Brain

Mounting the Throne of Peter

We have a wealth of statistics, insightful reasoning and copious references in support of our positions on women in general and feminists in particular. We should. That is what we do best; take a logical stand and support it. Among ourselves that is entirely appropriate and should continue. When dealing with most women and all feminists there is no substitute for knee-jerk, entirely visceral and inflexible moral judgments. In fact, they should be preferred.

Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them. Women, generally speaking, don’t because indignation, outrage and gut level distaste are rooted in emotionalism. Women do understand base emotionalism and do respond to it in a more predictable way than they could ever respond to reason. They are also more likely to respond appropriately because the message is more clearly understood. Emotionalism is their language.

When you blurt out a definitive moral statement from the soul rather than a contrivance of the mind, you then occupy the high ground. It puts those who disagree with you in the unenviable position of convincing you that bad is better, if they are to persuade you at all. They may not wish to persuade you, but in the case of women, if others take your position they will feel compelled to try. Thereby forcing them more closely examine their own positions.

Feminism and Moral Relativism

Feminists promote Moral Relativism for one simple reason: Feminism is suspect on moral grounds and they know it. It is necessary for them to muddy the waters in the minds of the public because feminism cannot stand in the face of any absolute standard of morality. In a system of binary right and wrong, the individual tenets of feminism will usually fail. Those tenets that do not fail are easily acceptable to men. One doesn’t need feminism to sell those.

The Utility of Ceaseless Moralizing

If the Civil Rights Movement used the strategy of the MRM, segregation would still be in place. Imagine if MLK or any other civil rights leader ascended the bully pulpit and went on and on about how studies have shown that desegregating mass transit will increase GDP by 14 percent or how a voter registration initiative will reduce the incidence of infectious disease. People rejected racism because it was unequivocally wrong. No other facts were necessary. The hammer of moral justice came down on Jim Crow and that was it. The losers in that battle were the ones to resort to recitation of supposedly sound arguments.

In a personal context, we don’t even have to employ female examples to see how much more effective judgmental dogmatism can be. Imagine a party where you observe another guest double dipping a chip. Imagine first that you tell him about the geometric reproduction of bacteria and go on to list the different species of microbes contained in human saliva. Now imagine that you say, “I don’t want your germs you f-i-l-t-h-y pig!” Which would have the most personal impact?

No need to waste words or knock yourself out reasoning with feminists or even your wife, for that matter, when a short and visceral pronouncement from on high will do and is more effective. Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful. Say so. Your position would be unassailable because they too believe it. They invoke moral relativism and slut pride marches as a means to escape the inescapable.

Ostracism and the Herd Mentality

Females have depended upon the collective from very ancient times. Until recently, social exclusion was fatal to a woman and her offspring. A man’s life and limb has always depended upon his ingenuity, cleverness and perseverance. The origin of reason and strength. A woman’s survival has always hinged upon maintaining membership in the group. It is natural for a man to favor liberty more than a woman because his survival depends upon skills that are distinct from those that would secure inclusion within a group. In the case of women, no such distinction is possible. To most effectively punish a man, remove his liberty. To most effectively punish a woman, expel her from the group.

Slut Walks, “Sex in the City” and the self esteem cult are all attempts to reassure women that even when they behave abominably that the bad behavior has the sanction of the collective and they face no risk of expulsion if they engage in it. To modify the behavior of women, reimpose that risk. The good news is that it can be done in relatively short order. Yes, the example of Lindsey Lohan is huge but somewhat remote. A stark and unvarnished remonstration from someone in closer proximity will undo the propaganda swiftly. Declarations of “that is disgusting” accumulate. Hearing it once may not overcome Cosmo and she can dismiss it as an isolated raving of a lunatic. If she were to hear it more often, however, she begins to doubt herself and wonder about her status within her more immediate collective. Women also have the tendency to assign more significance to something than it deserves. If she were categorically reproved as many as three or four times, she would imagine that the whole world is against her. A man can conclude that one man with courage is his own majority and it renders him invulnerable to criticism. A woman cannot. She is too reliant upon consensus. What is more, she is naturally more risk adverse. Risk is something men are supposed to take. A small handful of reproofs are enough to make her reconsider her behavior. There is too much at stake.

One does not have to always be punitive. There is nothing that can be done about the Mary Kellets and Vliet Triptees of this world but most women do want to align themselves with goodness. The problem lately has been that moral relativism and the aggressive marketing of debauchery has made discerning righteousness murky, particularly for women because they equate right with plurality of opinion. It is for us, who are able to identify virtue independently from community opinion, to point it out to them in a way that they can understand. There is plenty of room for positive encouragement too. It is just as easy to praise from an unmovable moral position as it is to condemn. Do it whenever it is warranted.

The Joy of Black and White Moral Absolutes

Chick language provides us with a construct that we can use. To women something is “nice” or it is “mean”. They use that simple, emotionally based dichotomy because that is what chicks understand. They use it with us and they use it with each other. That is how they evaluate the world. Use it.

To communicate a concept to women, a man need only set up a dichotomy and inject an emotional judgment. The difference is that instead of using the sliding scale of nice/mean that is situational, the right/wrong, good/evil dichotomies that we select are to be absolute. Most women want to be good so tell them what good is in a way they can grasp easily.

Who is to decide what is good and what is evil? Simple. You are. Some men might think it arrogant to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of all moral issues. Not true. As a man, nature equipped you to make decisions based on merit alone without respect to consensus. Women are bound by consensus and cannot divorce abstract principles from its influence. Act where they cannot. Such determinations must be made, so they might as well be made by you. You know right and wrong when you see it. We trust you.

A Couple of Possible Objections

Bigotry, injustice and immoderacy all sprout from emotionalism. Won’t a renewed emotional reflexiveness undo progress against evil? I think not. Enlightenment, like evolution, is irreversible. The arrow of time in on our side. Remember, it was undiluted moral condemnation that defeated the ills of the past in the first place. We have nothing to fear from the obstinate insistence on our current scruples.

What of good women? Do they deserve to be treated in such a heavy handed fashion? There are good women. The women who contribute to AVfM are proof of that. I am of the belief that most women are good, if somewhat misled. They only resist righteousness because they think that any behavior that the collective endorses IS righteous. The rare woman who is capable of moral judgment will select good herself and would not be on the receiving end of harsh moral criticism. Good women are human too. Even in the seldom occurring event of a temporary moral lapse by a decent woman, your diatribe will be no more severe than the one she administers to herself. Would you do less in the case of a man whose judgment falters? Aren’t decent women as deserving of positive recognition as morally weak women are of reproach?

