Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Gefan]

Anyway,

Someone said something earlier about their brain melting (or something) while trying to peruse, was it this site a MGTOW forum or something?...

That was me.
I should clarify a bit.
I have no problem at all with what I understand to be the basic premise of MGTOW. If you perceive the game as rigged (and I think the advocates of MGTOW have a point on that) then refusing to play is indeed an eminently sensible response.
My gloom at reading the forum was based on the following:
1. There is some genuine (as opposed to SJW definition) misogyny therein. To be fair some of it is freely acknowledged and it doesn't come close to the eliminationist rhetoric in some RedFem spaces but, to me, it still has the same kind of stink as racism.
2. There's a faction in that community that is genuinely homophobic (compares homosexuality to bestiality for example) and reactionary. A portion of those reactionaries are of the Theocratic Fascist bent.
3. There's a denial of personal responsibility that would make feminists proud.
Here's the best example: the case of Dave Foley's divorce. You can google the details of this if you are so inclined. Suffice it to say, the Canadian family courts treated Foley (or at least tried to, he's basically in exile in the US) like Ed "Two Cows" Brayton treats a bucket of KFC.
So far, I'm 100% on Foley's side. What none of these goofs want to talk about however, is that Foley went out and GOT MARRIED (AND SUBSEQUENTLY DIVORCED) AGAIN.
At that point, I can't sympathize. He's like the domestic violence victim who keeps going back to their abuser. The first time they're a victim - after that they're a volunteer.
And this is a pattern for these clowns. Half of them complain they were "tricked" into fatherhood by women who swore they were on the pill.
Really?
Would like to buy some magic beans too?
If you're not wearing a condom and you haven't had a vasectomy and you have seen untold other men destroyed by this, please explain to me why I should sympathize with you when you stake your entire future on the word of someone who has everything to gain by lying to you.

It's like the woman with the "enthusiastic consent fetish".
My reaction: have a nice day, dear but I have to be someplace else right now. The End.
Half the MGTOW board's reaction: I can't figure out why my relationship with this loon didn't make me happy.

Oh, and Suzanne Venker is NOT friend of men. She's a traditionalist who just disagrees with feminism as to how men can be most useful. She doesn't see men as human any more than does (say) Amanda Marcotte.

[mary (abbie's ilk)]

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 028d15.jpg

damn..so good I didn't even realize the faces..got the items in the hands..

[Søren Lilholt]

Hey, here's Hugo teaching about "enthusiastic consent". Lol
http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2007/07/19/ ... toplights/

Hugo wrote:

"A dangerous line I sometimes use: “The opposite of rape is not consent. The opposite of rape is enthusiasm”. It’s dangerous because it’s shocking, and of course, it’s dangerous because it twists the purely legal meaning of the term “rape.” But from the standpoint of one who cares desperately about the well-being of young people, my goal in offering workshops like these is not merely to prevent sexual assault that meets the legal standard of a criminal act. My goal is to prevent that, of course, but to also offer shy and uncertain young people tools to prevent them from having bad sex characterized by obligation, confusion, and detached resignation. I always argue that anything short of an authentic, honest, uncoerced, aroused and sober “Hell, yes!” is, in the end, just a “no” in another form.

That sets the bar pretty darned high. But given the consequences of unwanted sex to the body and the heart and the mind and the soul, given the potential for sex to be life-affirming and ecstatic, our young people deserve to have the bar set just that high."

Psychotic.

That twat should try being married for 12 years. If he thinks it's always "Hell, yes!" after that length of time, even in a happy marriage, then he is as cretinous as he is naive.

[Gefan]

That twat should try being married for 12 years. If he thinks it's always "Hell, yes!" after that length of time, even in a happy marriage, then he is as cretinous as he is naive.

Actually, Schwyzer has indeed been married for some time (maybe 12 years) and it seems like he may have run into just that problem. If so, his (freely-admitted) solution has been to fuck everything that moves both among his students, and elsewhere.
I know it probably speaks ill of me but there is a level of pure shamelessness in old Hugo that I find sort of magnificent. He reminds me of Randall Terry and his spectacular personal life. I imagine the two of them sitting down over a beer (when absolutely sure no-one is within earshot) and laughing their respective asses off at everyone they've duped.

[Dick Strawkins]

That twat should try being married for 12 years. If he thinks it's always "Hell, yes!" after that length of time, even in a happy marriage, then he is as cretinous as he is naive.

Actually, Schwyzer has indeed been married for some time (maybe 12 years) and it seems like he may have run into just that problem. If so, his (freely-admitted) solution has been to fuck everything that moves both among his students, and elsewhere.
I know it probably speaks ill of me but there is a level of pure shamelessness in old Hugo that I find sort of magnificent. He reminds me of Randall Terry and his spectacular personal life. I imagine the two of them sitting down over a beer (when absolutely sure no-one is within earshot) and laughing their respective asses off at everyone they've duped.

Schwyzer has a kind of 'bad boy' image that many straight feminist women are attracted to. Hensley, Marcotte and some of the Skepchicks continued to cozy up to Schwyzer until relatively recently - long after it was known that he had seriously blotted his SJW copybook.

PZ Myers, on the other hand, saw through him - although I smell a hint of sexual jealousy in his attitude Schwyzer, a kind of: 'he slept with all his students and I never even slept with one of mine. Dammit! :x '

[Percentage]

Yeah, I also sense a whiff of sexual jealousy in PZ's radfem antiporn stance. I mean, dude's kind of ugly, as far as it goes... he's not a gargoyle but he's below average.

[Suet Cardigan]

Yeah, I also sense a whiff of sexual jealousy in PZ's radfem antiporn stance. I mean, dude's kind of ugly, as far as it goes... he's not a gargoyle but he's below average.

I thought PZ was pro-porn. At least, I'm sure he used to be.

[Barael]

I am one of those ideal supermen of constant consent. I am so terrible at reading people that I just honestly state when I'm unsure, and ask if moving forward is ok. Doing otherwise feels very presumptuous to me. I don't think this is the way everyone should act, because I know I'm just weird (I'm not even comfortable touching someone on the shoulder to get their attention unless they have done likewise to me in the past). My tortuously belabored point is that roughly half the women I've dated utterly detested the fact that I wasn't more sexually aggressive. The other half were understanding, but of that 50%, only two women eagerly took on the aggressive role themselves.

I hear ya, man. Reading about that "consent fantasy" made me feel like a feminist superstar for what transpired the other weekend. I had this girl over for a couple days who totally jumped me on the first evening while we were both pretty drunk. Instead of letting her have her way with me then and there I did end up defusing the situation very gently (because of reasons I won't elaborate, but it's definitely not because I'm not sufficiently into her). Now, next morning I was feeling somewhat more amorous and had her moaning and panting for a while until she suddenly told me we couldn't go further. Instead of asking why, I backed off while resuming making out a little longer since that she was more than fine with (and incidentally to show her that I wasn't hurt/offended in any way). Later that day I asked her about the hangup and if it was somehow my fault and after a fairly involved conversation it turned out it wasn't but because reasons I again won't elaborate we kept things at kissing the rest of time (and had a great time, too).

But hey, because I'm not ideologically pure enough, none of that counts for shit. I'm a rape apologizing, would-be-rapist misogynist and that's all I am. Can't say it doesn't sometimes gall, even considering how trivially SJWs throw those words around these days.

