online "support groups" for sex deprived males

Post Reply New Topic

Only been once. I was working a Tech job with much younger blokes and they 'dragged' me along. It was such a seedy place I felt like I needed a hot shower afterwards. I wouldn't have touched any food there ! !

The ones I've been in have been on the higher quality end.

anyone saying that it's the destruction of family values and traditions etc, and feminism that are to blame, is basically saying that we should go back to the oppression and enslavement of half of the population so that the other half could stay sane and satisfied.

f**k that.

if a man is at the very extreme end of the spectrum of undesirability, and Roger was (I'm not talking about his looks nor about the probably untrue rumours of his Aspergers), as you can see by the contents of his 141-page manifesto in which he failed to present a singe loveable or even likeable trait, then no female human being wanting to touch him with a 2-metre stick is what will happen.

trying to help him get what he wanted could only be based on force and violence against some poor girl.

what should've happened is he should've been contained.

there are plenty of guys here who struggle with dating because their AS is more noticeable to NT girls than their (in most cases lovely and entirely likeable) personalities, and there's definitely a need for support forums, but why the forums so often have to be filled with hate and entitlement I don't know.

^This has nothing to do with the issue at hand



^And this kind of reasoning is why a lot of self described "nice guys" have trouble with the ladies.



^And for this you have a male dominated court system to thank. If the courts didn't think that women were weak and helpless and needed more help, then this inequality would not exist.



^And this is some serious garbage. If you honestly believe that being a "beta male" is the reason a woman rebuffs your advances, then you may want to re-examine yourself with a little more honesty.



^If a woman is filing a civil complaint, then it is not "just for speaking."



Blaming it on social anxiety is not going to help. If it is a continuous series of events, then maybe you should alter your approach, or perhaps just trying to BE a good person instead of just think about how good of a person you are. If you actually are a good person, people will eventually notice.



^And this is the kind of disturbing rationalization that enables "nice guys" to treat women in some pretty deplorable ways, all the while complaining about how nobody loves them.



^This "all women are attractive to aggresive violent alpha male" BS is garbage. It is just a way for you justify the fact that you are alone because women can see the real you and not the you that you pretend to be (even to yourself).



^So all alpha males are a-holes and bad guys?



^And all beta males are wonderful nice guys?



^Your defense of the actions of these individuals clearly demonstrates the real reason people like this are disliked. It is not because you are a beta male. It is not because all women only like jerks. It is because you are acting like a self-pitying, misogynistic, selfish little boy with a martyr complex and not like a responsible adult male.



^None of which would help you get a date.




^One of the more f***ed up things you've said in this post.



^So you want to "educate" women about the types of men they are allowed to choose, provided that you are that type?



^Perhaps we should bring litigation to limit the employability of police officers (as well as plenty of others) who accuse women of lying about being raped as a first response before that?



^There are plenty of women out there who prefer a stable, non-agressive, gentleman. You may want to take a long hard look at yourself and try to look for the real reasons for your romantic failures. It is not the women who need to make some changes.



^And yet you seem awfully dismissive of the massive amount of social bullying that goes on towards every woman almost every day?



^You have presented nothing here that would indicate this statement is remotely true of yourself.



^This is seriously disturbing. I have no words.



^You continue to complain about discrimination against men like you, yet continue to advocate discriminating against men who are not like you.



^You are not helping.



^No, the real enemies are any person/people who treat women as inferior, such as you have done throughout this entire post.




^Choice is not preserved if you have your way. You advocate radical change, but only if it means that anyone you perceive as an alpha male is no longer allowed to have a relationship.



^And again, most women who end up in stable long term relationships end up with stable, calm men. It is you that is the problem, not beta males. I am a beta male, and I have never had all these problems you are complaining about. Maybe if you spent less time pretending to yourself that you are smarter, kinder, and better (which is clearly showing that you are not) and more time acting kind, accepting women for who they are, and less time whining about how unfair it is that you aren't every woman's dream date, you just might do a little better in the relationship department.