About cooterbee

MRA contrarian and proponent of emotionalism within the MRM because it is under utilized and men could learn to perfect it, as they do anything else, and wield it to their advantage. Passivity is the best collective answer. All of the societies that nourish feminism deserve to be destroyed by the anarchy, unrest and predation that will inevitably come as feminism's natural result.

View All Posts
  • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

    I think you’re right about the nice/mean dichotomy. Most women do not want to feel like they’re being mean, therefore saying that opposing compassion for men is mean is the way to get them to either shut up or think.

    However I don’t think this is a natural state nor that men are more naturally inclined to non-consensus based morality then women.

    After all it was men who cast women as their moral betters and caved to gynocentrist demands in the first place. That suggests that emotionally-based decision making is just as much a domain of men as it is women. ‘Benefiting women feels emotionally good, therefore…’

    Both men and women need to jettison this behaviour.

    • Demonspawn

      However I don’t think this is a natural state nor that men are more naturally inclined to non-consensus based morality then women.

      Actually, they are. Women believe in equality, men believe in equity. There is the possibility that this is social, but I happen to believe it is biological. If nothing else, the breeding strategy of each gender leads towards male belief in equity and female belief in equality.

    • Paul Elam

      Interesting. I find myself disagreeing with you, which is pretty rare.

      Well, OK, superficially speaking, all emotion/instinct driven perspective and behavior falls short of a rational approach, but as a tool I think he is spot on in his assessment.

      We have to remember, I think, that there is no such thing as men or women operating in a vacuum. Men did not cast women as their moral betters, men and women cooperated their way into this arrangement.

      I think what CB is saying here is just one way to stop cooperating in that way.

      • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

        “Men did not cast women as their moral betters, men and women cooperated their way into this arrangement.”

        Oh no, I agree. Men were socialized to see women as their moral betters. But it’s still an emotional decision to privilege women’s benefit over common sense.

        “I think what CB is saying here is just one way to stop cooperating in that way.”

        I agree with the non-cooperation aspects of this.

        • Rog

          i have to disagree with you here i know many a strong man that tolerates his prediciment with his wife/woman because he is doing it for the children wouldnt that put him on the moral highground? above the wife who takes what he can give and then some? what i mean is that the better person will often suffer/work/tolerate in silence for the sake of the innocent/children and who would you consider the moral better in that case?

        • jms5762

          Not socialization as much as overwhelming social pressure from media gov’t and academia. I went with the flow despite how wrong it felt in my gut. I finally decided to roll with my instinct again. Something I should never have deviated from when I was a boy. Its like I died when I was ten and have been a zombie for 30 years. Now I want to be myself. I have to reanimate my friends and family too. I know the specter of feminism haunts them. It must be exorcised in order to release the cognitive dissonance that haunts so many. Time to be truly free and liberated!

    • dejour

      According to this website http://www.counseling.mtu.edu/myers_briggs.html

      the only personality difference between men and women is thinking vs feeling. 60% of men are thinkers and 60% of women are feelers. So it seems that there is some basis to argue that women argue emotionally and men logically. But still it is only 60/40, so I don’t think we should dismiss the appeal of logic.

      Also, angry, pointed, shaming of women often backfires because it arouses protective feelings of both men and other women.

    • Stu

      I don’t think men cast women as their moral betters in reality, I think men suck up to women and tell them their shit don’t stink so not to offend pussy.

      I suppose you are right come to think of it. Casting someone as morally better doesn’t mean you believe they are, it means you allow them to play that part, for whatever reason……I just think the reason is pussy.

      Hey Typhon, it looks like the group is disagreeing with you…….yes….look at those downvotes……you are at risk of rejection from the collective…..modify asap.

      I’m learning already :)

      • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

        “you are at risk of rejection from the collective”

        When did I become part of a collective? ;)

        • Bombay

          Since you were assimilated. LOL.

          • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

            heh.

          • xtrnl

            We are borg! LOL :-)

      • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

        To be honest, Stu, I was getting a bit uncomfortable with the near universal praise.

        I’m more used to being insulted wherever I go.

        ‘Oh good, someone hates me. I… I feel whole again.’

        • Stu

          Fear not Typhon…..you may be loved here….but you are hated nearly everywhere else. ;)

          • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

            Don’t love me, please. (Being loved sounds like work and I’m a lazy shit!)

            If you find my stuff useful, so be it, I’m glad to be of service.

      • BeijaFlor

        Stu, I definitely can see your point – that we men “go along to get along,” in the hopes of dipping our wicks into the old glory-hole, i.e. pussy.

        “Say anything you think you need to say, Cholmondeley, as long as it has the remotest chance of leading back to justification why you-and-she ought to play the double-backed beast. The most important thing is that you need to score … if that is helped by your presenting as a full-out mangina, your self-debasement is a price that you pay for maybe, just maybe, passing on your Debased-Degraded-Mangina DNA to a Liberated, Entitled, Delicate, Intolerant Goddess-Woman-Child-Princess Wymmun!”

        Pardon me while I puke….

  • AntZ

    I agree that we should fight to win, but I do not share your definition of “win”.

    For me, “win” mean freedom for men.

    If women return to their silver cage, how will men be liberated from our golden yoke?

    We currently live in a world where women have rights without responsibilities, and men have responsibilities without rights. There is no doubt that the world of “yesterday” was preferable to this horror. However, I like to think that the world of tomorrow may finally see men free of our collective obligation to provide and protect.

    The world will have to learn to live without male sweat, male tears, and male blood.

    • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

      I agree, antz.

      This sounds like another golden yoke for men to don, in this case serving women(the yoke) with their superior morality(the gold).

      Let women fuck their lives up with their choices till they evolve to make better ones.

      (BTW, you should patent that term, ‘golden yoke’, ‘golden yoking’, ‘doning the golden yoke’, ‘it’s a yoke, disguised as privilege with gold’,etc.)

    • Demonspawn

      However, I like to think that the world of tomorrow may finally see men free of our collective obligation to provide and protect.

      Then we will become the slaves of a society who’s men filled their “obligation” to provide and protect.

      • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

        “Then we will become the slaves of a society who’s men filled their “obligation” to provide and protect.”

        So nothing changes.

        • Demonspawn

          There is no way to free men. Therefore, the only rational choice is to return women to their duties.

          • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

            Here’s the problem, Demonspawn.

            How do you keep them there? It’s fairly obvious that women can slip the yoke when they like in our current cultural landscape(current being the last two thousand years). It’s obvious because _they did it with complete ease_.

            Think about the changes that need to be made in order to keep that yoke on women because saying the solution is ‘women have to assume their duties’ is meaningless without explaining how you’re going to compel women back into the yoke.

            And if your first answer is ‘men have to put it there’, it was men _who took it off in the first place_.

          • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

            IMHO, the only way to get women back into the yoke is to get men out of it.

            Women will have to abandon their silver cage for the the yoke and in the process will learn to adopt goal-based morality rather then consensus based morality.

            This is the path of least pain for men. Traditionalists themselves have made this so. Own it.

          • Demonspawn

            How do you keep them there?

            Religion. That’s the only answer that I’ve found that works. The problem is that as the society becomes advanced and safe it also tends to become secular, religion loses it’s pull and women slip their bonds of having a defined role.

            So what happens is that societies advance, they run into this problem (isn’t the first time in history this has happened) and then kill themselves off because equality became more important then equity. Rinse, Repeat.

            How do you get women back into the yoke? You don’t. Pandora’s box has been opened. There are only 4 solutions to Feminism: Revolt, Expat, Turtle, Religious Resurgence. The fourth is unfortunately out of our control.

            Men can’t put women in the yoke because… well… we’re too soft and we’re not risking damnation for failing to do so. But (the vast majority of) women will done it happily when “equality” means a substantial risk to life and limb. But equality doesn’t today, and risk of afterlife isn’t there to keep them in the yoke or to pressure men into placing women there, so we face the destruction of our society because… well… planned obsolescence in the human design?

            So we have to ask women: is what you want now worth the destruction of society that will sell your children down the river?

            The shame is that we already know how the vast majority will answer that question….

          • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

            “Men can’t put women in the yoke because… well… we’re too soft and we’re not risking damnation for failing to do so. But (the vast majority of) women will done it happily when “equality” means a substantial risk to life and limb.”

            So women will finally ‘don the yoke’ when they prefer to exempt themselves from the risks of public society.

            So, essentially, male slavery is just… the cost of human society. Never to be changed.

          • Demonspawn

            So, essentially, male slavery is just… the cost of human society. Never to be changed.

            Yes. Because if we don’t enslave our own men, then some other society which does will eat our lunch and our men will become enslaved anyways.

            It is the cost of this thing we enjoy called “Civilization”. If our men reject the cost, we die pretty quickly. If our women reject the cost, we slide into death… what we are witnessing today.

            The cycle of civilization really is that: that society becomes advanced enough that we think we don’t have to pay the piper, and then we eventually learn that he must be paid.

            It’s simply a trade-off. We could happily live in a society where men and women are fully free, given there was no other society outside ready and wanting to eat our lunch (the hard part) and we don’t care about obtaining or maintaining the advancements we currently have today (the big cost).

          • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

            So what you’re saying is that ‘men’s rights’ are an impossibility so we’re better off with a system in which men are offered some empty platitudes in exchange for their slavery? (But the yoke is _golden_! See?)

            I’m curious why you have an interest in men’s rights at all if you think they can’t possibly co-exist with civilization?

          • Demonspawn

            So what you’re saying is that ‘men’s rights’ are an impossibility

            What I’m saying is that to free men as we have freed women which will end our society is a Faustian Deal / Pyrrhic Victory.

            The yoke didn’t used to be “golden”.. it used to have real tangible benefits: children, family, security. These things are gone today because we’ve freed women from their duties.

            Why an interest in men’s rights? Because I once was a starry-eyed idealist like yourself, and also because I think men are getting a shit deal for their slavery today. The old system was a lot more equitable, and furthermore it was advancing and sustainable.

          • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

            “What I’m saying is that to free men as we have freed women which will end our society is a Faustian Deal / Pyrrhic Victory.”

            Alternatively freeing men will lead to a new system that is actually sustainable long term.

            I said to you once before that our end game may be being taken over by a militant matriarchy like the Muslims. I revise this. Our end game is likely death unless we get our consumption under control. This is our real problem, excessive consumption.

            “The yoke didn’t used to be “golden”.. it used to have real tangible benefits: children, family, security. These things are gone today because we’ve freed women from their duties.”

            The yoke still involved privileging women in the rearing of children and the setting of society’s emotional agenda. Women’s real duties only involved maintaining their privilege in this regard.

            “Why an interest in men’s rights? Because I once was a starry-eyed idealist like yourself, and also because I think men are getting a shit deal for their slavery today. The old system was a lot more equitable, and furthermore it was advancing and sustainable.”

            You’re assuming some sort of massive disconnect between the old system and the new system. The new system is what happens when the old system has generated the prosperity necessary to indulge in all of its core ‘values’ to the fullest extent possible.

            Go back to the old system and it will create abundance which will then allow it to wallow in its conceits which creates the new system. Ad infinitum.

            What we see around us is the result of mother-privileging. What we see around us is the end game of every single mother-privileging society ever. The end game of every society in which men are raised entirely by women and yoked by them to the plow.

          • Demonspawn

            Alternatively freeing men will lead to a new system that is actually sustainable long term.

            If and only if there is not another society which wants to eat our lunch. Once we become a one world nation, what you suggest may be a possible answer. Until that point, it is not a feasible answer.

            And unless you have some proof you desire to provide, I think you mean “could lead”. I meant “will lead” because this isn’t the first time in history we’ve had feminism and attempted equality. It’s failed before, why would it be different this time around?

            Our end game is likely death unless we get our consumption under control. This is our real problem, excessive consumption.

            Not a problem. Unless our society alone exceeds the carrying capacity of the Earth, we can obtain more resources if we accept the cost in the lives of our men. If we cannot accept that cost, we will be forced to reduce our consumption. Yes, this is a very Machiavellian view, but that’s survival for you.

            The yoke still involved privileging women in the rearing of children

            So? Again, my end goal is not equality. I don’t care that it’s not equal. I care if it’s equitable, and it is. The overall system gain to our society is worth the inequality in this area. My generation’s children will benefit more under such a system of equity over and above a failed attempt for equality. I won’t sell my children down the river to get equality.

            You’re assuming some sort of massive disconnect between the old system and the new system.