[Dick Strawkins]

Yeah, I also sense a whiff of sexual jealousy in PZ's radfem antiporn stance. I mean, dude's kind of ugly, as far as it goes... he's not a gargoyle but he's below average.

I thought PZ was pro-porn. At least, I'm sure he used to be.

He tends to keep away from the subject these days - far too many eggshells lying around. The only time in recent years I recall him taking a strong position on the subject was when he promoted Greta Christina's collection of rape fantasy porn, 'Bending'.
Other than that he's been pretty silent on the matter. If you didn't know his previous stance on the issue (enthusiastically, ahem!, posting hentai rape porn) you could be forgiven for thinking his views are closer to sex negative feminists like Taslima and Ophelia, rather than sex positives like Greta and Carrier.
But he's not a real radfem. (You can tell this by the simple fact that he calls himself a "feminist" - real radfems don't allow men to call themselves feminists, only women have that privilege; men can only be feminist "allies")

[codelette]

[...]
I do find it hilarious that so many feminists still support a traditional dating scene where all the pressure is on the man to initiate everything (and many feminists will even say or imply men should still pay for everything). Only now, they've added on that the man is 100% responsible for securing total consent at every step in the relationship.[...]

Like these two:
http://www.xojane.com/sex/i-sorta-pisse ... -heres-why
http://www.thefrisky.com/2009-06-18/marrying-for-money/

See, this is when I get on my high horse. I don't identify as a feminist, yet, I pay for the majority of stuff on our household as I'm the main breadwinner. I have a traditionally "manly" career that my "traditionally macho" father helped pay for as he "didn't want me to have to depend financially on anyone". My parents also advised me of not going to college to waste my time (which meant: studying an Art/Theater major or getting pregnant).

[SPACKlick]

From: http://disruptingdinnerparties.com/2013 ... g-consent/
Can you the hell make up your mind? Fuck or no?

Except that sometimes you aren't sure. Part of you says yes and part of you says no. Let's not mock people for being human.

If you aren't sure then don't get naked. What's the other party supposed to do? turn themselves on and off like a tap at your whim? It's just selfish.

I agree that there is often an assumption that men will overcome resistance, but the "until she submits fully to him" is perhaps more of a fantasy than an expectation.

They were at a hippy retreat, the nudity was naturism not sexual. The point stands that if a change of attitude from both men and women towards enthusiastic consent model could be effected (not to the full extreme shown here but in that direction) there'd be more good sex and less bad sex.

No model will work for everybody, the goal should just be to move the average to where maximum sexual goodness is acheived, the Berry Whitin Peak if you will.

[KenD]

Oops. Forgot the link: [youtube]wHEQtp1ozVA[/youtube]

Here's Slutwalk's apology for letting Hugo get involved.

That's the Slutwalk where he's admitted to shagging one of his students. Someone who was there listening to him preach about self control, talking about being a husband and father, and probably chanted along with "men are not weak", had his dick in her mouth half an hour later.

But of course any such college rule breaking was simply down to his mental problems, so it's entirely fair that he'll get paid disability retirement.

[Service Dog]

PZ Myers, on the other hand, saw through him - although I smell a hint of sexual jealousy in his attitude toward Schwyzer, a kind of: 'he slept with all his students and I never even slept with one of mine. Dammit! :x '

PZ Myers broadcasts his feminism for the same reason Hugo Schwyzer does:
to attract a legion of female admirers.
But PZ's feminism is a surrogate for a swingin' sex life that could cost him his wife, kids, career, reputation. PZ positions himself as a harmless teddybear and racy-joke-teller; and won't transgress beyond bragging about being invited to a woman's hotel room (unless, perhaps, he's absolutely sure he can get away with more, unscathed).

Hugo's various diagnoses-- sex addiction, narcissism-- give him the gumption to 'shit where he eats' and actually screw his students. Hugo actually played high-stakes poker with sex & consequences, while PZ doesn't dare do more than pretend-to onstage.

So, of course PZ resented Hugo, when Hugo was riding-high, having his cake and eating it too, beating the odds. PZ's a player-hater. That's why PZ tears-down Dawkins, Shermer, dudebros.

PZ is a wannabe Hugo-feminist.
but PZ's risk-adversity leaves him stuck being a bitter David'Manboobz'Futrelle-feminist.

[codelette]

I had to google David Futrelle. I saw his face. I understood his blog's name...

[Dick Strawkins]

I had to google David Futrelle. I saw his face. I understood his blog's name...

The pictures of him from google image search are cruel but funny.

http://theantifeminist.com/wp-content/u ... e-aj-1.jpg

http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content ... 00x450.jpg

[Walter Ego]

Does anyone remember the motel manager lady I had a confrontation with back in June? Details here: viewtopic.php?p=103996#p103996

Here's an update.

So what good things are going on in your life?

Well, I got my first Social Security check last month and I'm no longer homeless. That's pretty good. I'm still learning how to live on a fixed income until I can get some kind of job, though. All in all, life is good and hopefully will be getting better.

[Kareem]

I had to google David Futrelle. I saw his face. I understood his blog's name...

http://theantifeminist.com/wp-content/u ... trelle.jpg

[codelette]

I had to google David Futrelle. I saw his face. I understood his blog's name...

http://theantifeminist.com/wp-content/u ... trelle.jpg

I bet he has the Amazing Atheist's dick problem.

[codelette]

BTW, a medical/scientific entity that can clarify if it's true that morbidly obese men have low testosterone/ high estrogen issues.

[Service Dog]

No one =made= me click on that old man in white, in the hardhat, with "total toilet pig" written on his back; in the image search results for Futrelle... but it clicking there led to a rabid homophobic rightwing site with an impressive collection of San Francisco protest photos:

http://www.zombietime.com/anarchist_boo ... G_5894.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/anarchist_boo ... G_5957.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/walk_for_life/IMG_4527_2.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame ... 43_IMG.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/stop_the_us_i ... G_7966.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame ... 35_IMG.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame ... 28_IMG.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/world_naked_b ... G_6713.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/world_naked_b ... G_6713.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/IMG_2381.JPG

[Aneris]

Feminism is the theory that women know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

Oh I'm sorry, I mean soft and gentle with constant check-ins from the man to make sure the woman is still 100% enthusiastic about the sex.

Radical SJW feminists are, at every turn, making their lives suck more. The lady quoted in this thread is admitting this. They're sabotaging their relationships with men by putting out this propaganda which is untrue and encourages the whiny, fawning behavior they dislike. There are plenty of ordinary (but clueless) guys who will adopt a cringing, fawning dating persona in response to women saying that's what they want. Then they wonder why it doesn't work, and feminists wonder why finding a good guy is hard.

I do find it hilarious that so many feminists still support a traditional dating scene where all the pressure is on the man to initiate everything (and many feminists will even say or imply men should still pay for everything). Only now, they've added on that the man is 100% responsible for securing total consent at every step in the relationship. The woman has no responsibility to make her intentions known unless asked, and even then, maybe not. And failure on the part of the man to secure consent at all times= CRIMINAL RAPE.

Can anyone doubt this sort of arrangement is going to make men bitter and women more selfish and arrogant? Sure, some feminists understand this and want to remove the dating burden from men. But these feminists are having to fight the spoiled-ass SJW feminists, who still see dating as "man jumps through hoops to win my affection."

