectively forgotten. And I'm not sure if all children come with similar degrees of empathy/love. I've known a few that seemed psychopathic. But, yeah, most people are a lot kinder and loving when they're young.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
Negative experiences don't necessarily result in negative outcomes. I think generally ones which foster introspection can be good. Depression is linked to creativity, for instance. And primitive tribes have constant negative stimuli from hunger, discomfort, bites, and so on, yet are often quite well-adjusted. I'm tired and a bit drunk right now, so I might be overlooking something, but it seems to me that the stimulus that hardens people's hearts is generally stress + inability to relax or sleep, and I'd assume that's because they reduce your ability to process information.
About the Kali Yuga, I believe it. If not for countries like China where female babies are aborted or killed, we'd already be there, but we're heading in that direction. Women are doing better then men in school (and it's clearly not a matter of them being more intelligent) and going to university at higher rates than men. Then they migrate into larger cities and try to climb the professional ladder. Meanwhile men get left back in their home towns with few opportunities for love or work. We don't really tolerate women being homeless as we do with men, and there are endless efforts to get women into high-paying jobs (which they are nevertheless reluctant to take) while if you're a man out of work you get a collective "fuck you." And all of this preferential treatment would be fine except that women consider this their right and rarely acknowledge these advantages, let alone feel any sense of social gratitude or indebtedness for it.
Not that women don't have problems of their own, many of them caused by men, but the ideology of the times doesn't seem to have any place for men in it except as unacknowledged slaves. You hear often how terrible it is that men are more violent than women and more dangerous and such losers that they don't do well in school or such losers that women are becoming less interested in them. So you have to wonder if the people who say these kinds of things see any reason to keep the sex around.
Anyway, it's not like men tend to be that great either, so it's not good to let yourself resent women too much. You just need to figure out how best to look after yourself in this age of darkness, since it's unlikely anyone else will.
I blame Cardi B.
Have you explored the possibility that you are the one with the problem in this scenario.
Well…the only people I hug are my friends and that’s rare. Besides I think hugs from strangers are kinda weird ngl.
Take note it was an internet hug that holds no significance, but even that, they were unable to give.
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teslobo
Useless prediction time. Socialists and progressives will win the argument for big government, which leaves sexual politics as the thing we talk about.
I'm sure you're lonely and I feel bad for you for that, but no one owes you their affection.
Expecting women as a whole to give you affection, then declaring that they are worth less than they were in the past when they don't give it to you is probably not a great way to get the affection you're looking for. In fact, it will almost certainly reduce your chances DRASTICALLY. It's a major red flag. If a guy was acting this way or saying these sorts of things around my sisters then I would advise them to distance themselves from him. I don't have any hard feelings towards you personally, but I would encourage you to drop this line of thinking sooner rather than later. For your own sake too. You're not doing yourself any favours at all with this kind of entitlement.
I wish you well, and send my virtual hugs :bighug:
If somebody who has issue with the group "women", due to bad happenings, the solution is not to "cancel" this person, but rather to try to understand why the person has come to that view, and/or what has happened to him. This demonstrates that you are probably one of the crappy people of this age I'm referring to. Assuming, labeling, and acting like an automaton. I'm still waiting for some woman to pop up in this thread and say "I'm not crap!", and as you can see, that doesn't happen. Why would that be?Quote:
Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
Btw save your hugs and your hypocrisy for someone who can stomach them ;)
I'm a woman and I can testify on behalf of my wife that I am crap.
For some reason, if you were talking to a woman complaining about how callous men were, I suspect your response would be different.Quote:
Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
The thing is, the men are crap too, so I personally have no problem with women who want to criticize the men of this age. But being as objetive as I can, "women" has become crappier than "men", from what I observe around me. They have really really lost a lot of positive qualities, the majority, they're nowhere to be found. This is reality, without any misoginia, and this is what I want people to discuss about.
Tbh, I am not happy with this misoginia I have developed (I used to like women) I want to get rid of it, and since I'm a magic psychologist (and auto-magic psychologist too) what my intuition has brought me to do, is this; criticize women. Hopefully it serves as a therapeutic avenue. The truth is that the poor beings, most of them, have issues, because covert abuse is rampant in our society. So they're to be pitied, more than hated.
I'll get over it.
Have you tried not generalizing about 50% of the human population based on what a few people around you do? Understanding the reasons behind peoples' actions (instead of just, "because they suck") also goes a long way. You appear to be caught up in your own confirmation bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
I preferred your photo instead of that SEI-Fe you have now (although she is kinda sexy).Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
My photo?Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
FYI, I have never used or shown my photos here.
What I said really was more of a stance coming from observing and then speaking bluntly about some things you should examine about where you're going wrong in this, or why you are having a hard time with this. I was sincerely trying to be nice/gentle about it. If you don't like your misogyny, why are you trying to weaponize it? I wasn't trying to attack you despite the fact that misogyny is fucked up.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
u wot?Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
I don't know how to address the points in the OP, but it seems something is wrong with heterosexual relationships and flirting in this society.
We live in a very narcissistic era. Social media is to blame for that. Narcissism is inherent in humans but social media amplifies that.
We live in a very shallow era. Again, inherent stuff but social media amplifies it.
We live in an era of ghosting, which has always happened, but personally I find most relationships I have with the opposite sex are very unstable and the women I meet are unreliable in terms of contact. And this is pretty systematic too.