            I’ve already pointed out the disconnect: secularization and the resulting individualism. This creates a liberalization of the society (Liberal: subjective feelings matter more than objective results) which leads towards a desire for “equality” and the resulting self-destruction.

            To solve this problem we can either prevent success (No), prevent secularization (hard to maintain, but possible), or prevent liberalization (unresearched by me).

            You are correct that we will go round and round till we solve the problem, but increasing the problem (free everyone from responsibility/duty/roles) is not the answer.

          • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

            “I’ve already pointed out the disconnect: secularization and the resulting individualism.”

            Unconstrained individualism is a direct result of mother-privileging. A desire for self actualization through endless pursuit of transitory pleasure is a direct result of mother-privileging.

            Our society is what happens when mother-privileging is financed to it’s fullest extent by prosperity. We get generations of children who live for nothing but themselves. Generations of children who are herd animals instead of pack animals.

            We can go a few steps back in the process(not likely, but let’s hypothesize) and all that will happen is that in a few generations we will be back where we started.

            And in order to go back those few generations we’d actually have to have people in power who can see through mother-privileging. Which means we’d have to be ruled by a society of non-mother-privilgers.

            Where would such a society come from? And why wouldn’t it just move forward instead?

            ” I care if it’s equitable, and it is.”

            It wasn’t equal or equitable. Our current depredations constitute the flowering of mother-privileged societies; ‘new’ society is just old society with money.

          • Demonspawn

            And in order to go back those few generations we’d actually have to have people in power who can see through mother-privileging. Which means we’d have to be ruled by a society of non-mother-privilgers.

            And where are those non-mother privilgers going to come from?

            Again, it can’t come from men. Men won’t do it by themselves. It has to come from God. Because only once we extend “the game” to afterlife rather than just during one’s life can we change the risk/reward ratios such that we can get the behavior required to maintain a sustainable society.

            Mind you, I’m not a religious person. I honestly have saved the monitor I destroyed when I finally figured this all out (I-Was-That-Pissed!). It’s a reminder to myself to challenge all assumptions. What you are witnessing here is an Atheist who is telling you that a secular society is a bad thing.

            Anyways, I want to thank you for being a reasonable debate partner and for helping me figure out another possible place to break the chain (I hadn’t thought of the liberalism step before), but I must bow out for tonight as I have Hockey to watch and beer that isn’t going to drink itself :)

          • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

            I know where you’re coming from Demonspawn. A few years back I figured we needed to revoke the 19th amendment.

            But then I realized that wouldn’t change anything. :(

            Anyway, nice debating with you as well. I like it when it can stay civil.

          • Steve_85

            I’m another Atheist who is beginning to think that god might be the only possible answer. I can’t bring myself to believe in god, but it may be time to consider swallowing that old militant atheist schtick in favour of one that has been proven to work.

          • Malestrom

            I’m with Demonspawn 100% on this, and i think he argued the case pretty well. Some kind of completely free society where neither men nor women had any onerous dutuies or obligations foisted upon them is all well and good, the problem is; what do you do when the Europeans show up on your shores with firearms?

            Some other tribe who is willing to make the sacrifices and take the pain is going to march onto your land with the fruits of those painful sacrifices in the form of advanced weaponry. Groups of humans are in competition with other groups of humans, there is no way around this simple fact. Just like market competition drives corporations to most efficient utliziation of resources, squeezing the most utility possible out of everything, so it will push any human society towards the best ways to squeeze work and sacrifice out of it’s men.

            As for what we’re going to do about this, the answer of course is nothing. You should read The Fate of Empires, we aren’t going to create a completely stable society, humans are not immortal, we have lifespans and the civilizations we create are the same. The cycle will go on.

          • vklaatu

            The solutions I see coming up in this discussion are anarchy and religion. Religion never has and never will be the answer to anything. I’ve heard people kvetching about the state replacing religion for decades. If you want a fine example of what religion is really all about, check out the ex Hitler Youth Pope who thinks condoms are sinful. Nobody’s imaginary friend is going to save anyone.

            MGTOW is the only solution. It’s actually covert civil disobedience and borders on anarchy… back in the 90′s some of us were known as “slackers.”

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      The golden yoke, indeed. The rest of my life will be colored by that phrase, brought to life by Typhon’s incredible story. Ideas are powerful .. and thank you for them ..

  • James Huff

    Actually, there is a way to free men, but men have to be the ones to do it.
    Understanding the Statist/Anarchist dichotomy on a personal level is what is going to be key for men to be able to pull away from those things that chain them to a larger society. In the process, this will free humanity….as women will be forced to redefine their own roles IN RELATION to the world around them as well.

    Moral judgements and common respect is just one aspect of that. The other aspect requires defining individual liberty along principles of non-aggression and non-violence, and refusing to participate in any system that uses violence and coercion as a tool to enslave humans.

    This is partially what MGTOW strive for, and I think we can collapse the cultural deck of cards by realizing our own liberty and actively seeking to educate as MRAs.

    • jms5762

      I have started at home. No more honey do lists. No more “favors”. The answer to ‘honey can you help me out’ is typically no. No to work for pussy reward. I do what I want when I want the way I want. It has taken s couple of years to get her to understand I am this way now and will not change. I am finding out that it is liberating for my wife too. No more living by a destructive coercive dogmatic ideology. Our marriage is improving. A better sense of accepting ourselves as individuals is liberating us and making our bond stronger. Cutting off cable Tv helped too.

      • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

        Fuck cable tv.

  • Kimski

    Excellent article and cutting edge comments that has made me want to reexamine my strategy, when discussing with the FemBorgs. I think I’ll pick up the mantle, and start shaming them more in the future for making morally wrong and ‘mean’ decisions, when it comes to men. I will carefully observe where that leads me to, from now on.
    It might just do the trick, if you throw in a pad on the head for ‘good behavior’, once in a while.

  • Tawil

    I struggled a little bit with this article due to the stereotyping of men and women along lines of logic vs emotionalism, and liberty vs herd mentality. However if we slip in the phrase “generally speaking” or “loosely speaking” then the stereotypes definitely hold some validity.

    That was an important point made about women not wanting to be cast out of the girl-herd, and automatically ceding to group consensus -however bigoted- as women’s greatest deficit. Its also why women don’t call out their powerful feminist sisters on hatred of males…

    Its no big wonder that feminists have banged on about how “inclusive” they are – a deceitful tactic to win the allegiance of women. Guess we just have to champion a credible ideology regarding liberty and fairness and inform all women they are “included” and that feminist beliefs “exclude” everyone. that should work, right?

