Sluts and Satan shut down the Christian mens defense network

[Jezebel]

Can someone please explain to me how a woman saying no to rape in any way infringes on anyone else's rights? Like, the guy who wanted to equate me saying no to "rape" of a man. I just...really, honestly don't understand that logic at all.

These guys honestly believe they are entitled to sex, particularly from women they find attractive. They see their strong sex drives as something women were put here here to satisfy. It's a natural, biological imperative--and some of them use mangled theories from evolutionary biology to justify this.

That said, I haven't dealt with any creepers in years--I repel them (and getting older and gaining some weight has played as much a role in that as my personality).

But when I was younger I was the occasional recipient of attention from guys who thought that by expressing interest in me I was obligated to return it, or at least give them what they considered a "fair chance." They also tended to think that if I said "No" right away I was playing some sort of game with them--that I intended to go out with them eventually, but was just "being difficult" or "playing hard to get." (And not accepting, respecting, or believing my "No"? HUGE red flag.)

They just could not wrap their heads around the idea that I, a woman, had definite opinions and preferences when it came to male attractiveness, and they did not meet them. They were attracted to me! They selected me, from all the other women in their immediate vicinity! They came over and asked me out, or for my number! Why was I being difficult and saying no? I was like a chair that refused to be sat upon.

Nor did they seem to comprehend that I needed to be physically attracted to a partner, as well as intellectually compatible. I was supposed to jump at the chance to date them because they were a "nice guy" or a "hard worker" or made a good salary or were marriage-minded--qualities they were convinced all women naturally wanted. That I was appraising their physical attractiveness, probable skill as a sex partner, sense of humor, and the likelihood that they'd make a good verbal sparring partner--and finding them lacking--just did not compute.

It really was as if I were not fully human to them. Men each had independent identities, dreams, goals, and desires to pursue, but women were all essentially alike and their only real purpose was to earn and keep the approval of men. A man looked at women, picked out the one he liked, and the lucky woman accepted being chosen. And of course this model didn't work so hot in real life, with real women. But rather than stop and ask themselves, "Am I wrong? Am I working from a faulty set of assumptions, here?" these guys place all the blame on the women, calling them bitches, feminazis, unnatural, man-haters, bitter, manipulative, ball-busters, etc.

[lilah]

A pleasing to the eye robot in the image of the woman who spurned you, spouting platitudes like the geeks made for Spike on Buffy?

Sad thing is they probably would be better off with a sexbot. The technology will be here sooner or later.

I really took umbrage to the idea that women should be nicer to creepy guys. Ewww no. Everytime I've been nice to a creepy guy he's tried to take advantage of me. I learned to steer clear. Go read shrodinger's rapist or the gift of fear and understand why I don't give creepsters the time of day.

[nokidsmom]

Moving away from loveshyness to Major Creepy for a quick second, I genuinely - genuinely! - tried to engage some commenters over at Unmasking Feminism to try to understand where they're coming from. The post in question concerned an article in which the (female) author stated men were no longer interested in marriage because women were no longer women. This is actually a topic of interest to me - if the statistics truly are changing, with more women and fewer men seeking marriage, I'd be curious to know why, how the stats were run and what the researchers controlled for, 'cause I'm a social scientist by training. I asked what seemed like a perfectly legitimate question - what, in their view, would make a woman "womanly" and what would, conversely, make a woman "unwomanly". Innocent enough, right? All the opportunity in the world to talk about chastity, or subservience, or whatever else they would like to see in a partner (I demand a willingness to watch lemur videos on YouTube from mine, so I shouldn't be one to judge preferences, generally speaking).

One of the responses, quoted in full because. Just. What. What. :

... I'm so lost. All I've ever sown is basil seeds. Unsuccessfully, I might add. Never did inherit my grandma's green thumb.