Social media is all about making money, and if you think people like Mark Zuckerberg have your best interests at heart in the way his company runs Instagram or Facebook, you're a fucking idiot. It's all about the money, at the expense of the harm done to society, and there is alot of harm done by social media. I would even argue social media is a threat to civilization. Perhaps worse than climate change even. I know that sounds dramatic but I have no doubt these platforms and they way their algorithms incite us to communicate is destructive. But it doesn't matter to big tech companies that social media is destroying human relationships any more than oil companies care about the planet - they just want to make a little more $.
That said, there are still good people out there. But quality people seem to be becoming rather rare, quality women even more so than men imo.
It seems to be that many women nowadays are scared ( ? mistrustful?) of men, kinda weird even if I get that some women have been victims of bad experiences. But it seems rather common, so I wonder how much the feminist narrative in msm has to do with this, since it tends to emphasize violence done to women as women more than it does violence done to men as men (which, if you count all types of violence, men are more often the victim of, actually).
I don't know, if some women want to chime in and enlighten me. It's likely this impression is based on subjective factors too: where I live, the fact I haven't travelled lately due to restrictions, personal filters.
Why do you say he is trying to weaponize his misogyny?Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
To me, it sounded more like a rant albeit a hostile one.
Dating absoloutely sucks nowadays. I often critique modern women re: their relational ways, especially when it comes to sleeping around in spite of being female and such. Yet at the same time i have just about as many complaints about most men i've stumbled upon (not being interested and/or trying to coerce me into sex when i say i don't approach intimacy casually and won't sleep with anyone until i truly love them.. which is why i stayed a virgin until marriage).Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Ave
People have their goals completely messed up and the global sexual revolution has most definitely contributed to a sense of everything being seemingly arbitrary and meaningless when it comes to sex, dating and the sort. Sex doesn't almost always lead to babies anymore and even if that happens, there's abortion. Whereas people in the past understood that if a man knocked up a woman - he'd have to marry her in order to not bring shame to both his and her family. There were certain societal structures set that made sense and didn't tolerate degeneracy. And so people were much more careful in choosing their sexual partners and mostly would resort to sex only if a serious approach towards the relationship with the person they'd be sleeping with (especially if female) was present, knowing the potential risk.
I will say that i understand why females seem to be on the receiving end of an abnormal amount of criticism among the so-called "manosphere" however, knowing that many get numbed out of their natural intense pair bonding instincts if they sleep around (which is the majority of women nowadays). There are certain studies no one wants to cite because of them being scared to get called misogynistic but for example the more sexual partners a woman has had before marriage, the more likely it is that she'll incite divorce and so on. But generally speaking we live in an awful climate where not wanting to adhere to that (sleep with just about anyone) makes you a "prude" and alienates most of the dating pool. It's probably the same for men, don't get me wrong. But all i am saying is that women aren't build to fuck and act like men and treat relationships as such.
Men on average will always seek sex due to hormonal and evolutionary reasons (there's always exceptions to the rule, of course) and in spite of acknowledging that they should be responsible too given that they have agency, i feel like it's largely a female responsibility to not turn access to the female body into a casual commodity. And in reality hookups lead to a lot of mental health issues and disturbances in women that then lead to even more problems with their relationships with men. In all surveys i've seen re: people being friends with benefits - women disproportionately state that they wish the relationship could progress into something further than that. And that's a reality a lot of girls don't want to acknowledge because it goes against the popular narrative they've been gaslit into. That they don't "need" secure relationships with men or to have families and et cetera. Supposedly we should all be independent and sleep around since it's more acceptable when men do it and so why shouldn't we too?
It's all very stupid because i don't typically condone promiscuity in any gender. And if you don't like men sleeping around, don't give them access to your body unless they're really serious about you and/or want to marry you. That'd solve a lot of things. But a lot of men in these circles are just as asinine given that they complain about "whores" and modern degeneracy in that aspect, yet sleep with them. A large sense of responsibility when it comes to relationships in general is required of both sexes and it's mostly missing these days. As for the thread title - no truly heterosexual man would end up sleeping with another man, even if they're frustrated with women. Maybe they were bisexual to begin with and in denial. There's always masturbation.
Yeah. It's indeed true that women are idiosyncratically the "softer" slash more emotionally supportive gender, but threads and mindsets like this always make me laugh given that they take on a pseudo-traditionalist stance in the sense that they're comparing how women acted back in the day versus how they act now. While entirely missing the fact that men approached women differently too. Promiscuity was not as common and women were taught to be more selective in order to not get deemed a slut and/or fall pregnant by a loser not ready to take responsibility for a family. And that type of strict, inherent feminine selectivity wouldn't exactly lead to these aforementioned women fawning over and/or offering emotional support and softness towards any and every man.. which is what he seems to be bitching about. That was typically reserved to their men at home, which would also do things like financially support their wives (and as if such an expectation is brought forward to people that bitch about "modern women" they won't be automatically ready to call the woman a gold-digger) and the whole approach to relationships was different and more serious. Flourishing femininity might not be as present these days in women if we need to be honest, but it can only be brought forward by actual masculinity and responsibility too. Very few younger men are ready to have serious relationship with women and settle down with one until potentially the end of their lives, far too many are only interested in having a fun time with hookups and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
Holding women to expectations they shouldn't be and projecting any expectations at all onto an entire grouping of people where there is very little in common between individuals within that group.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
Here are my tentative theories:
* Women are having more casual sex and regretting their decision. They feel used, and that translates into hostility against men. Many of the feminists who started the sexual revolution were explicitly polyamourous (by their own admission). Many (most?) women are not and don't share that emotional profile.
* Hardcore porn offers a depraved glimpse into male sexuality. Women see this and are viscerally repelled. It carries over into all their interactions with men.