What a giant strawman... strawperson. I am sure it burns well. Look, there are a lot of loons under every label. They are called extremists and exist apparently in every direction. There are now more internet loons behind feminism and other social justice causes because its currently trendy and the “right thing” where it gives otherwise clueless, intellectually weak and rhetorically impaired people a way to trump up on the internet, by throwing away nuance but appearing all good and righteous. Almost like Troll 2.0, that developed out of the forum-comment-section sherriff perhaps. These are, in my mind, people who want to be right on the internet and where the current dynamic makes the extreme fabricate+smear scheme effective in most cases, while they can hide behind righteous anger when it doesn't work out. Behavior like that is often not called out, as it can be conflated with the issue itself.

Feminism is hardly about dating roles, and it is hardly the reason why there are some new challenges with courtship (as they exist each in their time). It always was an issue and is almost by definion, where a look into history, gazillion thousands of schmaltzy songs etc. should tell you there is A LOT of disappointment that cannot be reasonably placed at the feet of women's rights movements. Not to forget, feminism has very diverse directions which is also plausible if you understand the premises.

[Tigzy]

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame ... 35_IMG.JPG

Lemonparty, WTF happened?

Also, that guy in the middle has some sort of protruding sac in his midsection. WTF is that? I hope I don't friggin well end up with one of those when I'm old, daubed in CND symbols and wearing an wig fashioned in a suitable anarchistic style.

[debaser71]

ftr, I think many of the self labeled moderate (non-loon) feminists here say goofy (feminist inspired) crap too. Whatever. There's usually a good enough amount of push back that I don't need to chime in to repeat what others are saying. I am just glad that these discussion occur at all. Quite the difference compared to other web sites.

[Trophy]

PZ Myers broadcasts his feminism for the same reason Hugo Schwyzer does:
to attract a legion of female admirers.
But PZ's feminism is a surrogate for a swingin' sex life that could cost him his wife, kids, career, reputation. PZ positions himself as a harmless teddybear and racy-joke-teller; and won't transgress beyond bragging about being invited to a woman's hotel room (unless, perhaps, he's absolutely sure he can get away with more, unscathed).

Hugo's various diagnoses-- sex addiction, narcissism-- give him the gumption to 'shit where he eats' and actually screw his students. Hugo actually played high-stakes poker with sex & consequences, while PZ doesn't dare do more than pretend-to onstage.

So, of course PZ resented Hugo, when Hugo was riding-high, having his cake and eating it too, beating the odds. PZ's a player-hater. That's why PZ tears-down Dawkins, Shermer, dudebros.

PZ is a wannabe Hugo-feminist.
but PZ's risk-adversity leaves him stuck being a bitter David'Manboobz'Futrelle-feminist.

I hope you were high when you wrote that crap and now that you are sober you realize that it was stupid. But in the unlikely case that you actually meant that ([/sarcasm]), here it goes: Sometimes "Mr. X is a feminist to bag chicks" is a retarded argument, for example in this case. Where is your fucking evidence that PZ is a wannabe Hugo or that he is interested in having sex with a lot of women? Once in a blue moon he posts something that, with some stretch of the definition of the word, can be considered "naughty". Yeah, he's not a virgin if that's what you are trying to prove. Some heterosexual men are not interested in swinging or fucking other women or many women for that matter. Also, it's doubly stupid to accuse PZ of being a feminist to get in the pants of the ladies because it is blatantly obvious where his dogmatic form of feminism comes from: He's an extremely ideological person with an obsession with privilege because he also views himself an under-privileged person due to his atheism.

Let me quote again what you wrote:

But PZ's feminism is a surrogate for a swingin' sex life that could cost him his wife, kids, career, reputation. PZ positions himself as a harmless teddybear and racy-joke-teller; and won't transgress beyond bragging about being invited to a woman's hotel room (unless, perhaps, he's absolutely sure he can get away with more, unscathed).

Fucking amazing mind reading skills. You better consider applying for Randi's 1M$ challenge. Also, PZ has not "bragged" about being invited to a woman's hotel room, he mentioned that in a relevant conversation and not at all in a tasteless manner.

[Service Dog]

Trophy,

You forgot to say FLOOSH!

[Dick Strawkins]

PZ Myers broadcasts his feminism for the same reason Hugo Schwyzer does:
to attract a legion of female admirers.
But PZ's feminism is a surrogate for a swingin' sex life that could cost him his wife, kids, career, reputation. PZ positions himself as a harmless teddybear and racy-joke-teller; and won't transgress beyond bragging about being invited to a woman's hotel room (unless, perhaps, he's absolutely sure he can get away with more, unscathed).

Hugo's various diagnoses-- sex addiction, narcissism-- give him the gumption to 'shit where he eats' and actually screw his students. Hugo actually played high-stakes poker with sex & consequences, while PZ doesn't dare do more than pretend-to onstage.

So, of course PZ resented Hugo, when Hugo was riding-high, having his cake and eating it too, beating the odds. PZ's a player-hater. That's why PZ tears-down Dawkins, Shermer, dudebros.

PZ is a wannabe Hugo-feminist.
but PZ's risk-adversity leaves him stuck being a bitter David'Manboobz'Futrelle-feminist.

I hope you were high when you wrote that crap and now that you are sober you realize that it was stupid. But in the unlikely case that you actually meant that ([/sarcasm]), here it goes: Sometimes "Mr. X is a feminist to bag chicks" is a retarded argument, for example in this case. Where is your fucking evidence that PZ is a wannabe Hugo or that he is interested in having sex with a lot of women? Once in a blue moon he posts something that, with some stretch of the definition of the word, can be considered "naughty". Yeah, he's not a virgin if that's what you are trying to prove. Some heterosexual men are not interested in swinging or fucking other women or many women for that matter. Also, it's doubly stupid to accuse PZ of being a feminist to get in the pants of the ladies because it is blatantly obvious where his dogmatic form of feminism comes from: He's an extremely ideological person with an obsession with privilege because he also views himself an under-privileged person due to his atheism.

Let me quote again what you wrote:

But PZ's feminism is a surrogate for a swingin' sex life that could cost him his wife, kids, career, reputation. PZ positions himself as a harmless teddybear and racy-joke-teller; and won't transgress beyond bragging about being invited to a woman's hotel room (unless, perhaps, he's absolutely sure he can get away with more, unscathed).

Fucking amazing mind reading skills. You better consider applying for Randi's 1M$ challenge. Also, PZ has not "bragged" about being invited to a woman's hotel room, he mentioned that in a relevant conversation and not at all in a tasteless manner.

Not to be too picky here but if you are going to criticize someone else for mind-reading skills then it is probably best not to put your own mindreading of Myers in the same post:

"He's an extremely ideological person with an obsession with privilege because he also views himself an under-privileged person due to his atheism."

Has Peezus ever said that?
As far as I can recall he's always claimed to be over-privileged rather than under privileged.

As for "bragging" about getting propositioned at atheist conferences - he has mentioned getting propositioned by a number of people in at least two separate posts. Just after elevatorgate he mentioned "several women and one man" asking him back to their room (presumably these were separate incidents rather than an invitation to an orgy) and more recently he's mentioned being propositioned at conferences over the years by about ten or twelve different women.
Is that bragging? I don't know of any other prominent atheist making such claims.
Is it really so unreasonable to view his mention of these propositions as bragging.