Whoa, this guy is a real piece of work. Scary stuff. :shock:

[Aisling]

Moving away from loveshyness to Major Creepy for a quick second, I genuinely - genuinely! - tried to engage some commenters over at Unmasking Feminism to try to understand where they're coming from. The post in question concerned an article in which the (female) author stated men were no longer interested in marriage because women were no longer women. This is actually a topic of interest to me - if the statistics truly are changing, with more women and fewer men seeking marriage, I'd be curious to know why, how the stats were run and what the researchers controlled for, 'cause I'm a social scientist by training. I asked what seemed like a perfectly legitimate question - what, in their view, would make a woman "womanly" and what would, conversely, make a woman "unwomanly". Innocent enough, right? All the opportunity in the world to talk about chastity, or subservience, or whatever else they would like to see in a partner (I demand a willingness to watch lemur videos on YouTube from mine, so I shouldn't be one to judge preferences, generally speaking).

One of the responses, quoted in full because. Just. What. What. :

... I'm so lost. All I've ever sown is basil seeds. Unsuccessfully, I might add. Never did inherit my grandma's green thumb.

Fab. I could have put that in last year's 'Cathleen Ni Houlihan' essay, when I wrote about how men shouldn't be so quick to follow a romantic notion of nationalism, cause it tends to end in death/imprisonment/your missus running off with the milkman.

Just a few tweaks would've done it...

[Hane]

They just could not wrap their heads around the idea that I, a woman, had definite opinions and preferences when it came to male attractiveness, and they did not meet them. They were attracted to me! They selected me, from all the other women in their immediate vicinity! They came over and asked me out, or for my number! Why was I being difficult and saying no? I was like a chair that refused to be sat upon.

Nor did they seem to comprehend that I needed to be physically attracted to a partner, as well as intellectually compatible. I was supposed to jump at the chance to date them because they were a "nice guy" or a "hard worker" or made a good salary or were marriage-minded--qualities they were convinced all women naturally wanted. That I was appraising their physical attractiveness, probable skill as a sex partner, sense of humor, and the likelihood that they'd make a good verbal sparring partner--and finding them lacking--just did not compute.

It really was as if I were not fully human to them. Men each had independent identities, dreams, goals, and desires to pursue, but women were all essentially alike and their only real purpose was to earn and keep the approval of men. A man looked at women, picked out the one he liked, and the lucky woman accepted being chosen. And of course this model didn't work so hot in real life, with real women. But rather than stop and ask themselves, "Am I wrong? Am I working from a faulty set of assumptions, here?" these guys place all the blame on the women, calling them bitches, feminazis, unnatural, man-haters, bitter, manipulative, ball-busters, etc.

As a girl who spent her teen years "not-quite-thin-enough" to be attractive to the general public, I bought into this crap so badly, often feeling guilty for turning down the occasional "nice guy" that I found unattractive.

The creepy guys we're talking about here seem to think that "being so picky that she winds up ALONE!!!!11!!1!!!" is the worst thing that could happen to a woman. At the age of 46, I chose to divorce a bitter, emotionally manipulative guy who, whenever I wasn't around to catch him in the act, was unkind to those I loved. Fourteen years later, I'm still on my own, and far prefer it to trying to starve and ingratiate myself with some guy who feels he's "entitled" to a certain type of woman.

[fundiefan]

pet peeve. the guy who made the anti-islam video was jailed for violating his parole in previous crimes, not for that video.

Don't muddy the fundie waters with facts. If they say his arrest was because of his video, then it was, dammit! <> they can't hear you!

[Burris]

Ally,I’m genuinely,without the slightest hint of irony,not eager at all to cast pearls before a swine. With your flippant,snotty little attitude, I’m sure you’ll do well in your dealings with men….not.

I lift my flask and toast that singular particular vicissitude of fate,which is characteristic of the same, that will see all your dreams of conquest dashed and your caustic...BLAH BLAH BLAH BURB BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BURB BLAHB LAH BLAH BLAH BURB BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BURB BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BURB BLAH SNIP...You have fallen by your own design,and we owe you nothing,because as soon as you thought we were unnecessary to you,you tried to stick a knife in our back. All men are is just another bridge to be burned,to you.

You have sown hatred and strife, and you will reap these tenfold.

