Rampant issues with feminism....
DerStadtschutz wrote:
LKL wrote:
Has the guy in question ever asked her out? If not, she might assume that he's the one who isn't interested. After all, if she can be friends with people she's not attracted to, why would she assume that he is any different?
The vast majority of self-proclaimed 'Nice Guys' that I've ever encountered IRL and online have been actual a**holes who do not respect women and only go through the motions of being polite in order to score.
The vast majority of self-proclaimed 'Nice Guys' that I've ever encountered IRL and online have been actual a**holes who do not respect women and only go through the motions of being polite in order to score.
well, the guy in question is me, and while I didn't say "will you go out with me," I definitely told her about how I felt... and she kept insisting that she was interested in people based on personality, yet at the same time, she'd constantly say things similar to "oh look, a hot guy. I must speak to him!" She would complain to me pretty much every single day about a guy who admitted to me that he just wanted p****, and that he was cheating on her. Besides this, he would just generally treat her like sh** and use her for money and other things as well. She would constantly complain to me about him, but then whenever he wanted in her pants, she'd ditch me to go be with him. It doesn't matter now anymore. I'm past all that, but it doesn't change the fact that I always see girls with a**holes, and I also always hear them complaining about how they can't seem to find nice guys. But then when guys do treat them nicely, they want nothing to do with those guys beyond complaining to them about the as*hole they're dating.
Sounds like that particular girl wasn't very bright. Why were you hanging out with her?
...same reason she was hanging out with the a**hole (in other words, hoping that the a**hole/she would see her/your love, be changed by it, and start treating her/you better, ideally with sex)?
Last edited by LKL on 02 Dec 2012, 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
AspieOtaku wrote:
LKL wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
LKL wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Technically women do not need men to procreate they can simply go to a sperm bank and voila..but what if all the men decided not to donate sperm whatsoever? Yeah they could clone themselves but overtime it weakens the genetic structure as each clone is made the chances of deformities can increase.
Stem cell researchers have created spermatozoa with adult bone marrow. Having bone marrow harvested isn't as pleasant as sex, but I imagine a few women would do it for the good of the many.
Of course it would be different women - still sexual reproduction, albeit with only baby girls as a result b/c there would be no men contributing Y chromosomes; still, one marrow harvest should produce enough spermatozoa to created multiple infants. And, yes, in an apocalypse that wiped out all men and all technology, we'd be SOL - but that wasn't the original premise. The original premise was 'men refusing to have sex.'
....No. I'm saying that, in an apocalypse situation with no technology remaining, that sex would be the only way to preserve the species. "SOL" means, "s**t, outta luck." Extinction, in other words, unless the men voluntarily decided to have sex.
But, again, that wasn't the original premise.
Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
LKL wrote:
In this case I'm not talking about a specific woman, but women in general. As in, 'women only want bad boys,' or 'women lie about what they want.' more than one poster on this thread has made blanket statements like this.
Funny you should mention blanket statements when I'm pretty sure you had no problem with women assuming all guys are rapists in another thread...
Please quote a post where I actually said that, since the vast majority of the thread that I think you're referencing was one long straw-man of my actual position, which is that women basically have to default on the side of defensiveness because they have no way of telling the minority of men who are rapists from the majority who are not.
Besides which, there is a big difference between, 'I'm going to take steps to protect myself because some people are dangerous,' and 'I'm going to assume that all people are stupid liars who don't know what they want.'
'Physical injury and/or death' is a significantly worse outcome than 'not getting sex.' Even if the odds of people being wrotten are the same for either gender, the risk (= odds x severity) is much higher for women.
Quit giving a cop out answer.
To be quite blunt, women are probably just as likely of being a sexual predator as men are, difference is that in the case of women, they often are under reported.
ORLY? Can you give any evidence for that that doesn't come from a biased MRA source?
And just how was my answer a "cop out"?
Edit: the following is no longer relevant, since the post that inspired it appears to have been removed.
Quote:
oooOOoh, latin! Special!
Pienso que una persona que deliberadamente habla en un lengua que la mayoría de la gente donde está no va a entender, es una persona grosera y arrogante que probablemente no tiene mucho de valor que decir de todos modos.
Pienso que una persona que deliberadamente habla en un lengua que la mayoría de la gente donde está no va a entender, es una persona grosera y arrogante que probablemente no tiene mucho de valor que decir de todos modos.
Last edited by LKL on 02 Dec 2012, 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
LKL wrote:
oooOOoh, latin! Special!
Pienso que una persona que deliberadamente habla en un lengua que la mayoría de la gente donde está no va a entender, es una persona grosera y arrogante que probablemente no tiene mucho de valor que decir de todos modos.
Pienso que una persona que deliberadamente habla en un lengua que la mayoría de la gente donde está no va a entender, es una persona grosera y arrogante que probablemente no tiene mucho de valor que decir de todos modos.
'Linguam latinam narro' non Spanish
你好!我是美国人 ![]()
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
LKL wrote:
Edit: the following is no longer relevant, since the post that inspired it appears to have been removed.
Quote:
oooOOoh, latin! Special!
Pienso que una persona que deliberadamente habla en un lengua que la mayoría de la gente donde está no va a entender, es una persona grosera y arrogante que probablemente no tiene mucho de valor que decir de todos modos.
Pienso que una persona que deliberadamente habla en un lengua que la mayoría de la gente donde está no va a entender, es una persona grosera y arrogante que probablemente no tiene mucho de valor que decir de todos modos.