[Dave]

http://www.zombietime.com/anarchist_boo ... G_5957.JPG

WANT!!!

[SPACKlick]

http://www.zombietime.com/anarchist_boo ... G_5957.JPG

WANT!!!

$3 and it's yours

[SPACKlick]

$2 here

[Dick Strawkins]

http://www.zombietime.com/anarchist_boo ... G_5957.JPG

WANT!!!

Inside the cover there's no pictures, just a single sentence:

"What's the point, you're going to die anyway..."

[Southern]

http://www.zombietime.com/anarchist_boo ... G_5957.JPG

WANT!!!

Everything I need to know about nihilism, I learned in this instructional video:

[youtube]b_29yvYpf4w[/youtube]

[Southern]

Yeah, I also sense a whiff of sexual jealousy in PZ's radfem antiporn stance. I mean, dude's kind of ugly, as far as it goes... he's not a gargoyle but he's below average.

I thought PZ was pro-porn. At least, I'm sure he used to be.

Only if the porn has cephalopods and anime girls.

[codelette]

Yeah, I also sense a whiff of sexual jealousy in PZ's radfem antiporn stance. I mean, dude's kind of ugly, as far as it goes... he's not a gargoyle but he's below average.

I thought PZ was pro-porn. At least, I'm sure he used to be.

Only if the porn has cephalopods and anime girls.

And they ask for tentacle consent.

[another lurker]

Feminism is the theory that women know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

Oh I'm sorry, I mean soft and gentle with constant check-ins from the man to make sure the woman is still 100% enthusiastic about the sex.

Radical SJW feminists are, at every turn, making their lives suck more. The lady quoted in this thread is admitting this. They're sabotaging their relationships with men by putting out this propaganda which is untrue and encourages the whiny, fawning behavior they dislike. There are plenty of ordinary (but clueless) guys who will adopt a cringing, fawning dating persona in response to women saying that's what they want. Then they wonder why it doesn't work, and feminists wonder why finding a good guy is hard.

I do find it hilarious that so many feminists still support a traditional dating scene where all the pressure is on the man to initiate everything (and many feminists will even say or imply men should still pay for everything). Only now, they've added on that the man is 100% responsible for securing total consent at every step in the relationship. The woman has no responsibility to make her intentions known unless asked, and even then, maybe not. And failure on the part of the man to secure consent at all times= CRIMINAL RAPE.

Can anyone doubt this sort of arrangement is going to make men bitter and women more selfish and arrogant? Sure, some feminists understand this and want to remove the dating burden from men. But these feminists are having to fight the spoiled-ass SJW feminists, who still see dating as "man jumps through hoops to win my affection."

What a giant strawman... strawperson. I am sure it burns well. Look, there are a lot of loons under every label. They are called extremists and exist apparently in every direction. There are now more internet loons behind feminism and other social justice causes because its currently trendy and the “right thing” where it gives otherwise clueless, intellectually weak and rhetorically impaired people a way to trump up on the internet, by throwing away nuance but appearing all good and righteous. Almost like Troll 2.0, that developed out of the forum-comment-section sherriff perhaps. These are, in my mind, people who want to be right on the internet and where the current dynamic makes the extreme fabricate+smear scheme effective in most cases, while they can hide behind righteous anger when it doesn't work out. Behavior like that is often not called out, as it can be conflated with the issue itself.

Feminism is hardly about dating roles, and it is hardly the reason why there are some new challenges with courtship (as they exist each in their time). It always was an issue and is almost by definion, where a look into history, gazillion thousands of schmaltzy songs etc. should tell you there is A LOT of disappointment that cannot be reasonably placed at the feet of women's rights movements. Not to forget, feminism has very diverse directions which is also plausible if you understand the premises.

Didn't we have this discussion a couple of weeks ago? Oh right, all of feminism,or any movement for that matter, can always be defined by the extremists:P

<3 you Aneris, always the voice of reason.

[Ericb]

Yeah, I also sense a whiff of sexual jealousy in PZ's radfem antiporn stance. I mean, dude's kind of ugly, as far as it goes... he's not a gargoyle but he's below average.

I thought PZ was pro-porn. At least, I'm sure he used to be.

Only if the porn has cephalopods and anime girls.

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/201 ... =312&h=176

[Dave]

http://www.zombietime.com/anarchist_boo ... G_5957.JPG

WANT!!!

$3 and it's yours

Buying it seems wrong somehow.

[Suet Cardigan]

If you want a coloring book, try this one instead:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5 ... SY300_.jpg

[Ericb]

If you want a coloring book, try this one instead:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5 ... SY300_.jpg

or

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5 ... 3,200_.jpg

[codelette]

Yeah, I also sense a whiff of sexual jealousy in PZ's radfem antiporn stance. I mean, dude's kind of ugly, as far as it goes... he's not a gargoyle but he's below average.

I thought PZ was pro-porn. At least, I'm sure he used to be.

Only if the porn has cephalopods and anime girls.

And they ask for tentacle consent.

[Service Dog]

What a giant strawman... strawperson. I am sure it burns well. Look, there are a lot of loons under every label. They are called extremists and exist apparently in every direction. There are now more internet loons behind feminism and other social justice causes because its currently trendy and the “right thing” where it gives otherwise clueless, intellectually weak and rhetorically impaired people a way to trump up on the internet, by throwing away nuance but appearing all good and righteous. Almost like Troll 2.0, that developed out of the forum-comment-section sherriff perhaps. These are, in my mind, people who want to be right on the internet and where the current dynamic makes the extreme fabricate+smear scheme effective in most cases, while they can hide behind righteous anger when it doesn't work out. Behavior like that is often not called out, as it can be conflated with the issue itself.

Feminism is hardly about dating roles, and it is hardly the reason why there are some new challenges with courtship (as they exist each in their time). It always was an issue and is almost by definion, where a look into history, gazillion thousands of schmaltzy songs etc. should tell you there is A LOT of disappointment that cannot be reasonably placed at the feet of women's rights movements. Not to forget, feminism has very diverse directions which is also plausible if you understand the premises.

Didn't we have this discussion a couple of weeks ago? Oh right, all of feminism,or any movement for that matter, can always be defined by the extremists:P

<3 you Aneris, always the voice of reason.

I think you guys are the ones jousting a straw man. Caruthers amply indicated that he wasn't broadbrushing to all feminists. His first 2 sentences indicated at-least 2 distinct groups, and he offered qualifying adjectives afterward:

Feminism is the theory that women know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

Oh I'm sorry, I mean soft and gentle with constant check-ins from the man to make sure the woman is still 100% enthusiastic about the sex.

Radical SJW feminists are, at every turn, making their lives suck more. The lady quoted in this thread is admitting this. They're sabotaging their relationships with men by putting out this propaganda which is untrue and encourages the whiny, fawning behavior they dislike. There are plenty of ordinary (but clueless) guys who will adopt a cringing, fawning dating persona in response to women saying that's what they want. Then they wonder why it doesn't work, and feminists wonder why finding a good guy is hard.

I do find it hilarious that so many feminists still support a traditional dating scene where all the pressure is on the man to initiate everything (and many feminists will even say or imply men should still pay for everything). Only now, they've added on that the man is 100% responsible for securing total consent at every step in the relationship. The woman has no responsibility to make her intentions known unless asked, and even then, maybe not. And failure on the part of the man to secure consent at all times= CRIMINAL RAPE.