Translation: "I was rejected by a woman or six, but I'll get you. I'll get you all. You'll see! One day I'll make you pay for treating me like the outcast I so clearly am. Waaaaaaaaaaaaah!" (It reads a lot like certain Christian fantasies about watching all those mean sinners burn in hell for daring to laugh at Kirk Cameron's shitty "acting.")

At first, I was a bit surprised at the amount of pointless, mean-spirited vitriol the OP had directed at a stranger on the internet. In the end, however, I found myself almost feeling sorry for the source of all that impotent rage.

And that wall of superfluous five-dollar words! Wow! He is totallynot compensating for something there.

I could write an entire book about this guy's problems on the strength of that one post alone. Instead, however, I'll offer this one bit of information that is genuinely meant to help improve the shitty mire he calls a life:

I've known a fair number of hunters and veterans and other men in male-dominated professions. They generally don't whine like this. Oh sure - one or two of them will get all pissy about "that bitch of an ex-wife" but they then get on with their lives. There are other fish in the sea, etc. In fact, they tend to avoid whiners or either sex. 'Listening to that takes time out of enjoying life.'

I don't personally know of any bachelor over age 20 in that subculture. Most are married, and almost all of these spouses treat each other with respect - it goes both ways - while in public.

I married into their culture when I joined hands with my husband - a man who has endured more physical suffering than most people would dare to imagine - and so I saw in his and his family's manner of life how strength comes from gratitude - from thankfulness for what we do have rather than bitterness about what we don't.

Sometimes I fail at this, as everyone does, but we do see such lapses as undesirable faults - as sins to be avoided.

These men - these men who the OP would claim admire - do not whine like this and nor do they bully those smaller than themselves or abuse the power vested in them by God.

Your whining, OP, is the sole source of your failures. You are a poor excuse for a man, and I would sooner sup from the bounty of our table than take from the mearge fair at yours.

[Carla Bruni]

Burris, I feel sorry for him, too. I work in a 99% male company with veterans of the armed forces and national security agencies, and they're all exceptionally respectful men with an incredibly strong moral compass, nothing like this lot of teenie peenies, as was so aptly noted prior. I do, however, genuinely fear that one day, someone like the author of that drivel may snap, and the consequences of that snap may be horrific - we hear about these people in the news every day. I would hope, appealing to what's left of their humanity, that they'll restrain themselves and stick to fighting on the Internet, but no one can ever really know. That's what makes them dangerous.

[lilith]

What she redacted for "being too explicit":

The full list:

The original post was deleted. Here's the cache link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zRfqBLXIS4QJ:neckbeardchronicles.blogspot.com/2012/09/mojos-non-negotiables.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Evidently, his whole plan is to die alone on purpose because no woman could ever possibly be good enough.

Thanks for voluntarily removing yourself from the gene pool, creepy misogynist.

The only place a list like this would possibly get results is on a BDSM site. But even there, probably not so much. Because subs have their own lists of requirements too, topmost of which is usually someone whose not an insecure douche. Seriously, even women who are into this sort of thing don't want a whining little freak who thinks women are suppressing him. Cause if you're seeking a dom you want him to be, you know, dominant, not a whining child who thinks that all women owe him.

And female subs in the BDSM community have even more rarity value than they do in mainstream dating circles, and come in all shapes, sizes and temperaments. So these guys have disqualified themselves from the only community that has the slightest chance of fulfilling their requirements.

[Bloo]

I guess I can see where others feel sorry for this douche, but I really only feel sorry for any women who come into contact with him. He's a big boy, he can find a way to deal with his rejection better than this.

[ILoveJellybeans]

HAHAHAHAHA this guy is pathetic, he shouldnt set his standards so high. No woman ever would want to date him.

It also seems he wants a sex slave, not a wife, why would anyone prefer the idea of a woman who cooks, cleans and does everything they want. Id much prefer to date someone who was interesting, intelligent and an equal to me.