  • Dazza

    Excellent article Cooter Bee.

    “Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful. Say so. Your position would be unassailable because they too believe it. They invoke moral relativism and slut pride marches as a means to escape the inescapable.” This is absolute gold.

  • Bombay

    It would be interesting to see this in action. Perhaps two similar pro feminist articles on the internet that allow comment could be selected. For one article we could post “logical” rebuttals and the other we could tell them that they are mean. And then observe the reactions/results.

    Very nice/insightful article. Thank you.

  • Kai

    It took you guys long enough to figure this out.

    • Steve_85

      I like the way you show up after someone has written an article on it.

      “Oh yeah sure, I knew about this ages ago, you guys are a bit slow aren’t ya?”

      Piss off, I’m not buying it.

  • Stu

    @Steve

    I’m also an Atheist that has considered that God might be the only answer, in fact, I believe that is why God was invented. Rulers knew that most people needed a higher authority with inescapable consequences in order to remain in yoke, and maintain civilisation.

    It is true that if men cast off their yokes that civilisation will collapse. But it will only collapse to a point…..that point will be pretty bad though. It would collapse all the way back to the stone age if men just refused to ever don the yoke again, but that won’t happen. What will happen is that things will fall apart, get bad, and force change….and that change will be…..that women will have to don their version of the yoke yet again.

    It’s a simple as this…..I go to work every day……I don’t love my job….I do it for the benefits…..if those benefits were withdrawn……I would say…..screw you…..and so would all the other workers…….the business would collapse…..and would have to reboot under a better deal. They would have to return to rewarding their workers sufficiently to secure their services again.

    Look at Winslow’s window of needs. Men have been getting slowly stripped of having their needs met…..starting from the lower right…..and working up…..working more…..producing more…..getting less in return. Everything except basic necessities has been removed for men….emotional needs, self actualisation, sexual needs, security….the deal for men now is basically…..work like a plow horse…..and you get your bread and water…..maybe…..work like two plow horses…..and we might throw in a blow job here and there.

    We are at the stage now where men are walking off the job……unfortunately there are plenty of scabs that will fill your shoes in your absence……but more and more are waking up.

    I’m convinced that the combination of resource depletion, MGTOW, and men’s rights activism is going to force change, but not before our societies take a major nose dive and there is a lot of pain. If the MRM has grown large enough by then, our time will have come, to move into the political sphere, and I think all this is going to start happening this decade…..the decline that is…..not the assent….that will depend on how long people try to cling to business as usual…..and revive that dead horse.

  • cipher

    “It is the cost of this thing we enjoy called “Civilization”. If our men reject the cost, we die pretty quickly. If our women reject the cost, we slide into death… what we are witnessing today.”
    I agree. Civilization requires the work of men and if men have no motivation to work, it will crumble. I’m not sure there is any other way for it to play out. The only motivation that has been successful is family, wife, kids, which is monogamy.

    J.D. Unwin wrote a book about a hundred years ago where he concluded that civilizations rise and fall with their adherence to sexual restraint/monogamy. With it they grow stronger, without it, they fall.

    Personally I think things might be salvaged if they swing back to the way they used to be. Not all the way back but a good way back. –
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1050094/Men-want-women-traditional–women-HAPPY-housewife.html?ITO=1490
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129456/Do-girls-want-career-attract-man-Provocative-study-casts-high-fliers-new-light.html

    “Unconstrained individualism is a direct result of mother-privileging.”
    “Our society is what happens when mother-privileging is financed to it’s fullest extent by prosperity.”
    Isn’t this similar to what Betty Friedan said? She was very against mothers staying at home, etc.

    • Demonspawn

      “Sex and Culture” by J.D. Unwin (downloadable here legally.. expired copyright!) is a must-read for any MRA.

      That book made me realize: it’s not just our culture we have to concern ourselves with. This isn’t a question of men vs women, this is culture vs culture…. and our culture has become self-destructive by attempting to implement “equality”

    • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

      “Isn’t this similar to what Betty Friedan said? ”

      I don’t know if we have the same motives. I think it’s abundantly evident that children need to be socialized by their fathers.

      We’ve never really looked into how much _privileging_ father care improves child outcomes. I’ve only seen one study that came close and it had a very small sample size. However it found that children of stay-at-home dads were more advanced over all other children developmentally. Another study found that the children of stay-at-home dads were more likely to have equal male/female influences on them rather then having more of a female influence as in any other arrangement (so it didn’t end up really privileging male parenting, probably because dads were less likely to gate keep.)

      Dad-involvement is also critical to children developing both discipline and compassion.

      It may be that religion simply _substitutes_ institutional power for what children achieve by themselves naturally when under the close guidance of a father.

      • Bev

        discipline and compassion.

        There was a study done (no link sorry) looking at fathers “rough house play” with their children. This had always been thought to be just that play. What this study showed by filming/analyse is that fathers were teaching physical limits. They stopped their children when the play physically hurt and often said “you would not like it to happen to you so don’t do it to others” (or words to that effect). It is thought that such actions teach self discipline, compassion for others and the limit of when “play” turned to something else. As such the lessons learned spill over into other aspects of interaction with people. The fathers were encouraging children to push their limits but to recognize where their limits lay and that their actions did affect others. Powerful lessons would not you say?

    • Bev

      Betty Friedan drew heavily on Simone de Beauvoir.

      This quote is attributed to an interview of Simone by Betty.

      “No woman should be authorized to stay at home
      to raise her children. Society should be totally
      different. Women should not have that choice,
      precisely because if there is such a choice, too
      many women will make that one.”

      Simone de Beauvoir

  • Stu

    @vklaatu

    You can find endless examples of religion that is bad, I agree. But that doesn’t men the concept of religion is bad. Although I don’t believe in any supernatural beings, that means I believe all were invented, and are not real…..they don’t exist….but….if you can get people to believe they exist…..they can be used to modify people’s behavior……for better or worse. The argument then comes down to…..what is better and what is worse…..what is good…..what is bad……the religion is just the motivator to adopt those behaviors……if the behaviors that are enforced by the particular religion is bad…..the result is bad……if it is good..the result is good.

    I believe I am perfectly capable of living my life and without God, and not running around looting, raping, killing….and being a productive member of society……many people are…….but many are not.

    • Demonspawn

      @stu

      People who are +3SD on the “whatever” scale (not strictly IQ, but smarts + morality + whatever) are capable of thinking that far ahead with their choices and their morality. They aren’t even worrying about their own kids so much as their grandkids.