Can anyone doubt this sort of arrangement is going to make men bitter and women more selfish and arrogant? Sure, some feminists understand this and want to remove the dating burden from men. But these feminists are having to fight the spoiled-ass SJW feminists, who still see dating as "man jumps through hoops to win my affection."

I think Aneris' view glosses-over feminism's influence over sex in society, such as campus codes of conduct, conference policies, workplace rules, and govt legislation. And there is indeed a schism within feminism about what form feminism's influence on our sex lives should take: pro-sex or anti-porn policies.

In fact, so much of what we, here at the pit, usually ascribe to SJWs-- is a product of feminism's civil-war over sex. Gone are the days when pro-sex feminists (like David Futrelle!) boldly opposed statuatory rape laws/ and anti-porn feminists opposed immodest dress and naked pictures.

Now-- today's "pro-sex" feminists are FREQUENTLY anti-sex trojan horses, trying to win the civil war via infiltration. (Such as the 'Enthusiastic Consent' people who say "anything less" is rape, or those who fret over "depictions" of women.)

[another lurker]

Haha. So, yesterday, there was a short discussion about the decline of news media, specifically print news. Well, there is a villain. And one brave news editor has broken the story:

http://www.journalinquirer.com/opinion/ ... TNNoMobile

Even in a supposedly prosperous and well-educated state like Connecticut, how strong can demand for those things be now that half the children are being raised without two parents at home and thus acquiring developmental handicaps; 70 percent of community college and state university freshmen have not mastered what used to be considered basic high school skills; poverty has risen steadily even as government appropriations in the name of remediating poverty have risen steadily; and democracy has sunk so much that half the eligible population isn't voting in presidential elections, 65 percent isn't voting in state elections, and 85 percent isn't voting in municipal elections?

This social disintegration and decline in civic engagement coincide with the decline of traditional journalism just as much as the rise of the Internet does.

Indeed, newspapers still can sell themselves to traditional households -- two-parent families involved with their children, schools, churches, sports, civic groups, and such. But newspapers cannot sell themselves to households headed by single women who have several children by different fathers, survive on welfare stipends, can hardly speak or read English, move every few months to cheat their landlords, barely know what town they're living in, and couldn't afford a newspaper subscription even if they could read. And such households constitute a rising share of the population.

[another lurker]

@Service Dog

If you look upthread, I already agreed with some of what James Caruthers wrote. And yes, JC did say 'some' feminists. I was just referencing last week's argument:P And it is true that Aneris is often the voice of reason...

[katamari Damassi]

If you want a coloring book, try this one instead:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5 ... SY300_.jpg

An FTB coloring book? What page is Thibideedoo on?

[deLurch]

One thing I find interesting in that is the similarity between Christian theology and academic feminism/critical theory.

I can't quite simply blame everything stupid on religion. I have a whole gaggle full of A+er's, FTBers and "Skep"chicks showing me otherwise.

[bovarchist]

Is it my imagination, or is Myers even more spit-flecked than usual recently? I mean, 'Dundertoot'? That's lame even for him.

[Tribble]

Exactly! I don't think you can emphasize this enough. The real world dynamic (in my real world experience) operates completely and entirely in opposition to the concept of 'enthusiastic consent'. Frankly, being of mostly logical mind, it drove me bonkers for years until I finally sorted the reality of it (see my prior response to Tribble - or was it Strawkins, damn - , which touches on the same topic). Most woman do NOT communicate their interests literally. They WANT that push through, just as you state. My take on it is that it is a test of interest for the male: how badly do you *really* want me? Are you willing to work for it?

Twas I. And I've the same experiences. And given up on relationships because I took that coy-push-me-to-win-me game as a rejection. Only to get blowback from the woman, or whomever set us up, about misreading the situation and 'blowing it' and more than one 'what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you-for-leading-me-on' message on the answering phone. I even got accused of being 'a fag' and wanting a beard back in the early '80s before it was (more-or-less) ok to be gay.

In this environment, how is the one doing the push through (women *are* capable of doing it, too) supposed to know when a line has been crossed, because it isn't always obvious, not by a long shot. This nearly infinitely gray shaded 'line' is so variable from individual to individual as to be virtually impossible to define in any broad, reliable way. My initial adaption was that if the coy ambivalence went beyond the most minimal posing, I simply stopped pushing and switched to dis-interest. This ultimately became my default position and I ended up being very comfortable with that. Let them come to me. If I was interested, I would make that clear, period. A real life example: My SO initiated a surprise breakup. Literally came home and found my stuff piled on the porch. Fortunately I had a place to stay and just moved there on the spot after she informed me through the door with new locks that I didn't live there anymore. Weeks later, we happened to cross paths in a local club and she took me aside, in tears, demanding to know why I didn't call or chase her. I pointed out that she had told me to go away, so I did. She then told me I was supposed to fight for her. To coin a phrase: "Um, no, Homey don't play that game."

A few weeks later, she searched me out and asked me to move back in. I considered it, but I just didn't trust that dynamic anymore and never did go back. When I said 'no' to her that last time, I saw a whole new person emerge (cat-spit mean!) and was really, really happy I made the hard decision to stay away.

Ouch. Never had it that bad, though I've been cussed out a few times.

In order for the 'enthusiastic consent' theory to work, the sjw's are going to have to come up with a way to change that fundamental dynamic, and it is AT LEAST as much on the women as it is on the men. I am actually a huge fan of enthusiastic consent. I prefer my women on an equal footing with myself - strong, capable, independent and with a fully engaged mutual interest. In my experience, that is a very, very rare thing indeed. Changing that dynamic is going to require changing a lot of inherent and fundamental characteristics of human behavioral culture. Frankly, I do not see that happening for a very, very long time, if it is even possible at all.

I've found that it's rare for a woman every expose herself to rejection by pursuing a man. I know SOME do. But it's such a small part of the population. OTOH, as a man, I've got scores of rejections for a few successes. But that's the price you have to pay to play the 'finding a mate' game. Otherwise, it's going to be a lonely life at home with a tube of lube and a box of Kleenex.

[Aneris]

[...] I think Aneris' view glosses-over feminism's influence over sex in society, such as campus codes of conduct, conference policies, workplace rules, and govt legislation. And there is indeed a schism within feminism about what form feminism's influence on our sex lives should take: pro-sex or anti-porn policies.

In fact, so much of what we, here at the pit, usually ascribe to SJWs-- is a product of feminism's civil-war over sex. Gone are the days when pro-sex feminists (like David Futrelle!) boldly opposed statuatory rape laws/ and anti-porn feminists opposed immodest dress and naked pictures.

Now-- today's "pro-sex" feminists are FREQUENTLY anti-sex trojan horses, trying to win the civil war via infiltration. (Such as the 'Enthusiastic Consent' people who say "anything less" is rape, or those who fret over "depictions" of women.)

Could be, though such claims seem to be very different based on where you live. The US is a very different beast than other Western countries. It is oddly religious, lacks national consensus on too many topics, resulting in very different “realities of life” and often “disjunct” developments. Don't get me wrong, I like the US a lot and love to come over, which I did a few times already — but it's also a somewhat weird society capabale of producing some “extreme” or eccentric lifestyles, while almost lacking a broad, large, sane, middle ground (which all also shows in the partisan nature of almost everything).