That wasn't Latin, and I wouldn't go so far as to label such a person grosera y arrogante que probablemente no tiene mucho de valor que decir. That's a bit of an arrogant statement in itself.
LKL wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Where did you get the idea that some johns enjoy the power play when it comes to sleeping with hookers??? Ever talk to one? Sounds like another fabrication by some clueless radical feminist. Guys like that would either just become straight out rapists, or they would find a sub on craigslist.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... ution.html
The Daily Beast Article wrote:
“We had big, big trouble finding nonusers,” Farley says. “We finally had to settle on a definition of non-sex-buyers as men who have not been to a strip club more than two times in the past year, have not purchased a lap dance, have not used pornography more than one time in the last month, and have not purchased phone sex or the services of a sex worker, escort, erotic masseuse, or prostitute.”
The definition of "john" now includes men who masturbate more than once a month?
Her control group would have to have been the rather rare asexual men, possibly with some hormonal or other disorder.
Quote:
Farley is a leading proponent of the “abolitionist” view that prostitution is inherently harmful and should be eradicated, and her findings are likely to inflame an already contentious issue.
I strongly suspect that Miss Farley's study was coloured by a considerable amount of confirmation bias.
If her goal is to prove that men are pigs, and she begins her study with the assumption that men are pigs, then, of course, she is going to conclude conclusively that men are pigs.
Some lizards can produce offspring without a male(Remember Jurassic Park?)Female Komodo Dragons are capable of this,their first clutch will be all male,the next will be a mix of male and female.But one lizard is now totally reproducing asexually,the males consume resources but cannot reproduce,it was more efficient for just female reproduction.
I'm not saying I want this to happen to humans, it's just a interesting fact.
LKL wrote:
http://jezebel.com/men-who-visit-prostitutes/
Quote:
...But perhaps the most disturbing thing about the survey is that several men can think of prostitution as an alternative to rape. One man said, "A desperate man who wants sex so bad, he needs sex to be relieved. He might rape." Another added, "Sometimes you might rape someone: you can go to a prostitute instead." Whether or not these men are actually sublimating their violent impulses into paid sex, their conception that enough pent-up sexual desire will automatically lead to rape is a terrifying one....
Wouldn't the availability of prostitutes, then, be good for women, in terms of reducing rapes?
LKL wrote:
edit: this one isn't quite as hard on men in general, but still supports Puddingmouse's contention that some men go to prostitutes for the power play:
http://www.livescience.com/19964-secret ... ution.html
http://www.livescience.com/19964-secret ... ution.html
If they are going for "Power Play", then so what?
Here are some professional executive ejaculatory assistants in Nevada
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KA_d2R6wAY[/youtube]
They clearly regard themselves as successful professionals, and are very professional in their work.
LKL wrote:
Sounds like that particular girl wasn't very bright. Why were you hanging out with her?
...same reason she was hanging out with the as*hole (in other words, hoping that the as*hole/she would see her/your love, be changed by it, and start treating her/you better, ideally with sex)?
...same reason she was hanging out with the as*hole (in other words, hoping that the as*hole/she would see her/your love, be changed by it, and start treating her/you better, ideally with sex)?
Well no, not quite the same reason she was hanging with the a**hole. She was already getting sex from him, and no, I didn't just want sex. I genuinely cared about her... Or maybe I felt bad for her is the right way to put it... Honestly, I'm not sure why I hung out with her. The only real reason I can come up with is that I was naive and/or stupid to the ways in which dating works. I'll never make that mistake twice. It felt terrible to be someone's intellectual whore.
LKL wrote:
Please quote a post where I actually said that, since the vast majority of the thread that I think you're referencing was one long straw-man of my actual position, which is that women basically have to default on the side of defensiveness because they have no way of telling the minority of men who are rapists from the majority who are not.
Besides which, there is a big difference between, 'I'm going to take steps to protect myself because some people are dangerous,' and 'I'm going to assume that all people are stupid liars who don't know what they want.'
'Physical injury and/or death' is a significantly worse outcome than 'not getting sex.' Even if the odds of people being wrotten are the same for either gender, the risk (= odds x severity) is much higher for women.
Besides which, there is a big difference between, 'I'm going to take steps to protect myself because some people are dangerous,' and 'I'm going to assume that all people are stupid liars who don't know what they want.'
'Physical injury and/or death' is a significantly worse outcome than 'not getting sex.' Even if the odds of people being wrotten are the same for either gender, the risk (= odds x severity) is much higher for women.
I'm not going to quote it simply because I don't feel like sifting thru all those posts again. And while no, you didn't come out and say the exact words: "all men are rapists," you seemed to defend the position of it being okay to assume every man is a rapist until you know otherwise(which you technically can't ever know anyway... I mean, what's the cutoff point where you decide "okay, I guess he won't rape me. I'll let him in?"). I try to give people the benefit of the doubt until they attempt to harm me. "taking precautions" is one thing, and if I were to type up a list of precautions to take, it would include things like "don't walk thru the dark part of the ghetto at 3 am while completely shitfaced," or "don't leave your drink sit somewhere at a party/bar, walk away, and then come back to it later." It would not, however, include "assume all men you meet want to rape you and act super cold and defensive."
I have a feeling women would be in an uproar if all of a sudden, all the men started assuming every woman wanted to marry him only to take him for all he's worth and running away from them, not helping them in public when they clearly need a jump, etc.