* Because of an atomized culture, or because they're afraid to violate women's boundaries, or for whatever other reason, young men are less likely to approach women. The ones who do approach never had a strong sense of shame in the first place, don't care about boundaries, and are mainly after sex. Those become the men that women interact with. Social media aggregates random grievances, and social media gossip reinforces the image that men are predatory. The increasing loss of mixed male-female groups makes it harder for men to be properly vetted.
* Women are now more casually sarcastic towards men. Men interpret this as hostility because sarcasm can be used to couch real hostility.
The best cure for any "ism" is to treat people like individuals even when the stereotypes are campy and obvious to your personal experiences. Representation is important but u need all kinds of representation or it doesn't feel natural or authentic. A rainbow of humanity really is well, a rainbow- and not a tacky sticker on a car. Ppl need to be shown there are gays that are annoying and stereotypical and the delta kind that just wants to bake cookies for his husband and the evil dahmer kind and the kind you really should keep ur kids away from. What happens when you meet the gay men that aren't affectionate and won't hug you for example... will you start being a homophobic prick and devalue us? Or will you just logically realize it's because the person is a dick, not because they are X.
IEEs with their Ti polr are often the generic SJW for 'everypony' (LOL) cuz of that reason I think.
This is extremely accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
And media encourages these behaviors too, i.e. casual short term sex among young women, and holding negative views towards/from both sexes.
Read it out of context and it's not that hostile seeming. Only in context is the hostility noticeable. There's a reason for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Ave
LIEs need both a virtual hug and someone to tell us that we are alright because, sometimes, it doesn't look like we are all right.
To be honest, it was just an experiment. I've had varying degree of success on that IRC channel, in fact I've made several friends and had a romance with one of the girls (note that I was not seeking any of this, I went on that channel to investigate). I'm actually an Oldham "Solitary" person that needs very little interaction (not to mention too that I'm a demi-sexual). I was actually needing a hug though, for once, because I've been through some really strange stuff and this lesbian girl romance didn't end well (and I gave it all and exhausted myself) and I'm still putting myself together. I have a pattern in my romantic relationships, that I fall for girls who are very damaged and then I attempt to fix them, and then they leave me, and I've grown tired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalinoche buenanoche
I'm okay now, thanks for your concern :)
Quote:
Women are supposed to be the feminine gender and are supposedly built/hard-wired to support and give emotional companionship to men. The other day I needed a hug so I went on an IRC channel, and none of the women there gave me a hug, only two gay men offered to give me the hug (and one gave me). Women have really become crap in this era. People are crap, but women have really really lost a lot value-wise. What do you think of this phenomenon
Men: objectifying women and acting entitled to their bodies all around the world, generation after generation; so heavily that in Africa there is a problem with mothers ironing daughters' breasts, and so prominently that it is still normalized in media all around the world, in present day societiesQuote:
The thing is, the men are crap too, so I personally have no problem with women who want to criticize the men of this age. But being as objetive as I can, "women" has become crappier than "men", from what I observe around me. They have really really lost a lot of positive qualities, the majority, they're nowhere to be found. This is reality, without any misoginia, and this is what I want people to discuss about.
Tbh, I am not happy with this misoginia I have developed (I used to like women) I want to get rid of it, and since I'm a magic psychologist (and auto-magic psychologist too) what my intuition has brought me to do, is this; criticize women. Hopefully it serves as a therapeutic avenue. The truth is that the poor beings, most of them, have issues, because covert abuse is rampant in our society. So they're to be pitied, more than hated.
I'll get over it.
Women: preyed upon (used via deceit) for sex, pressured into having it, and so forth, so much throughout their lives (especially targeted if considered to be attractive) that they go around guarded, defenses up, untrusting of mens' motives when it comes to physical contact, etc.
Incels: "women have lost their value, and I am a misogynist because a few of them didn't hug me when I was sad."
Have you said some douchey things around them due to being prejudiced against females? I mean, it is your pattern to play the victim card unjustly. Hell, you're even playing the victim card about the presence of your misogyny. Examine your own language, speech patterns: there's no responsibility taken, you consistently use phrasing that distances you from accountability; you're evidently not searching for ways to change your misogyny, in spite of saying you don't want to be one (if you were, this thread would say something more along the lines of "how do I stop seeing things this way?"); this thread's original post isn't searching for ways to stop being one, but rather, it inquires for whatever is going to provide you with more confirmation bias and validation of your toxic views of women (paraphrased OP: "why are my sexist views valid/accurate?"); it postulates based on traditional, but sexist, feminine roles ("built to support men and be companions for them" and according to you, if women don't do that, they're "bad"); you make passive-aggressive comments toward anyone who offers a little insight into where or how you're going wrong, aka how you are forming these views.
If you're going to be a dick, at least be honest about it and don't claim you're a victim to your own perspectives; that's ridiculous, given that your actions obviously paint a different picture. The statement that you don't want to be a misogynist is merely revelatory of your cognitive dissonance. You create that distance from your own beliefs so that you don't have to feel responsible, but just so you know, everyone else around you sees through it and knows you're accountable anyway. You're only fooling your own self.
I kind of agree. I think that feminists are complicit in creating a man-hating society, although not nearly to the hegemonic extent that conservatives love to claim (you may disagree, but I feel it obvious that men's failures are mostly attributable to the corrosive effects of capitalism).Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Ave
I say this because I understand why second wave feminists would hate men. A lot of them (by their own testimonies) were raped, sometimes by husbands that they were forced to have sex with. Those women learned to hate men and tried to imprint those feelings onto their granddaughters. I can guess this because that's what I'd be tempted to do.