In Germany, of course there are workplace rules, probably stereotypically ten times as many as there are in any other country. However, when it comes to regulating the interpersonal (and legal rules), it's much more sensible. It seems due to the extreme legal fees in the USA, employers need to cover their ass, which may produce strange effects (speculation!). If some action at work is deemed probematic in Germany, the employer may give a warning or fire the employee directly (a warning has legal implication, as after some amount they can fire legally). In both cases, the employee might appeal if they feel this was not justified. Grey areas are always grey areas and it's pointless trying to generalize them (if that was possible, they wouldn't be grey areas). In that case, someone else will look into it and settle the matter. If not a grey area, both sides are probably aware that some issue occurred. Anyway, those stories I heard from US workplaces are atypical in Germany.

Another example, abortion was a topic in the Germany in the 1970s, solved then, and was a polarizing issue in society well into the 1990s. Feminists fought for it and succeeded. That seems to be where the USA is now, but again, with the “many realities”, more extreme, isssues. Germany's most famous Feminist Alice Schwarzer, now over 70 years old, had their large part in that too, and she was indeed also against pornography (but did not succeed) <german pornography jokes here>. Sexuality is much more open and relaxed, so there is no issus with that (but there is still with everyday sexism, as everywhere else in the west). Since I checked the data, more than 80% of all Germans know this feminist (Alice Schwarzer) and think she did a great job overall.

Just a change of perspective. Besides, commentary isn't always just agree/disagree. I didn't disagree with everything Caruther's said. I might also add that the whole enthusiastic consent thing as suggested by SJW is complete rubbish. But that was discussed a few times extensively.

@another lurker
Thanks :)

[debaser71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

[Zenspace]

Exactly! I don't think you can emphasize this enough. The real world dynamic (in my real world experience) operates completely and entirely in opposition to the concept of 'enthusiastic consent'. Frankly, being of mostly logical mind, it drove me bonkers for years until I finally sorted the reality of it (see my prior response to Tribble - or was it Strawkins, damn - , which touches on the same topic). Most woman do NOT communicate their interests literally. They WANT that push through, just as you state. My take on it is that it is a test of interest for the male: how badly do you *really* want me? Are you willing to work for it?

Twas I. And I've the same experiences. And given up on relationships because I took that coy-push-me-to-win-me game as a rejection. Only to get blowback from the woman, or whomever set us up, about misreading the situation and 'blowing it' and more than one 'what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you-for-leading-me-on' message on the answering phone. I even got accused of being 'a fag' and wanting a beard back in the early '80s before it was (more-or-less) ok to be gay.

In this environment, how is the one doing the push through (women *are* capable of doing it, too) supposed to know when a line has been crossed, because it isn't always obvious, not by a long shot. This nearly infinitely gray shaded 'line' is so variable from individual to individual as to be virtually impossible to define in any broad, reliable way. My initial adaption was that if the coy ambivalence went beyond the most minimal posing, I simply stopped pushing and switched to dis-interest. This ultimately became my default position and I ended up being very comfortable with that. Let them come to me. If I was interested, I would make that clear, period. A real life example: My SO initiated a surprise breakup. Literally came home and found my stuff piled on the porch. Fortunately I had a place to stay and just moved there on the spot after she informed me through the door with new locks that I didn't live there anymore. Weeks later, we happened to cross paths in a local club and she took me aside, in tears, demanding to know why I didn't call or chase her. I pointed out that she had told me to go away, so I did. She then told me I was supposed to fight for her. To coin a phrase: "Um, no, Homey don't play that game."

A few weeks later, she searched me out and asked me to move back in. I considered it, but I just didn't trust that dynamic anymore and never did go back. When I said 'no' to her that last time, I saw a whole new person emerge (cat-spit mean!) and was really, really happy I made the hard decision to stay away.

Ouch. Never had it that bad, though I've been cussed out a few times.

Yup. We had actually been living together for 7 years at that point, too. Quite the smack to the head coming home from work that first evening. I never got accused of being gay, tho, and I did have a well trimmed beard for some of my single time!

In order for the 'enthusiastic consent' theory to work, the sjw's are going to have to come up with a way to change that fundamental dynamic, and it is AT LEAST as much on the women as it is on the men. I am actually a huge fan of enthusiastic consent. I prefer my women on an equal footing with myself - strong, capable, independent and with a fully engaged mutual interest. In my experience, that is a very, very rare thing indeed. Changing that dynamic is going to require changing a lot of inherent and fundamental characteristics of human behavioral culture. Frankly, I do not see that happening for a very, very long time, if it is even possible at all.

I've found that it's rare for a woman every expose herself to rejection by pursuing a man. I know SOME do. But it's such a small part of the population. OTOH, as a man, I've got scores of rejections for a few successes. But that's the price you have to pay to play the 'finding a mate' game. Otherwise, it's going to be a lonely life at home with a tube of lube and a box of Kleenex.

I've known a (very) few women who that do as well. It is especially interesting to hear their 'reporting back from the front', so to speak. The nearly universal observation is along the lines of 'how do you guys even have an ego left after a few rejections like that?" It really was quite telling and a huge eye opener for the women who took that chance. They were always much more understanding and aware in their rejections afterwards.

I think what made the difference for me was to remove the 'neediness' from the process. Once I was alone after that long relationship, I lived alone for several years and enjoyed it. I learned to be comfortable with just myself, by myself. That is where my personal self-confidence finally started to become apparent, I think, with the realization that I didn't actually NEED anyone, I just enjoyed the company of good people as a whole person unto myself, but having that company wasn't absolutely necessary, just pleasant when it happened. Apparently that confidence comes through at some level in my interactions with people, because people started reacting to me differently as well. I think people can detect desperation and it is a huge turn-off - for everyone, not just women. Quiet confidence seems to have the exact opposite effect.

Sure, I spent the majority of my nights home alone, but that was really OK, I was deeply comfortable with that. If I hooked up, cool. If not, that was cool, too! I did get an awful lot of reading done! :mrgreen:

As a fun aside, I had been out of the dating scene for well over a decade at that point and, brother, talk about miscues and a major learning curve! For the first year I think I redefined the definition of 'crash and burn' on the social front! :lol:

[James Caruthers]

Feminism is the theory that women know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

Oh I'm sorry, I mean soft and gentle with constant check-ins from the man to make sure the woman is still 100% enthusiastic about the sex.

Radical SJW feminists are, at every turn, making their lives suck more. The lady quoted in this thread is admitting this. They're sabotaging their relationships with men by putting out this propaganda which is untrue and encourages the whiny, fawning behavior they dislike. There are plenty of ordinary (but clueless) guys who will adopt a cringing, fawning dating persona in response to women saying that's what they want. Then they wonder why it doesn't work, and feminists wonder why finding a good guy is hard.

I do find it hilarious that so many feminists still support a traditional dating scene where all the pressure is on the man to initiate everything (and many feminists will even say or imply men should still pay for everything). Only now, they've added on that the man is 100% responsible for securing total consent at every step in the relationship. The woman has no responsibility to make her intentions known unless asked, and even then, maybe not. And failure on the part of the man to secure consent at all times= CRIMINAL RAPE.

Can anyone doubt this sort of arrangement is going to make men bitter and women more selfish and arrogant? Sure, some feminists understand this and want to remove the dating burden from men. But these feminists are having to fight the spoiled-ass SJW feminists, who still see dating as "man jumps through hoops to win my affection."