      The problem is that people who are +2.9SD and below need religion to influence them to make the same choices. They just can’t or won’t think in that long of term. They sell their kids down the river for what they want today.

      If anyone doubts that, look at our national debt. We are selling our children into slavery to get what we want today.

    • vklaatu

      The bare-assed fact is that the conscience is in place by on average around age six, and it all hinges on actions having consequences, and sometimes “because I said so.” If the conscience is formed so early in our development, before most people are primed for religion, how can religion be of any use?

      Look around us and ask yourself if religion really works. I know this is a Hobbesian outlook, but force, or the threat of force is the only thing that works for other species. The law of cause and effect is really the only thing that keeps people in check, morality doesn’t work, and ethics are derived from logic. People have to learn reciprocity, starting at age two, either through painfull experimentation and indoctrination through parenting. The practice of religion is more or less an elaborate indoctrination into and maintenance of an arbitrary system which often undoes many good things that parents teach children instinctively.

      All commonly practiced religions down through the ages have always employed henchman to enforce laws or have had their claws sunk into the state. State and religion have been synonymous for most of recorded history. Libertarians and anarchists forget how close to our violent chimpanzee relatives we are. Reciprocity is the only basis for absolute authority once religion and/or the state dissolves. Hence the need for a new social contract. Religion, like tradition, needs to go away, and most of the machinery of the state needs to be scrapped or overhauled.

      • Malestrom

        If religion is all a load of hokum, which you and I both know it to be, there is no ”good” for anybody to teach anybody else. There is only the individual and his unfettered will to power, as you said, force is all, that is where it ends.

        • vklaatu

          This is where a philosophy like Utilitarianism can clean house, or alternatively, Kant’s categorical imperitive can be used. If we must have something sacred as a starting point, then how about human life? I know this becomes a giant quagmire for reproductive rights, but it can be navigated with better science.

  • Steve_85

    @Stu
    Your reply to Vklaatu is almost exactly what I would have written, except you have more periods in yours :)

    As for your comments @me, I’m unsure what I think is going to happen. Whatever actually ends up happening, the current situation is untenable. It isn’t sustainable and it will end when one of two things happens:
    1. Men wake up in sufficient numbers and tell the state/feminists that they can all go take a long walk off a short cliff.
    2. The governments of the west run out of money. This one wont happen until they’ve tried every possible solution, including a bachelor tax, reducing benefits, a carbon tax… oh wait. Increasing the fuel excise… oh wait, done that as well.

    I’m expecting option 2 to happen first. I’m expecting almost total anarchy, and I’m expecting there’s going to be a lot of fish looking for bicycles when the excrement matches coordinates with the flabellum.

    • Stu

      Option 2 really sucks, emotionally I want to reject it, but it’s very likely.

      The reason is sucks is because they won’t run out of money until they have sucked every last cent from all of us, we are the money. They may print the bills, but those are just an I owe you.

      Lets say there is X number of goods in the market for sale. Those goods have a value, and that value is assigned a monetary value, eg. worth so many dollars. So lets say you possess a certain amount of these goods, a house, a car, money in the bank/wallet etc. The government wants more money, (to give to woman of course) but the government does not create any goods, they just print bills, or borrow, or tax. Either way they are stealing your money. Printing more money just means there are more dollars out there, without more tangible goods that those dollars represent, so the price of those goods increases (inflation) so your dollars by less, but the government has more money. They have just stolen your money. You have less buying power, they have more, at your expense.

      Sure your house went up in value, but it’s meaningless, because if you sell it, the house you will replace it with will cost more also, so will rent.

      They couldn’t do this if money was still based on gold, or silver, or any other precious metal. You think prices are higher now then in 1950, are they really…….how much silver is in a 1950 dime….what could that dime buy then…and what could that dime buy now if taken on the value of it’s silver content……I’m betting about the same as in 1950.

      For the government to run out of money with the current monetary system, they would have to borrow until they can borrow no more, tax until nobody can afford to pay them, and then print until they have transfered the value of all your money, to themselves, and we are wheeling wheelbarrows full of money down to the shop to buy a carton of milk.

      The only way to avoid this transfer if that is what will happen is to put all your savings into real tangible physical things that you hold in your hand and can not be taxed merely for owning…..like land and realestate can be. In fact, you need to own them….possess them….without the government even knowing you have them. Remember the gold confiscation that happened early last century?

      The reason I say option 2 will happen is because history repeats, and nobody learns anything.

      http://www.travel-wonders.com/2011/02/one-trillion-dollar-note-zimbabwe.html

      • Bev

        I’m betting about the same as in 1950

        I did read somewhere that an ounce of gold would buy 300 loaves of bread. The equilalence has held for a major part of history. There are ups and down naturally but over the long haul this equivalence was found to be true.

        • Stu

          In the mid to late 40s, an ounce of gold was $36……how many loaves of bread would that buy……it would have to buy about a thousand loaves to be worth the same then as it is now. So a gold coin now would buy more loaves of bread than it did then……..reverse inflation. This shows that gold hasn’t really gone up in value that much…..it’s the currency that has gone down in value.

          Even in zimbabwe, with their 100 trillion dollar note, which ended up not even being able to buy a single loaf of bread…..an ounce of gold would still buy the whole bakery.

          • Bev

            Which in away proves the equivalence. In Oz good quality bread (not the rubbish in supermarkets) sells for about $4.50 to $5.00 with gold at about $1500 thats about 300 loaves. As I said ups and downs but over the long haul this holds true for major civilizations.

  • keyster

    Woman’s Sexual Power + Moral Relativism = Trouble

    This is something the originators of Judeo-Christian tradition/Biblical law AND Muslims/the Koran understood. Patriarchy wasn’t a frivolous concept they put in place just because they were men and they could do it.

    They knew that women needed to be controlled by men, and in turn women (and children) would temper men with responsibility. This has been going on for over 3 thousand years. It’s only recently that we’ve given women free moral reign over themselves, with no judgement whatsoever. As a matter of fact its called “empowerment” to be a whore or a single mother.

    Woman controls sexual access and procreation.
    Men compete for her and do everything else to support her security and comfort. And as women keep endlessly doubling down on their sexual power — eventually they’ll have none at all. This is the point we’re coming to.