Another fact is that avant-garde lefties, which are especially likely to be feminists, are artsy, intellectual bohemians. And artsy intellectuals can be somewhat narcissistic, crave relations with other selfish narcissists, and will consequently frame male-female relationships as competition rather than cooperation. This is NOT true of other feminists, who are very sincere in simply wanting an egalitarian society. But the existence of that avant-garde strain of leftism, especially in academia and entertainment, is nevertheless conspicuous.
im not tagging u bc i what i may be saying could be irrelevant depending on what u meant exactly, + missing each other.Quote:
Incels: "women have lost their value, and I am a misogynist because a few of them didn't hug me when I was sad."
you're evidently not searching for ways to change your misogyny, in spite of saying you don't want to be one (if you were, this thread would say something more along the lines of "how do I stop seeing things this way?"); this thread's original post isn't searching for ways to stop being one, but rather, it inquires for whatever is going to provide you with more confirmation bias and validation of your toxic views of women (paraphrased OP: "why are my sexist views valid/accurate?"); it postulates based on traditional, but sexist, feminine roles ("built to support men and be companions for them" and according to you, if women don't do that, they're "bad"); you make passive-aggressive comments toward anyone who offers a little insight into where or how you're going wrong, aka how you are forming these views.
If you're going to be a dick, at least be honest about it and don't claim you're a victim to your own perspectives; that's ridiculous, given that your actions obviously paint a different picture. The statement that you don't want to be a misogynist is merely revelatory of your cognitive dissonance. You create that distance from your own beliefs so that you don't have to feel responsible, but just so you know, everyone else around you sees through it and knows you're accountable anyway. You're only fooling your own self.
ive been oscillating to what im supposed to do since forever. do i trigger someone by saying what i would or let things get worse by not doing it?
accountability. now i am taking the opposite stance, of a similar conversation we had, it was about you saying people need time to understand, and me that there isnt always time, as well as other factors. people get stuck in their cognitive limitations, of course u should have a growth mindset, but at the same time u cant blame/hold accountable for everthing in their issues, this doesnt mean just every issue, but the issues within the issue that are interrelated.
his expression of the thread may show he is searching for validation, but that can also mean understanding and being understood. the decision to make the thread could be to seek understanding in the first place. this doesnt mean he would be capable of expressing his issues the most sensible way.
there are issues with people on a fundamental level thats not understanding or caring enough for each other, which is the same thing, which is now lets say you reducing his arguement to simply a few women not hugging him when he was sad. its not just a few, its none, and the issue is way broader than that. there should be accountability on men for being low, but also on women. cognitive dissonace, yes, but better be dissonant, because thats naturally and implicitly the process of integration and change. any attempt at changing, thinking about, expressing perspectives can a be seen as being two faced/manipulative. why doesnt he want to feel responsible? bc he's struggling a lot with understanding it and controlling it. understanding and control is not something u can force, but have to carefully account for by all factors, that are externally pushing him there, thats not fair to be blamed for.
to be coninued
Your perception and judgment is very off point. Take a look at this thread and the very intelligent responses it's getting, and try to learn something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
There is a lot of personal, emotional resentment of “men” as an overgeneralization in some feminists. That forms a bias, and in some of them, that is what causes them to go too far; in some, it stems from a desire for revenge. However, doing “pendulum swings” is human nature. In just about every cultural wave, every cultural movement, there is an observable pattern that it requires so much push-back just to get people to budge, that an excess of force is applied; and not only that, but the residual feelings produce that as well. The same has happened with racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. Thankfully, narcissists using feminazi (which I think is honestly an accurate term for those who are over-the-top about it) male/female roles in power dynamics are the minority, especially considering there are statistically more narcissistic men than women. Women are more often borderline than men, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
With that said, the media has repeatedly been met with criticism in its recent attempts to aggrandize women in various movies, shows, etc., even if there was really only one line in the film that was like that. Cruella is one of many, widely criticized for the line, "I am woman, hear me rawr." The majority of certain cultures are sick of inequality, but others are still fighting against heavy doses of it.
I think it is easier to feel dissatisfied these days because it's implied that there is more out there and you should want it for yourself - now.
All I'm certain of is that I feel pressure and an urgent pace; even when it comes to the amount of movies I have not seen yet from my childhood-teen years let alone now where there are so many TV series being discussed that I can't possibly keep up. There's not enough time in a day to do and be everything that is proposed to be worthwhile.
Personally I have to slow down and ask myself "am I appreciating what is here right now around me, what I already have? Or am I zooming ahead thinking about what could be better?"
Technology makes it easy with a click to escape your current reality and relieve some emptiness inside, without need for commitment.
When it comes to how we treat others, I believe that an individual has to keep themselves in constant check of what it is they're providing to the relationship so that they know in their heart that they are not just there to take.
The give/take seems particularly important when insecurities are expressed by a person you are bonding with - you must make a conscious choice to not exploit that person's vulnerability for your own benefit.
It's your own responsibility to facilitate more healthy behaviours and this has a flow on effect to become the society you're living in. Demonstrate the importance of treating someone thoughtfully and with kindness rather than exploiting them for their weaknesses.
My critique of dating apps is their commodification of people based on their appearance and a description/blurb that reduces them and makes traits that fall outside the blurb unpalatable. If your current date seems challenging or makes you feel too exposed or self-conscious it can be easier to drop the person and browse alternatives than to endure difficulties for a while, even if by doing so you might gain the satisfaction of solving a problem together. The work it takes to see past a disagreement and understand where someone is coming from could bring you close together because you show dedication toward improving each other's state of mind.