What a giant strawman... strawperson. I am sure it burns well. Look, there are a lot of loons under every label. They are called extremists and exist apparently in every direction. There are now more internet loons behind feminism and other social justice causes because its currently trendy and the “right thing” where it gives otherwise clueless, intellectually weak and rhetorically impaired people a way to trump up on the internet, by throwing away nuance but appearing all good and righteous. Almost like Troll 2.0, that developed out of the forum-comment-section sherriff perhaps. These are, in my mind, people who want to be right on the internet and where the current dynamic makes the extreme fabricate+smear scheme effective in most cases, while they can hide behind righteous anger when it doesn't work out. Behavior like that is often not called out, as it can be conflated with the issue itself.

Feminism is hardly about dating roles, and it is hardly the reason why there are some new challenges with courtship (as they exist each in their time). It always was an issue and is almost by definion, where a look into history, gazillion thousands of schmaltzy songs etc. should tell you there is A LOT of disappointment that cannot be reasonably placed at the feet of women's rights movements. Not to forget, feminism has very diverse directions which is also plausible if you understand the premises.

I explained I was not saying ALL feminists. Every time someone criticizes things they notice about feminism, someone says "not all ____ are like that." And fine, they're not.

There are a lot of people who describe as feminists, I guess you would call them loons or extremist feminists. But there are a lot, and they absolutely do expect that equality of the sexes means men still doing all that traditional male dating stuff, and playing the mind games, and paying for everything, and men actively pursuing/chasing women without women having to actively pursue men. Only now on top of this, men are responsible for securing consent at all levels, even mid-sex. I even clarified that I was speaking about "radical feminists" and "SJW feminists" which are terms I use interchangeably because these SEEM to be the people who are doing this.

Just like you see female MRAs who are trojan horse lazy-ass do-nothings who want a big, strong man to do everything for them, and are pissed off because feminism has changed the gender dynamic... Just like this, you see feminists who enjoy the equality feminism brought when it benefits them, but who get pissed off when a man expects her to pay for dates, or child support, or get off her ass and actively pursue the men she wants to date. Maybe those aren't "real" feminists, but I gotta say, I sure see a hell of a lot of these kinds of feminists. "Entitlement feminists" might be a good word for them. And when they get married, do you really think these feminists will be expecting a stay-at-home husband while they work all day? :lol:

I'm actually quite fond of Judith Butler and a few other feminists. There are some good ones out there. But this is the Pitt. The feminists we come across on here are SJW pretend victim feminists. Those are the ones I'm talking about. 8-) I think I even pointed out how gender equality feminists have to fight against the SJWs in their own ranks.

[Ape+lust]

http://i.imgur.com/KPN0Nmc.jpg

Larger version

[Gefan]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/KPN0Nmc.jpg[img]

Larger version

First ballot Hall of Fame, right there, Ape+lust. :clap:

For the record I was listening to Zevon's incomparable, mournful "Renegade" (complete with sublime violin accompaniment by Mary Ramsey) and opened up the Pit to see that.
If there is such a thing as "emotional whiplash" - I now has it.

[Gefan]

Massively off-topic - Tom Clancy just died.

To steal from the late Bette Davis: it has been said that, of the dead, one should say only good.

In keeping with that: Tom Clancy is dead?

Good.

Holy fuck, what a dick.

That great howling you hear in the background is several million neo-cons wondering what they're going to jerk off to at night in years to come.

[Tribble]

...
So, promote the behavior of one set of guys and then call them a turnoff?
Wow, how can men be so confused about what women feminists want?

BTW, she also said this shit below...

But they're so serious about their feminism at every moment that I don’t feel like a person to them. I feel like I'm on a pedestal, almost. I know that they're not going to disagree with anything I say under any circumstances. And I don't feel like I can make a raunchy joke about sex, because they'll be horrified. . . . I hate to be critical of our allies in any way, because we need them, but there's something about that certain kind of hyperfeminist guy that makes them unappealing to date, to me. I suspect it has something to do with our internal conceptions of masculinity, which is terrible on my part.

So, she castrates the guy then wonders why he's such a limp dick... And the ones she doesn't castrate hit the road because they're apparently not interested in her bullshit.

Life is teaching her a lesson, too bad she's not learning it.

[Tribble]

Does anyone remember an under rated B movie from he 80's called Cherry 2000(one of Melanie Griffith's early films)? The premise was that straight men had gotten so tired of women's bullshit(lawyers would accompany them on 1st dates)that they all started using sexbots, and it sort of led to the apocalypse. Starting to look prescient, huh?

Yes! I remember that movie. She was a bounty hunter trying to find a replacement Cherry 2000 because the model wasn't made anymore and the dude's blew up. And since he'd stopped having sex with real women for quite some time, he didn't have any 'recent audition tapes' to show prospective partners he could 'do them properly.' So not only was his sex robot broken, he couldn't get laid with real women anymore.

I fell asleep. It wasn't that good. But I kind of remember the first hour or so...

[Tribble]

Feminism is the theory that women know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

Oh I'm sorry, I mean soft and gentle with constant check-ins from the man to make sure the woman is still 100% enthusiastic about the sex.

Radical SJW feminists are, at every turn, making their lives suck more. The lady quoted in this thread is admitting this. They're sabotaging their relationships with men by putting out this propaganda which is untrue and encourages the whiny, fawning behavior they dislike. There are plenty of ordinary (but clueless) guys who will adopt a cringing, fawning dating persona in response to women saying that's what they want. Then they wonder why it doesn't work, and feminists wonder why finding a good guy is hard.

I do find it hilarious that so many feminists still support a traditional dating scene where all the pressure is on the man to initiate everything (and many feminists will even say or imply men should still pay for everything). Only now, they've added on that the man is 100% responsible for securing total consent at every step in the relationship. The woman has no responsibility to make her intentions known unless asked, and even then, maybe not. And failure on the part of the man to secure consent at all times= CRIMINAL RAPE.

Can anyone doubt this sort of arrangement is going to make men bitter and women more selfish and arrogant? Sure, some feminists understand this and want to remove the dating burden from men. But these feminists are having to fight the spoiled-ass SJW feminists, who still see dating as "man jumps through hoops to win my affection."

It's enough to turn even an ordinary person into an MRA. And yeah, I'm no fan of the MRA movement. But, in the face of such idiocy, you can see how they have a point...

Yeah. I kind of agree. Fortunately there are plenty of non-radfem women out there.

[screwtape]

PZ Myers broadcasts his feminism for the same reason Hugo Schwyzer does:
to attract a legion of female admirers.
But PZ's feminism is a surrogate for a swingin' sex life that could cost him his wife, kids, career, reputation. PZ positions himself as a harmless teddybear and racy-joke-teller; and won't transgress beyond bragging about being invited to a woman's hotel room (unless, perhaps, he's absolutely sure he can get away with more, unscathed).

Hugo's various diagnoses-- sex addiction, narcissism-- give him the gumption to 'shit where he eats' and actually screw his students. Hugo actually played high-stakes poker with sex & consequences, while PZ doesn't dare do more than pretend-to onstage.

So, of course PZ resented Hugo, when Hugo was riding-high, having his cake and eating it too, beating the odds. PZ's a player-hater. That's why PZ tears-down Dawkins, Shermer, dudebros.