^I don't think you really know what a beta personality is. Let me list the traits for you so you can see that many of them are traits that you have shown in your post you do not possess:

Type B people usually do not get stressed easily, even under acute circumstances.
They have a lack of urgency.
They are the people who remain calm and relaxed .
They usually take their failures with a grain of salt and write it off as merely an unpleasant experience.
They remain calm and patient under stressful situations and have a lot of self-control.
You rarely find them complaining or lamenting about anything.
They rarely tend to be aggressive or frustrated.
They spend their free time in leisure activities like socializing or having a good time.
Due to their cheerful nature, thype B people usually are surrounded by friends and lead a good social life.
They like expressing their feelings and are generally not indifferent towards others.

You seem to be confusing shy and frustrated with a beta personality. They are not the same thing. There are plenty of shy and quiet alpha males, and I am fairly certain that you fit the bill.



^You are not in touch with reality, my friend. Your attitude is quite exemplary of the type of misogyny that lurks under the surface, hiding and polluting so many people's minds, including yours. Women don't like your definition of betas because you have no respect for women at all, and it shows through your queitness.

Last edited by sonofghandi on 29 May 2014, 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

From what I understand, people who remember Rodger say they had never spoken a word to him, or he to them. I believe the rejection he says he experienced was by and large in his head. He had recounted how he had walked into a campus party without saying a word to anyone, and was incensed that no one spoke to him. So he had attacked a group of students standing on a ledge ten feet above the ground outside, and had been pushed off to the ground himself. This man lived in his own head to the point of delusion.

^um, wrong about this being a factor.
Intelligence is one of the top things most women look for in a guy. And as the age of technology continues to ramp up, so will this trend. Women are attracted to men who seem together enough to make it.

And by the way, nerds are kind of an "in" thing right now. So much so that they are becoming the dominant cool kids. I blame Big Bang Theory and the economic downturn (where those with higher education tended to weather the storm the best).

Here's a link I sent my sister when she started worrying that her nerdy kids were going to have the same kind of trouble in school that we did:

http://www.parentmap.com/article/geek-love-why-the-next-generation-of-nerds-is-cool-now

On a side note, something my wife said to me the other day when I asked her why she was ever interested in a weirdo like me: "Chicks are like zombies: we dig brains. And you've got the juiciest snack in town."

your wife sounds pretty cool ^^also, this made me giggle.

It is sad you kind of ignore some 60 years worth of history. Something is going on and you choose to ignore it, you simply dismiss what is going on, and call people who disagree with you mysogynic. There are still countries in this word who look down as women for having smaller heads, and for being too emotional and thus irrational to achieve various statuses in society. Now most people would suggest advocacy that this is not true, they wouldn't blame the women. In a sense when it comes to betas, you are blaming the betas and dismissing the needs for advocacy. Your firm grip on feminist ideology interferes with your ability to think rationally. If we had private parties finance companies who choose to take the risk of hiring women in these countries to give women a chance and prove there worth, your argument is similarly that women are getting an entitlement. You are too far lost in feminist ideals that your mind is illogical. When the media creates the "entitlement" for the bad boys to have the affection of the ladies and against us, and we have to sit back and watch our lady friends lose their futures and be abused-you are against us having advocacy that there are better choices. Because under your standard, because we care about women and don't want them being beat up, nor barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with a common criminal, nor someone forcing a woman to the abortion clinic cause he doesn't way to pay for the kid, we must therefore hate women. What this ultimately shows is that you are against women have informed choices, you are in favor of this decades long inequity, and that you want to use the label of misogyny against the very types of people who care about women the most. You are lost in a delusion because you embrace feminist rhetoric and cannot let go of it.