Final thought: trusting your feelings with someone and feeling confident that you won't be easily replaced makes for more generous, pleasurable sex.
No, it's not off — but of course you would think/say that. Most people don't want to admit to their cognitive dissonances, that's why they're even there in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
There's a difference between being a victim and happening to be a man, and being a victim because you're a man. Crimes and injustices against women are occurring because they are women, because of gender inequality. Besides, crimes against women are actually more commonplace, so that's wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Ave
https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS
Men have not been sold to women, and aren't still facing this issue today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD8Tnmeba40
As far as Gendericide goes, it's Femicide that is a problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaWIiAFvZy8
(The only reason there's been a female elected as president there this year is because the other candidate backed out, so she's probably in a lot of danger and will face many gender issues)
And of course they harbor personal feelings against men as a whole after these crimes are committed when it is the men killing women because they are women (and women aren't even able to be in those gangs of men that are killing women). I'm not saying it's right, but can you blame them after what they've endured?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0a5cBxPJ_I
Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
If men want better opinions of themselves, they should try being better men.
I know the nuance feminists speak of when it comes to being a victim as a person of one's gender vs being a victim because one is a member of one's gender. You're not really teaching me anything new here. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
I don't really agree that all instances of domestic violence, rape, or sexual assault against women are done because the victims are women, because what the hell do we know what the motives of these crimes are? Are you inside the heads of the perpetrators? Not any more that you are inside the mind of a man who sexually assaults or rapes another man in prison, of a man who beats up or assaults another man, etc. I'm not denying that women, in some parts of the world, are victims of crimes against them because they are women (as in the example you mention of being sold into slavery and other such acts because they are women). But it seems that the media confuses a crime against a woman vs crimes commited against women because of the status women hold in certain societies.
Also where are you getting that women are more often victims of (violent) crimes? The link you give concerns only domestic violence, not all forms of violence. Not that I think this is worth debating because 1) I'm not trying to figure which gender is more oppressed and 2) Not all crimes committed against women are commited because the victims are women, so I don't see how it's relevant. My remark which you quoted (and which was taken out of context) was simply to point out that violence against men tends to be ignored by the media as banal while violence against women (whether we know the motives of the crime or not) is often depicted femicide.
I hesitated to post this because I know this going to be controversial, and I'm probably going to start a ruckus by doing so. But this subject needs more nuance, I don't blame women who have been victims for their anger, but I do blame the media for being incoherent in trying to favor a narrative and cropping out what doesn't fit into that narrative.
Edit: I realize I may sound hostile and dismissive in this post. That isn't my intent. Apologies, Noir, if it comes off that way. :)
Biggest lie feminists ever promoted to women is that fucking like men would make them happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by mysteryofdungeon
Well, I think it's good that you are aware of it, at least. I suppose you know what to work on, then. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
I meant to reply with my thoughts to your other post, but this one sums up your thoughts better. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by serenaeva
I don't know if we can generalize by saying men have to fuck a certain way and women another way (or the same way). Everyone is different, and that's the scary part, discovering yourself, and that the prescriptions of others may not work for you.
I think men want to have more sex simply because society rewards their ego when they "get laid". And the reason women don't (or don't want it to be known if they do) is because they are more often shamed for it. The reality is that women in our day and age have less to fear from getting pregnant (due to the existence of contraception) and more from the taboos associated with women's sexuality and shaming (in western society, much less than in some others but old attitudes die hard). The biological instinct is to have sex, because our instinct is to breed. Biologcally speaking, we are animals, not spiritual beings with a moral conscience. :)
Edit: That said though, we are not purely machines of breeding. Sex is spiritual too, not just biological. So no matter who you are, sleeping around might not be the best lifestyle because the attachment formed without a relationship to back it up can be unhealthy and lead to trauma. That said, if a person wants to sleep around with a billion partners, I think that's their choice and won't shame them for it.
Different types have different likes.Quote:
Originally Posted by serenaeva
Fucking like men sometimes made me happy, but there was no guarantee.
I think it worked best with LSIs (fun) and ESI (love, much to my surprise).
Women are generally nice until you express romantic interest in them if you're not their type, which is fair.
I’ve always thought that a woman should feel honored that I want to have sex with her. Really, not many women qualify for sex, so they should take my interest as a compliment.
What I see though, instead, time and time again, is that women automatically assume that the thing uppermost on my mind is having sex with them, when it really is not.
This happened recently with the ESI-Se artist whom I’ve known and worked with for ten years. Yes, I’m probably in love with her. Yes, I could probably have sex with her if she suggested it. But she’s a lesbian and she’s not going to suggest it, so I simply put it out of my mind.
However, we were recently talking about something, I can’t remember what, but she reacted as if she thought I was trying to get into her pants and I honestly wasn’t.
Personally, I think that it is normally so hard to have sex with a stranger (just think about that for a moment) that, in order to reproduce at all, both men and women tell themselves stories about themselves.
Men assume that all women want them, and women assume that all men want them, and these assumptions make it possible to get out of bed in the morning and face a new day of 99.44%* failures.
If we didn’t have these necessary delusions, we’d have gone the way of the Dodo long ago.
*
Yeah and well studly Chads that are too pervy get in trouble for it too but it's one of those things where a woman can pretend to be against it in public but in private it really turns them on- they just have to successfully manipulate both sides for their own advantage. I'm not accusing them of anything- I'm just saying, it would be really easy to play that game. Especially because in an official Te way people are taught that just because the victim was turned on doesn't mean it wasn't wrong- so that itself could be manipulated quite easily lol.Quote:
Women are generally nice until you convey that you want to sleep with them as a non-studly man, which is fair
Have you ever seen how 'out there' actor Armie Hammer's messages were? ((it's like jesus- and I thought I was pervy lol)) Lol if an uglier man said that - it would be, like way beyond creepy- but it already is quite creepy especially if he was being literal of course.