[Kaylee]

The only place a list like this would possibly get results is on a BDSM site. But even there, probably not so much. Because subs have their own lists of requirements too, topmost of which is usually someone whose not an insecure douche. Seriously, even women who are into this sort of thing don't want a whining little freak who thinks women are suppressing him. Cause if you're seeking a dom you want him to be, you know, dominant, not a whining child who thinks that all women owe him.

And female subs in the BDSM community have even more rarity value than they do in mainstream dating circles, and come in all shapes, sizes and temperaments. So these guys have disqualified themselves from the only community that has the slightest chance of fulfilling their requirements.

He'd fail even there. These types show up on BDSM sites fairly often and the response from female subs is usually less than enthusiastic, to say the least. Many of those submissive women intelligent and somewhat assertive outside of their relationship dynamic. There are a few I follow on FL just to see their responses to the male Dumb-inants who show up expecting to be fawned all over even while they are total loser who would bring nothing to the relationship (sort of like most of the MRA posters).

[lilith]

He'd fail even there. These types show up on BDSM sites fairly often and the response from female subs is usually less than enthusiastic, to say the least. Many of those submissive women intelligent and somewhat assertive outside of their relationship dynamic. There are a few I follow on FL just to see their responses to the male Dumb-inants who show up expecting to be fawned all over even while they are total loser who would bring nothing to the relationship (sort of like most of the MRA posters).

That's pretty much what in was trying to say, way less clearly and in way more words than you.

[GolightlyGrrl]

In honor of those oh-so-sexy men, and the women who support them:

[dairyfreelife]

In honor of those oh-so-sexy men, and the women who support them:

:lol: Love.

[Burris]

Unwaveringly loyal, even if I cheat.

Will retain a trim figure through exercising and eating right.

Knows how to cook and is willing to do so every day.

Accepts that the entire damn house is my ‘man cave.’

Will enthusiastically perform any sex act immediately upon my request.

Keeps the house in order and sparkling clean.

Shuts the f-ck up.

Non-educated and not politically minded.

Recognizes my need for bro time and alone time

No children, past, present or future.

Virgin, but willing to learn.

Curtsies whenever I walk in the room.

Always dresses sexy.

HB10 as a minimum.

Tiptoes around so as not to wake me when I’m sleeping in.

Doesn’t waste my money on things I don’t want.

So he wants a woman with no past - for example, no education, no sexual experience, no children, etc. - no ambition of any sort, and no desire for a future. He wants a woman who demands absolutely nothing - and I mean nothing - from a relationship where she is expected to give and give and give solely and completely for the amazing privilege of dating what sounds like a total loser who couldn't get laid in a woman's prison with a fist full of pardons.

Hopefully his dislike for children means he has never bred and never will. Keeping progeny out of the gene pool is likely the only favor this gurgling sack of guano will ever do for humanity.

[rock_girl]

That list is hilarious. He wants a girl who curtsies when he enters the room? Does this guy think he's the queen of bloody England?

[Guest Anonymous]

I understand that the list is supposed to be absurd. He makes that clear in his additional notes:

The list is intentionally over the top and absurd. Those of you who took it literally are extremely dense ("HB10 as a minimum," seriously).

The problem with the list is that he's trying to make fun of women for making their own choices. It's based on the same phenomenon that Jezebel describes: it's considered wildly unreasonable for women to make decisions based on their own thoughts, feelings, and desires. Men like this expect women to be glad that a man has selected them, and just go along with it (and be grateful).

This is my list:

1) To be sexually attracted to, and romantically interested in, a potential partner.

2) For a potential partner to be sexually attracted to, and romantically interested in, me.

3) For a potential partner to respect me as a human being (e.g. to respect my right to control my body, respect my political rights, and my right to have my own opinions and feelings).

4) The potential partner must be considerate (e.g. not be intentionally hurtful, deceitful, cruel, or dismissive).

That's the whole list. And I think it's reasonable.

Regarding the 'Anti-Feminist "Skeptics"' picture: That crying baby is adorable. I'm sure he's only crying because he finds the comparison offensive.

[Artemis]

I do believe we were discussing this as well before the stupid Dougie stuff