I realize you are still young and sadly still stuck in the feminist delusion. In the 1980s a restraining order was placed on a richard farley. He followed up be engaging in a really nasty massacre. A court administer noted that pieces of paper do not offer any protection. With Mandatory arrest provisions many women don't have them enforced often because the guy is paying their child support, and those that do have an increased risk of violence and death when he gets out of jail. No protection order can ever meet the bare minimum of grounds for their issuance; That the moving party must be likely to succeed on the merits of its issuance. A contempt of court doesn't stop the violence that would arise out of a misdemeanor or a felony, and many states recognize that when there are statutory remedy that equity is not a proper remedy. It's not that women need them, as women can buy guns which is by far more powerful than a piece of paper and thus renders a further constitutional problem on their issuance. Anyone who thinks they do any good or think they are even needed are kidding themselves. The Violence against Womans act gives money to the courts, police, and nonprofits to issue restraining orders and to enforce them, and if they are not taking them seriously enough then the municipality losing the federal funding-its never been that women need them, municipalities want the money. The federal courts have been against them, the supreme court has noted that more speech is the best way to avert violence on multiple instances which reflected the opinions of our founding fathers, the only reason we have such a ridiculous system is because feminist have influenced our federal legislature with propaganda named legislation. The only reason why they haven't been prohibited outright is because it is difficult to have standing in the federal court as long as a person can still appeal, modify, or dissolve the order-and the orders typically expire before all state remedies are exhausted. There is still a way to the federal court without standing, but most people who can't beat them in the state trial court can't afford a decent lawyer to take it to the federal court. And yes, Women do issue them to guys they don't like. Cho was one of them and, like Farley, a massacre followed sometime after. One lady filed one on David Letterman saying he was sending secret messages to her over the TV. Great social policy feminist, any more bright ideas?

What the hell is a beta? I don't really follow his particular alpha/beta line of thinking - I don't find it reflects reality, and in fact has to ignore a lot to actually make sense.

So, is a beta anyone who at the present moment hasn't got a girlfriend? Or who hasn't had a girlfriend for x amount of time?

Cos as far as I can tell, by what I sense is the definition, I'm beta all the way. And I've not found it a problem. What wasa problem was various psychological issues - not least basic functioning things that are part of my AS - that made it difficult for me to navigate any kind of relationship, let alone a romantic one, and made it hard for people to be around me at times. All I've ever really had to work with was what there is of my intelligence.

And I am not the only one. I look around the places I go, and see loads and loads of 'beta' males in relationships. It's the norm.

nerds do you even realise that you're dehumanising women?

Eh, people can join support groups as much as they want about whatever they want, and as long as it stays in their circles, who cares?

And those of above average intelligence will disagree with you?

Last edited by Gromit on 29 May 2014, 5:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It is sad that you are misinterpreting 60 years worth of history.



I dismiss your fantasy world where any man who isn't the object of every woman's desire is being discriminated against. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. You come across as self-righteous and selfish, but I'm just going to pretend like you are merely jaded from rejection. I am also giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you are not like many others I've known who talk like you, yet only want women to talk to them if they have large breasts, a tiny waist, and are charismatic and fun.

And I'm not dismissing people who disagree with me; I am dismissing your viewpoints, personally, and your absurd notion that the women of this world owe you something.



And you look down on women for not meeting your personal ideal of what you think they should want.



I am not blaming the betas for anything. I am, however, quite strongly suggesting that you most certainly are not one. You may be reserved, shy, and quiet, and that may even be the biggest reason you have so much trouble, but it isn't because women only like d*ckheads. And you really should do a little research on what a beta personality actually is, because you meet very few of the characteristics.



And you advocate not giving women the option to make choices that you perceive as bad. And you automatically assume that any man who doesn't meet your definition of a beta male is going to be an abusive drug addict.



No. I am suggesting that you have no respect for women because you feel like you are superior, despite your repeated statements that clearly show that you paint them in a negative light by repeatedly stating that women don't like nice guys. I am not sating you can't care about them, just that your version of caring seem to come from a selfish view tainted with a dose of woman blaming.



I label you as a misogynist because despite your claims to the contrary, you feel that women are the problem. It is as simple as that.



So a person who ended up committing a terrible violent act should never have been given a restraining order? I don't follow your logic on that one.



Restraining orders work most of the time. They provide real consequences for not leaving someone alone. They don't always work because some people don't care about right and wrong and some people assume that they deserve to be with whoever they want even if that person does not want to be near them. Eliminating restraining orders will not help the situation in any way. But you go ahead and try to claim otherwise.



You do realize that this only enforces my opinion that you are a misogynist of the most insidious type, don't you? Maybe you don't personally beat the crap out of a woman, but you seem to be advocating the removal of one of the very few tools women have to avoid men that they are afraid of. Are restraining orders abused sometimes? Yes, of course they are. Every single tiny aspect of our legal system is at times. That doesn't mean we should abolish it.