And although he was being so dark and serial killer ish in those messages- he was still mostly asking for consent in all of them so it still had this innocence to me in a way even though it was objectively really fucked up what he said- I think it might be assumed that a less objectively attractive man wouldn't even ask.
Yeah I think this is why women get rightfully pissed at you and you don't have anybody and why me, betrand and asheelsha have wanted to campily hit your head with a shovel while making a witty pun. Not to be mean and I wouldn't literally do that to you because I respect you but obviously- sex isn't about honor, but about mutual pleasure. And if you do all this patronizing nonsense while still claiming the 'nice guy' card- that is just double whammy shovel time.Quote:
I’ve always thought that a woman should feel honored that I want to have sex with them. Really, not many qualify for that, so they should take it as a compliment.
Yeah but you're not supposed to take it personal - it's cuz women really do have a harder time dealing with pervs compared to other people. I mean all the pervs they don't want, of course. Sex is not the enemy ala Garbage. And it's not to white knight women- it's just how sexuality is naturally designed- in a biological darwin way, the man has to make the first move- but the dark side of that is all the men who make the move that u don't want. So that's why they assume that and I can't really blame them.Quote:
What I see, though, time and time again, is that women automatically assume that the thing uppermost on my mind is having sex with them, when it really is not.
"smile sweetheart- I'm a nice guy. You should like nice guys." VOMIT.
That's why they go for Armie Hammer cutting off our toes because well, look how honest he's at least being. I'm j/k btw I'm not into that either but I do see the appeal in a weird way. It might sound so backwards- but cutting off my toes and putting them in your pocket is better than condescendingly looking down at me and thinking sex is about honor lol.
Yeah I agree - that's why GLBT rights should sometimes be less about giving rights to gays and more about making society less heterosexist even though obviously without heterosexuality the world would perish etc lol. The forced assumption we all need to be so straight all the time 24/7 is just dumb and suffocating - even and especially to straight people. As natural and beautiful being straight is- to always assume that male and female energy always fits like a perfect puzzle piece is just lol to me. But I miss Sol cuz he was like my polar opposite!Quote:
Men assume that all women want them, and women assume that all men want them, and these assumptions make it possible to get out of bed in the morning and face a new day of 99.44% failures.
my guess is, could be an example of loose language used by a thinker. this "patronizing" is perceived. he doesnt mean it in this way. most women AFAIA feel flattered in the beginning but then they learn more, it gets old, and they are faulty humans who take assumptions without considering all variables necessary to the whole picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazaam
honor like deserving, because of what sex would mean to him and what the woman would be in relation to that meaning. like he sees something valuable in her, that she should feel good about, not the idea that she's allowed privelege to have sex with an alpha male.
Fucking helps relieve stress in men. Going out and trying to use and conquest and manage chaotic relationships with multiple women isn’t exactly a recipe for happiness for most men either. Most men shouldn’t be fucking like men are told they should either, nevermind women.Quote:
Originally Posted by serenaeva
Quote:
Originally Posted by VewyScawwyNawcissist
Yeah. This.
OK, I'm going to elaborate at my peril.
@VewyScawwyNawcissist, you got it exactly right. I think that the idea of it being an honor for a woman to have sex with an alpha male, whatever that is, and I doubt that I'm that, TBH, is laughable.
I mean, maybe on some days I'm an alpha male for a few brief moments, but most of the time I probably average a solid B+, with extended periods of F- in there. But whatever.
Instead of feeling honored, I think a woman should feel flattered. I know that I feel flattered when a woman seems to want to sleep with me. Not honored or anything. That sounds too aristo. Nope. Just flattered that she's interested. Because I've seen me in the mirror every morning. Lol. Not honored.
*EDIT* @Shazaam saw something that looked to him like patronization in my writing. He's not the only person who has said this. He might be right to some degree. I'd like to think he's wrong, but I suspect he could be right.
If he is, then I have to ask myself where this impression comes from, and I'd say it could be the result of me not wanting to say exactly what I think because I don't want to piss people off without a good reason. And so I tend to agree with stupid stuff a lot and I just say, "Yes, yes, sure" and this could sound patronizing but what IEIs want to hear is the SLE unvarnished truth. And IEE's like Bertrand and ESIs like Ashlesha want to hear the unvarnished truth from their Duals, too. And I don't usually do unvarnished truth. Especially not to a crowd. So that could be the source of my offense.
I still don't want to sleep with every woman I see, though. And that's the unvarnished truth. :)
I don't like it when they turn the female protagonist into a Mary Sue. It let's them apply the 'socially progressive' label to cover up for bad writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuroplasticity
Other than that, more representation of women (and minorities) doesn't bother me. If anything, my impression is that inclusiveness is being driven by how our wider society is coalescing, less so by a grand conspiracy to shove liberal values down everyone's throats. While writers as a class do tend to be more liberal-minded, and that this is reflected in their work, they can only get away with so much. Self-righteous schlock does exist, though, but it sucks and no one likes it.