    They’re flaunting/exploiting their sexual power to where they’re using it all up — to where it will be entirely worthless — to where they’ll be nothing more than very weak men with vaginas — very devalued vaginas and possibly even wombs.

    No more pedestals of modesty and virtue and grace and fertility. They’re ending up right down here in the dirt with the Male of the species, fighting for the left-over scraps of decency and respect.

    The death of chivalry is only the beginning of what’s to come for the once fairer sex. We’re now in the loss of respect phase and soon approaching the loss of even sexual attraction altogether – - as risk/reward analysis keeps shifting to ever greater risk.

    Too bad what Feminism did; turn women against men and try and make women into men. Sexual power over men wasn’t enough, they wanted women to become men. And not only are they losing their sexual power, but they’re not very good at being men either, because being a man requires a higher state selflessness that women can only understand in the context of her children.

    That’s how the failure of the Feminist Movement will be written.

  • Bev

    Australian women pick family over baby

    “Only 4 per cent of Australian women view having a baby as a top priority, with family, friends and relationships topping the list as most important, a new survey has found.

    The study into female fertility, released on Sunday, found that for 43 per cent of women aged 18-44 their top priority in life was their family and friends.

    This was followed by the relationship with their partner at 18 per cent and their health at 14 per cent.But having a baby was still one per cent higher over women’s careers – with only three per cent of respondents saying their job came in at number one.

    There you have it:
    friends and family were twice as important
    as their relationship with their partner.

    Your feelings wants and needs just don’t rate that high. Your there to do the heavy lifting and cater for her needs.

    This is further born out by

    “Nevertheless, being short of cash when bills were due trumped other stressful life events at 48 per cent, followed by the loss of a job at 26 per cent. with only three per cent of respondents saying their job came in at number one”.

    So they want financially secure but are not that interested in a career. Guess who is supposed to supply that security.

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-women-pick-family-over-baby-20120422-1xejx.html#ixzz1slgCm3xk

    • jms5762

      It is like that here in the US. The same study should be conducted here. I suspect the results will be similar. Western men are a woman’s means to an end. Like a champion racehorse…not put out to stud…but strapped to the plow and milked for semen at convenience.

  • Lee

    I have a few problems with this article..

    ‘Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful.’ Dubious concept. Unwise perhaps?

    ‘Who is to decide what is good and what is evil? Simple. You are. Some men might think it arrogant to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of all moral issues.’ Yep, its pretty arrogant.

    Also, from what I have noticed, most people, regardless of gender, use some combination of emotion and logic, so both are valid ways of communicating with both genders.

    • Lee

      To clarify what I meant, slutty behaviour is unwise, but not necessarily immoral.

      • Steve_85

        By the standards of our current culture, slutty behavior is not immoral, and as long as men keep signing up to marry princess after she’s been around the block a few (hundred) times, it will continue to get worse.

        If you want more of something, you subsidize it.
        If you want less of something, you penalize it.

        We are subsidizing bad behavior among women. Every beta-provider who marries a woman in her thirties is DIRECTLY subsidizing her previous bad behavior. Every working person in the country is indirectly subsidizing it in the form of their taxes used as transfer payments of various names.

        Stop encouraging bad behavior in women. Don’t marry them.

        • Lee

          Or how about this? Never mind a woman’s past and tell her to never mind yours. Just a though..

          But if it distresses you that much, perhaps have a little faith in women observing that the behaviour is emotionally not fulfilling .

          • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

            Greetings Lee, and welcome.

            Or how about this? Men will value exactly what they inherently and intrinsically do value, regardless of what artificial values you or anyone else tries to shove on them. Male sexuality is tied to fertility and avoiding cuckolding, i.e. the most heinous form of betrayal known. Being the opposite of a man, you have no place inserting your own preferences in place of men’s sexual preferences or reproductive strategies. Virginity, minimally used reproductive machinery and fidelity are sexually attractive to males for clearly obvious reasons, though you try to deflect the fact with superficial ‘feel good’ language that serves your own ends. Shall I start telling you what you should be sexually attracted to? Say, income, for example. How about this? Never mind a man’s income, that unfortunate man on the street has a tremendous character, personality and not to mention adventurous stories to tell, so why don’t you head over and cuddle up? Hm, sugar tits? Never mind his income and I’m sure he’ll never mind yours ..

            “..perhaps have a little faith in women..” oh yes, because the unabridged faith we have placed in women thus far has been sooo handsomely rewarded ..

            Perhaps have a little faith men, the ‘paytriarchy’ ..

          • Lee

            Perseus:

            Do all men value virginity, or is it just some? I have never heard anyone claim that until today. I understand the aversion to cheating and have noticed it with men everywhere I go.

            “..perhaps have a little faith in women..”
            Out of context. Eventually, one would hope women will figure out that its not fulfilling is what I meant.

            ‘you have no place inserting your own preferences into the discussion of men’s sexual preferences or reproductive strategies’
            I was not attempting to even discuss that…I was talking about the article which did not strike me as being about that.

            But if we’re going to play that game..maybe its not ‘your place’ to assume what I’m attracted to.

          • Raven01

            “Or how about this? Never mind a woman’s past and tell her to never mind yours. Just a though..”
            And if her past involved a gangbang in Uganda or Haiti?
            Really, let’s be realistic here. Our past shapes who we become.
            Your argument crystallized is, “I don’t think I should have any consequences for my actions.” Which is exactly the opposite of what is needed.
            Your suggestion of relying on dishonest dealings between the genders is both repugnant and unworkable.

          • Lee

            Raven01:

            Not what I’m saying. I’m saying that it doesn’t hurt anyone within itself, so why would it need to be punished? Past indeed forms who you are. This doesn’t mean that something about someone’s past defines them.

            ‘Your suggestion of relying on dishonest dealings between the genders is both repugnant and unworkable.’
            Didn’t suggest that.

          • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

            @ Perseus @ Lee

            “But if we’re going to play that game..maybe its not ‘your place’ to assume what I’m attracted to.”

            Doth thou protesteth too loudly? Mine was an illustrative analogy, contextually warranted with boundless supporting evidence. No statement of your preferences was made or is necessary, yet the point of the analogy remains. Let’s not make this too much about you. If men ‘never mind’ what is sexually attractive (or repugnant) to them, then so must females ‘never mind’ what is sexually attractive to them, capisce?

            Regarding the virginity thing, come on. I didn’t say without exception. You’ve never heard of .. what? ..

          • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

            @ Perseus @ Lee

            ““..perhaps have a little faith in women..”
            Out of context. Eventually, one would hope women will figure out that its not fulfilling is what I meant.””

            In context. As applied both directly and reasonably extrapolated to the broader context. E v e n t u a l l y may not be consistent with someone else’s values or needs.

          • Bombay

            LOL A woman coming here and asking for faith in women. I think you missed the boat, I mean Titanic.

          • Raven01

            RE-evaluate your stance from a distance. You do indeed invalidate what might be important to a man. What injures me may have no effect at all on “Fred”. But, ultimately that choice rests with the individual.
            And, if being slutty prevents any woman from getting the man she wants I say “Tough shit, you wear big girl panties so deal with the consequences of your choices.”
            It is not up to you or I to decide for another what values they should hold.
            And quite frankly, the majority of men have next to zero interest in a woman that has seen more wang than a urinal at Shea stadium. Don’t tell them they are wrong, don’t whine if that limits someone else’s choices. They made their choices and if they want to be taken seriously at all they must deal with the consequences. The only alternative is removal of the female right to vote and open assignation of responsibility for a woman to her male relatives or husband once again.
            Quick primer: The MRM seeks to elevate women to male standards in EVERYTHING not just privileges, while feminism seeks to keep women as spoiled eternal children.

    • Kimski

      ‘Who is to decide what is good and what is evil?’

      That is a completely irrelevant discussion.
      The point is, that if you act like a slut you shouldn’t start whining about being treated like one. If you dress like a slut, you shouldn’t start whining about getting money offers from guys.

      If I decided to put on a uniform tomorrow and started patrolling the streets, you wouldn’t see me whining about people trying to get my help, if they experienced a crisis that needed a cop. I would take that as a quite rational behavior, because I was dressed like one.

      • Lee

        Perfectly relevant, since it was addressed in the article I was commenting on..in fact I pulled that from the article.

        I disapprove of whining in general. That being said, not sure that there is a particular way to treat someone like a slut. And anyone that has nothing more serious to complain about than some money offers is leading an alright life, imo.

  • Lee

    Perseus:
    ‘Doth thou protesteth too loudly?’ Nope..was just annoyed in general. I suppose being called ‘sugartits’ kind of twisted how I responded. Started to feel personal, so I took it personally.

    And what I mean is I’ve never heard a man say before yesterday that they were attracted to virginity. If you’re talking about not sleeping with tons of people, that I’ve seen. Not that I’m trying to make it about myself, as you imply. Just that is the perspective I naturally see things from. And I have never come across the ‘boundless evidence’ you’re talking about, although I’d be interested in seeing it.

    ‘reasonably extrapolated to the broader context’ It was not meant in the broader context. I really don’t suggest that you put your ‘faith’ in anyone, but that’s my thought on it. Perhaps I’m cynical.

    ‘E v e n t u a l l y may not be consistent with someone else’s values or needs.’ Maybe not. But it will take that long for women to figure stuff out no matter what actions you take.

    • ThoughtCriminal

      “And what I mean is I’ve never heard a man say before yesterday that they were attracted to virginity.”

      It’s not attractive in the sense that one guy says to another “Hey,did you see Mary? I heard she still has a hymen!” and the other guy goes “Hot!”. It’s attractive in the sense that the reverse is unattractive and so virginity is attractive by comparison.

      It’s like buying a car and the salesman says “Did I mention that nobody has died in this car?” and you go “Hot!”.

      Being a slut is like trying to sell a man a car that some old fat geezer snuffed it in.You can remove the body and clean up the car,but there’s an instant visceral disgust when you reveal the truth to a prospective buyer.

      “If you’re talking about not sleeping with tons of people, that I’ve seen.”

      That is what is being talked about.

      • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

        Thank you ThoughtCriminal, most excellente.

      • Lee

        ‘That is what is being talked about.’

        Okay, thanks for clarifying.

      • Steve_85

        Like TC said, it isn’t that virginity is attractive, it’s the alternative that IS NOT attractive that matters.

        Most guys can let one or two partners slide, some slightly more. But (personal opinion) if you’ve had more than 1 partners per 10 years of age, (i.e 2 by 20 is the limit, 3 by 30) I’m not interested. Anything more than 2p/10y and I’d be happy to call you a slut.

        I’m sure someone can link you to the article that shows previous partners have a large effect on women’s ability to pair bond (and strangely enough, no effect on men’s)

        (And why the crap is the word men’s a typo? Are men not allowed to own things?)

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      Lee, these discussion points are minor, let’s call it good. It’s been a pleasure speaking with you. Call me.

      Fyi, these seemed potentially a little personal to me:
      “Or how about this? Never mind a woman’s past and tell her to never mind yours. Just a thought..

      But if it distresses you that much, perhaps have a little faith in women observing that the behaviour is emotionally not fulfilling .”

      • Lee

        First one, less so because I’ve seen it work for others. The second one I’ll admit is more of an observation as a result of personal experience that casual sex, which society seems to encourage lately, is inevitably emotionally hollow and a complete waste.

        I really do like having my statements challenged though. It allows me to re-evaluate what I think I know and replace it with a new, usually more valid, way of thinking about something. So thanks. :)

        • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

          I wasn’t referring to the content of what you said, rather the tone.

          “Or how about this? Never mind..”
          “But if it distresses you that much..”

          Just for the sake of clarity. Cheers.

          Btw, how does one arrive at an association with something as delightful as sugar to be annoying?

          • Lee

            Ah, okay. Wasn’t meant in that tone tbh. And when I’ve heard ‘sugartits’ used, its only ever been sarcastic. :P

  • Lee

    @Bombay: I find myself glad that I missed the Titanic. Didn’t look like a good time.

    But in all seriousness, I don’t advocate faith in people, especially women. It was only meant in context.

  • Lee

    @Raven01

    ‘You do indeed invalidate what might be important to a man.’ I can see where you’re coming from. It was definitely not intended. Nor is it something I insist on, just a thought that came from what I’ve seen others do and it worked out alright. No intent to tell anyone what they expect is wrong.

    ‘And, if being slutty prevents any woman from getting the man she wants I say “Tough shit, you wear big girl panties so deal with the consequences of your choices.”’ Yes. Not getting everything you want is just a part of life.

    • Steve_85

      For now… only for now. Give them time. It’s another ‘fear’ that women have; the fear of being a crazy cat lady. I’m sure we can legislate so that all women must have their own beta-provider by age 25, and they can trade them as they see fit… oh wait!