And just for the record, that Act in large part provides assistance to women who have been abused and harsher legal penalties for those who do the abusing.



And you don't see how perhaps a restraining order was justified? Do you seriously believe that the woman who placed it on him should have instead just decided to give him the relationship he wanted because she might be harmed if she didn't?



So one crazy lady is your best argument on this one (I'm not counting murderers as an actual supporting argument)?



I suppose you still believe that your idea of forcing women to prefer men like you as some sort of social justice? If that is the case, I have no problems with your label. And just for the record, men are allowed to file restraining orders, too.

I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that you echo so many of points in Rodgers' ramblings and you continue to justify and rationalize extreme acts of violence. Yet you still feel like you are somehow not a misogynist.

Quite right! We must uphold standards, be cultured:
Tricksy, those argumentses, sly. And that's only the beginning. It starts with considering arguments, and they tell you it's fine, you can give it up any time you like. But soon you're evaluating evidence, and before you know what's happening, you might make a rational decision every now and then, and then you're in trouble!

I have never said that women of the world owe me anything, nor have I advanced this ideology. I am not a mysogynist and you advance prevarications to attack me. You attack those who disagree with your feminist ideologies because you can't handle your ideas being challenged and you are completely warped within their delusional subculture. You also falsely assert say I am the type who would also speak to women who have big assets, thin waste, charismatic and fun because you can't handle reality so you attack the speaker. I don't discriminate against women.

I don't look down at women for their choices, nor have I ever. I do feel bad for them when they get hurt, especially when everyone knew the it would happen. I accept that the world is messed up not that women have any blame, yet you attack me for trying to advocate for a better world to be a better place for both women and for men. I haven't argued that choices should be taken away from women, the goal of marketing and advocacy is to inform consumers about a product or idea. You simply oppose such marketing because you have been predisposed to say misogyny like a parrot, because feminist don't want you to think, to learn, or to know. When people promote marketing they are not taking away choice, they are trying to educate, often to a targeted demographic, to sell a product or idea. But I understand your a good little feminist commie aren't you with very little business acumen.

**************
Restraining orders do not work, they fail most of the time and often times they make things worse, especially after they are first issued. Due to the nature of VAWA, many women aren't reporting restraining order violations. In other cases they hook up with the restrained person. In the worst cases women intentionally violate men. A piece of paper doesn't stop someone, especially "if they don't care about right and wrong"-Especially if they want to engage in the type of violence people think they stop. You want to justify a restraining order on Farley yet it didn't offer any protection at all-it was, like all other RO, issued without merit and therefore had no justification for its issuance but was likely to be a trigger for his murderous conduct. They are just something that makes you feminist feel good but offer absolutely zero protection and have the opposite desired effect, and are never justified even using the laws of equity. These ROs created "rights" for women, at the expense of males, that the supreme court has rejected, and to the extent that any crimes in violation of a RO are committed can violate another fundamental rule of equity and due process violations. Wow, can civil equity, which given out like candy, punish a man, who may not of had a hearing or even been served, more severely than a prior criminal conviction? Why yes, in the world of the feminist.
Can calling to say, "hey honey really I miss my kids, I would like to know when can i seen them again" lead to civil contempt? if the person asks, but not if done through counsel. These are several serious constitutional violations-all endorsed by feminism. Counsel can do the talking instead of the restrained, and complete strangers can serve court documents right to the home of the protected person on behalf of a restrained person. Fascinating, what is it feminist say these do again? Hmm, that publications are allowed if only they go through the courts...wow doesn't that have historic roots to 17th century England which we long since rejected that principle. It is time to tear down these walls and get a grip on reality. Women have many options available that do not include protection orders yet are substantially more effective and legal-which also renders RO unconstitutional. But you know, feminist really don't want to advocate for them-They won't get VAWA money if they did.

To the user named nerds, here's something I think describes the world you want us to live in: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpoVsRanrcc[/youtube]

Also, you are a very creepy person and I really hope Wrong Planet is not full of people like you.