The problem with that line is the fact that being woman has nothing to do with “rawring.” People are sick of gender-related labels, and they're ready for the balance: simply “rawring” because it's the person she is, without it being attributed to gender. People commented things like, “I am man, hear me gag.” However, it was both men and women who were critical, calling it “cringeworthy.”Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
If you believe evolutionary psychologists (which is a bit of a risk), women prefer 'alpha males' when engaging in casual sex, 'beta males' when looking to settle down and raise a family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
That makes sense to me, and is the way I operate, also.
Quality gene capture is a bonus, but you don't want to buy a house you can't afford.
This is actually untrue, despite it being seemingly intuitive knowledge to many people, as the alpha/beta theory has been long disproven to exist even in wolf hierarchies, which was where these archetypes actually originated from. Women also no longer have a preference for this archetype in modern society. It was an ideal that men used to strive for, and we've since redefined it as "toxic masculinity." Perhaps this is because it was never natural to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
What? We're talking about people/relationships here. :shock: Nobody wants to capture the genes of one man then marry another. The alpha archetype is also not "unaffordable."Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
I was going to write more, but I had to use the toilet. :p
Yes, you are correct. The wolf hierarchies study was disproved. The 'alpha male' was only bigger because he was the father of the pack (which is a nuclear family), whereas the 'beta males' turned out to be his young children. It makes perfect sense for a father to be bigger and more dominant than his puppies. The scientist who made that study spent years trying to correct this misconception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuroplasticity
Evo-psych is a pretty mixed bag. There was a MAJOR evo-psych claim that women were attracted to muscular alpha males during ovulation (at their peak fertility), whereas they preferred more family-oriented males during the rest of their period. That finding caused ripples because of how provocative it was. It has also completely failed to replicate.
But the most damning thing of all is this: evo-psych glosses over the question of free will, which is nevertheless still an open question. I see it as a perfect complement to our culture of mass advertising and mass control.
Do you feel flattered by the sky when it wants to rain on you? No, because it’s a force of nature that’s going to drop its load all over you, and most everyone else, indiscriminately. That’s how women feel. Unless you’re an A-list celebrity with actual thousands of women paying vying for your time, they won’t be flattered by your wanting to sleep with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
I never suggested it was. I support your right to say whatever you please. Me stating my opinion in response to you isn't cancelling you in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
I did not assume anything about you. I also didn't label you. I'm not sure what acting like an automaton means in this context, so I may or may not be acting like one. I'm not sure lolQuote:
Originally Posted by roger557
Because no one needs to defend their worth to youQuote:
Originally Posted by roger557
Will do. Still, I'm sorry that you feel this way, and I only hope the best for youQuote:
Originally Posted by roger557
Feel free to call me out if I do so at some point, but I don't believe that I'm a hypocrite in this wayQuote:
Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman
@mysteryofdungeon, this is surprising to me but I think you're right and it's absolutely true. It certainly "feels" true.Quote:
Originally Posted by mysteryofdungeon
Are you sure there were even any women in this channel? LolQuote:
Originally Posted by roger557
Rather than irc try going to a Sephora and go around asking for hugs next time.
Did the gay men know you and the women didn't? Who knows. I wouldn't generally expect anyone to do that.
Why make things so complicated?
No. I'm not gonna fuck a dude. If some women don't fit you, just find another, or stay single and find a doll, if it please you....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wxT7dmL0mM
If you're so negative of people how do you expect them to like you.
I think society is simply 'man-hating' because many if not most males were just cruel abusive jerks when we were kids. ((I'm not sure rape has much to do with it but maybe it exacerbates it - most sexual abuse isn't gender related to me much, one of the things they teach you as a sex police cop is to not make assumptions about gender and to check all your blind spots)) But the feminists don't really forgive or let people grow up either I don't think- or 'blue pill' society too often assumes that just because a person is female they will be this caregiving empathetic mary sue saint when that is obviously not true either. And they really don't have too much motivation or desire about the systems in place that cause usually lower class redneck males to be jerks to other people to begin with, they look it at is a gender thing when in many cases it's more of a class/systemic issue.Quote:
I kind of agree. I think that feminists are complicit in creating a man-hating society, although not nearly to the hegemonic extent that conservatives love to claim (you may disagree, but I feel it obvious that men's failures are mostly attributable to the corrosive effects of capitalism).
Most American feminism in the liberal cities is "You are a hateful bigot because you're not feeding me my narcissistic supply!" - but the reason it started in the first place, most men only have themselves to blame for it. If you light fire in cat's anuses and act like a sexist jerk to women and unfairly bully gay guys- people are naturally going to be a 'SJW' with you out of retaliation. lmao.
@xerx, I would never have guessed that. When I started reading your texts, I thought you were an 80 year old grizzled fart with a history of political activism. Someone like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUF9XJamAK0
I still picture you as skinny and grizzled. Lol.
I get what you mean about unwanted attention. If you are a male in US society, you are expected to make the first move, and some highly desirable women want a partner but they absolutely will not make the first move. That leaves men in a position of either being celibate or taking the risk of offending a woman.
Most of the women I date want to be wanted, but I’ve approached some women who did not feel towards me the way I felt towards them, and all I can say is that, after feeling like an idiot, I left them alone.
You can't tell the difference when a woman wants to be hit on and when she doesn't? None of the men I know have this problem.. But... they are Fe base mostly. But then again, the SLI could tell too. My SLE brother knows... and so does my ESI brother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Some women are obvious, but not all. I’ve been on several dates with women who did not want to be hit on, but they liked going out with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by chriscorey
Picture your stereotypical female ESI. Tell me when she wants to be hit on.