PZ is a wannabe Hugo-feminist.
but PZ's risk-adversity leaves him stuck being a bitter David'Manboobz'Futrelle-feminist.

I hope you were high when you wrote that crap and now that you are sober you realize that it was stupid. But in the unlikely case that you actually meant that ([/sarcasm]), here it goes: Sometimes "Mr. X is a feminist to bag chicks" is a retarded argument, for example in this case. Where is your fucking evidence that PZ is a wannabe Hugo or that he is interested in having sex with a lot of women? Once in a blue moon he posts something that, with some stretch of the definition of the word, can be considered "naughty". Yeah, he's not a virgin if that's what you are trying to prove. Some heterosexual men are not interested in swinging or fucking other women or many women for that matter. Also, it's doubly stupid to accuse PZ of being a feminist to get in the pants of the ladies because it is blatantly obvious where his dogmatic form of feminism comes from: He's an extremely ideological person with an obsession with privilege because he also views himself an under-privileged person due to his atheism.

Due to his atheism? I've never had the feeling from Peezus that he feels inferior in any way as an atheist, and we can all see him posting daily sentiments that indicate he feels superior to theists of all stripes. Some of those posts might be in error, as he exhibits all the usual woolly thinking of a low-level academic who has a high opinion of himself despite holding a position in an undergraduate-only non-research-based institution. Such is life. But as for the reason behind the swerve towards social justice and radical feminism? I can accept cynical and worldly explanations like the need for page views to generate revenue, but I don't think that is anything but a small portion of the motivation. I'm afraid we are dealing with something more profound here, and more dangerous. He is an idealist who actually is convinced of the rightness/righteousness of his cause. Rational argument will not sway him from this stance. Personal liability and financial risk evidently don't work either. I agree he isn't getting into anyone's pants (except the same old marital routines - wouldn't we love to hear from Mrs Myers for her opinions on third-wave feminism?), so sex isn't the reason. Why do people do impossibly strange things? The three causes, having ruled out actual mental illness, are sex, money and ideology. In Peezus's case I would say it goes: sex - no, money - just a very little, ideology - oh yes! He believes it. He might be willing to martyr himself for it - I don't mean to invoke explosive vests or crucifixion (except for the version he already enjoys in the minds of those who enjoy clarity in their thinking). But give him something as banal as being fired for taking this stance, or having to ask his minions for donations to pay the damages awarded against him in a defamation case, and he will revel in it. Nature of the beast. Beware the ideologues, because they don't act in a predictable and rational way. Ironically, some of them end up as the founding members of religions, and that would be a truly scary thought in this case.

[Service Dog]

Sometimes "Mr. X is a feminist to bag chicks" is a retarded argument, for example in this case.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. I contend Schwyzer positions himself as 'one of the good ones' to literally have sex with his students, colleagues, and guest speakers. I contend PZ merely confines himself to dreaming he could impregnate a thousand chicks.
But I don't think PZ pursues that urge-- beyond cozying-up to feminists politically, rhetorically, and socially.

Where is your fucking evidence that PZ is a wannabe Hugo or that he is interested in having sex with a lot of women?

At 6:13 in his talk, "Evolution: I Do The Kinky Stuff", at Skepticon 5, PZ said:

“There’s Wolverine. He’s got the superpowers. He’s got the hot rockin’ sexy bod. He looks like whatshisname— the actor who plays him— Hugh Jackman. He’s marvelous. What you’d expect is he’s going to have a thousand children, hardly even trying. And what you’d expect is if this is such a superpowerful mutation is that, is that at some point every human being on the planet is going to be descended from Wolverine— also known as Hugh Jackman— and is going to be just as good looking and have the same superpowers. That’s our dream right? Some of us are already there. But the rest of you, you can work on it.”

Once in a blue moon he posts something that, with some stretch of the definition of the word, can be considered "naughty".

No blue moon or stretch is required. PZ's public appearances are sprinkled with his trademark gratuitous, stale, naughty one-liners. In the video of him atop the dinosaur at the Creation Museum he blurts-out a suggestion that he pose naked. In "Evolution: I Do The Kinky Stuff" he inserted a slide of a Lego toy-orgy: http://i.imgur.com/JdF68oQ.png Don't forget his Google+ hangout joke, about using Dove Soap to wash after committing rape. And the card-playing incident, of course:

The relative tameness of what PZ considers edgy-- compared to Hugo's smut -- proves my point:
PZ only pisses impotently in dangerous waters/ while Hugo dives right in, cock first.

Fucking amazing mind reading skills. You better consider applying for Randi's 1M$ challenge.

[youtube]A939QRRSNV4[/youtube]

[Service Dog]

Same post, better formatting:

Sometimes "Mr. X is a feminist to bag chicks" is a retarded argument, for example in this case.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. I contend Schwyzer positions himself as 'one of the good ones' to literally have sex with his students, colleagues, and guest speakers. I contend PZ merely confines himself to dreaming he could impregnate a thousand chicks.
But I don't think PZ pursues that urge-- beyond cozying-up to feminists politically, rhetorically, and socially.

Where is your fucking evidence that PZ is a wannabe Hugo or that he is interested in having sex with a lot of women?

At 6:13 in his talk, "Evolution: I Do The Kinky Stuff", at Skepticon 5, PZ said:

“There’s Wolverine. He’s got the superpowers. He’s got the hot rockin’ sexy bod. He looks like whatshisname— the actor who plays him— Hugh Jackman. He’s marvelous. What you’d expect is he’s going to have a thousand children, hardly even trying. And what you’d expect is if this is such a superpowerful mutation is that, is that at some point every human being on the planet is going to be descended from Wolverine— also known as Hugh Jackman— and is going to be just as good looking and have the same superpowers. That’s our dream right? Some of us are already there. But the rest of you, you can work on it.”

Once in a blue moon he posts something that, with some stretch of the definition of the word, can be considered "naughty".

No blue moon or stretch is required. PZ's public appearances are sprinkled with his trademark gratuitous, stale, naughty one-liners. In the video of him atop the dinosaur at the Creation Museum he blurts-out a suggestion that he pose naked. In "Evolution: I Do The Kinky Stuff" he inserted a slide of a Lego toy-orgy: http://i.imgur.com/JdF68oQ.png Don't forget his Google+ hangout joke, about using Dove Soap to wash after committing rape. And the card-playing incident, of course:

The relative tameness of what PZ considers edgy-- compared to Hugo's smut -- proves my point:
PZ only pisses impotently in dangerous waters/ while Hugo dives right in, cock first.

Fucking amazing mind reading skills. You better consider applying for Randi's 1M$ challenge.

[youtube]A939QRRSNV4[/youtube][/quote]

[Ape+lust]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/KPN0Nmc.jpg[img]

Larger version

First ballot Hall of Fame, right there, Ape+lust. :clap:

Thankyewthankyewthankyew!

...Good.

Holy fuck, what a dick.

That great howling you hear in the background is several million neo-cons wondering what they're going to jerk off to at night in years to come.

I was just reading poor Pat Conroy has to listen to his USMC dad rave about the great writer, who unlike his boy, respects the military. Conroy has a Citadel ring, Clancy has ballcaps from most ships in the fleet. But hey, there can be no finer service than helping make a Hollywood pinhead "look presidential."