Okay but I think MOST women are obvious, not some. There are pretty blatant social cues. I will say that my LIE friend is oblivious to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
I can see how I give the impression of being an ultra-lefty. But I only do that for fun; what I really am is a nihilistic computer hacker. If I live long enough, I do intend to become the grizzled old man who lives alone — the survivalist guy who remembers the pre-revolutionary era — from dystopian and cyberpunk novels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Yeah. And it's not just true in the USA.Quote:
I get what you mean about unwanted attention. If you are a male in US society, you are expected to make the first move, and some highly desirable women want a partner but they absolutely will not make the first move. That leaves men in a position of either being celibate or taking the risk of offending a woman.
Most of the women I date want to be wanted, but I’ve approached some women who did not feel towards me the way I felt towards them, and all I can say is that, after feeling like an idiot, I left them alone.
Women's sexuality does pivot around being wanted, but they also don't want that attention from ungraceful and opportunistic randos. And because that requires testing the man's sincerity, a good strategy is to be initially noncommittal. You need to be charming (and very discerning of compatibility) to pull off a cold approach. I'm just saying the obvious here.
@chriscorey, I agree with you. I’ve been on dates where the woman was pretty obvious about wanting to be wanted, but sadly enough, they were not ESIs.Quote:
Originally Posted by chriscorey
I’ve been exploring ESI sexuality for the past few years, and it seems to me (but like your LIE, I’m pretty oblivious) that ESIs are initially like “Hi! I really like you, but don’t expect this to go anywhere, buddy.”
I’ve asked three ESI’s if they are Aggressors in the sense of, “Do you prefer to be asked, or do you want to do the asking?”
One said that she wants to do the asking and she hates men who ask her.
Two said that they want the man to ask them out.
FML.
What I find difficult in dealing with the ESIs I’ve met is they are publicly nice and privately severely judgmental and are almost completely unreadable and unforgiving.
It doesn’t help that I can’t do nuance in relationships very well. I’m either “I’m treating you like a man”, or “let’s have sex right now”. 1D Fi.
Anyway, this all results in me making sexually explicit statements which have to be couched as jokes, so my wishes can be placed out there for ESIs to see, but can be claimed to be “just jokes” in case the ESI gets offended.
Of course, what an LIE’s jokes do to most people is pretty horrible, but most people are not the intended audience for the LIE.
Is this a new trend? I don't know.
Ive had sex with a few married guys. Not proud of that and I don't actively look for it as it goes against my values. Golden rule.
I've also hooked up with bisexual/straight guys who only want to have sex with a guy when they are high on cocaine. Its like, I oblige and don't overthink it for them. A kiss is not a contract.
Maybe that's the issue, women over think things these days? High expectations? I can't see how that would be different now as opposed to decades ago..?
I follow some rich guy who travelled to the Philippines and inpregnanted foreign woman with a baby. He proudly takes care of that baby and baby Momma, but will not marry her. He says he enjoys how woman in other parts of the world treat men with admiration and adoration. I also have a friend who married an Australian woman. I think the bottom line there is that North American woman are high maintenance, (as they should be this isn't a value judgement statement, its an objective observation). Woman in North America are above being criticized. Meaning the act of criticism to save their feelings and standing. I'm not saying they are being criticized for being a woman, I'm saying that being a woman makes them above the act of criticism. For example, if I was talking with some guys about something I knew to be true, and they are wrong, I will tell them that. If you do that to a woman or a girl in my country, she takes it as a personal assault on her as a person, or a woman. ofc, this isn't true at all points in all time, its a general rule of thumb. Everything is on a gradient. I think what is being said here is that NA women have been taught (and this isn't saying something negative towards the "teacher" there is no teacher. This is simply "the way she goes" as things evolve and change and transform), that to adore a man is to give him something of yourself and giving something means you are committed to the long term outcome and this might undermine you as a person and your social standing.
I worked with a young 23 year old woman who believed that any sex that objectifies the other person is wrong. I'm not sure this is the pinnacle of feminism. So a woman is not an object, but a part of what is sexy is objectifying certain parts of the human body? its like cutting off a part of your nose to despite your face. There is probably room for improvement. I think this is the dellema of this era. How can a woman enjoy sex for its own sake without the political underpinnings of the sex? Doesn't birth control free the sexes?
Looking over this post it would seem that companionship in this instance is 1. pleasurable sex without strings 2. adoration without strings.
I'm not sure how the sexes can be reconciled or even if there is a problem that can be fixed. imho the solution lies in going back to an animalism world view between the sexes and also appreciating there ARE differences.
I'm not really sure str8 men and gay men get along all that better really. That's not been my experience and sorry it's just a me thing probably but I never was personally invited to the str8 male cool guy table either really and I still remember freshly in my brain what sadistic shitholes str8 men could be... maybe it's true in some small respects as I got older but definitely not growing up. And well, Fe valuing tells you things like 'everybody is an asshole.' However I agree with the sentiment that women are often difficult/hard to live with because they are not socially conditioned to be giving or loving much at all ((or I mean, they obviously are and then rebel too much in the other direction etc)) and the mainstream feminism movement definitely went too far from equal rights and respect/political power to teaching women that it's okay to be evil narcissists because they are women etc. I just watched this show where a bunch of gay men were worshipping Laura Dern but how Laura Dern behaved in that Star Wars movie is definitely part of the problem. I'm not sure it's her fault personally either, she's just an actor acting but still.
But getting mad that women won't hug you in public- is petty to me because the issue is bigger than that and it isn't reasonable to get mad at somebody cuz they won't hug you. Feminism taught the world that it's okay for men to be healer/supportive classes and it's okay for women to be DPS classes or Warriors but if you take that to much in the other direction you kinda have the same problem you were trying to fight but in reverse.