Feminist 'War on Women' propaganda goes off the rails - i have no words for this video

[PaulConventionWV]

No, I am not. The man does have free will to communicate his desires, but the woman also has the free will to reject his advances. This is logical since by its nature, consensual sex is a two-way street where both parties should be openly communicating every step of the way. I fail to see how this is an oppressive cultural standard. What I have previously written is not "completely wrong," since I have found it meshes with how I have heard others describe their sexual experiences.

As for the other hypotheticals you posed in your reply, I hardly think the issue of non-consensual sex is comparable to going on a cruise or buying a family pet. One is clearly an act of violence by definition, while purchasing goods is not. But just so you don't misunderstand where I'm coming from, I see no issue with the man refusing to purchase either of those two items. If someone pesters me about something like that, it's pretty simple for me to just ignore them and break off contact - but that is just a personal thing of mine.

Why can't every woman do that? If they really don't want to have sex, then just ignore them and break off contact. Just because it's a hard choice, that doesn't mean there's force involved. Everyone has difficult decisions in their life, but their decisions are still just that, THEIRS.

This is just mind-boggling. You repeatedly assert the woman's right to refuse and yet you act like that right is violated if she STOPS refusing. If she doesn't want sex, then why does she stop refusing? Just keep refusing and there will be no sex unless the man uses force. So apparently a woman has the right to refuse, but choosing to stop refusing is a violation of one's rights...?

I don't advocate throwing people in prison for this (the prisons are crowded enough already), but I do advocate changing cultural attitudes such that we can minimize the issue of people feeling as though they are being cajoled into having sex. I am advocating for people to be valued as individuals above the sexual angle. The problem comes when the sex is valued more highly than the individual and thus the perpetrator doesn't acknowledge that what he/she is doing is coercion.

I've got news. The only way to not be cajoled in ANY situation is to be steadfast in your own decisions. If a street vendor stands in front of you on the street and tries to get you to buy something and you succumb to his nagging, is it theft? This is a valid analogy because everyone can choose to just walk away. The presence of other variables that make the decision harder don't make it any less possible to refuse. You need to learn the difference between coercing and convincing. If someone talks you into something, they are NOT coercing you.

Nothing I have written contradicts this idea. Purposefully asking numerous times expecting the other party to let his/her guard down, does, however, fall into "taking sex". At the end of the day, what it really comes down to is this: if someone says no, and you respect his/her reply, you lose the sex... which is obtainable pretty much anywhere, but if someone says no and you don't respect his/her reply, you have done harm to them whether you realize it or not. Which of the two scenarios would you rather live with? Seems like a common sense notion to me.

This exact same situation happens in a plethora of situations not involving sex every single day. It's just part of life. You have to negotiate with people. If you don't want it that bad, then all you have to do is not say yes... it's that simple. If convincing someone to do something they don't want to do is coercion, then this happens all the freaking time. If it's emotionally damaging for you to give in, then the simple solution is to NOT GIVE IN. If the woman does not give in and she still feels pressured, has he still harmed her? If a woman tries to get a man to buy her something and he does not give in, does it harm him? If so, then I hate to say it, but you really need to toughen up. Sometimes you have to negotiate in life. Not respecting someone's answer is NOT coercion. If a pushy salesman gets you to give him your money or credit card, he didn't steal from you. He did not coerce you. You just have to negotiate better or not give in.

[PaulConventionWV]

I recall the day the wife put her foot down and said, "we have to clean this house today" and I said, "If I get laid first you won't hear me complain about it one bit." And a deal was struck.

Rapist!

[William Tell]

Define masculinity.

Braveheart.

[William Tell]

For our pessimist: http://www.artofmanliness.com/

It's really not corny, probably the most informative site on the net to be honest.

[PaulConventionWV]

And what to do about a woman who feels uncomfortable saying no because her partner won't take no for an answer? Sometimes simply continuing to say "no" doesn't work so well, especially in relationships that are already characterized by some sort of abuse. In your examples, you act like men only ask twice, but a lot beg way more than that, to an embarrassing extent.


No one is "taking any rights away." The standard of consent I'm talking about perfectly allows men to express their feelings, and it allows females to make up their own minds without fearing the repercussions of a possible refusal to have sex. Sometimes it can be absolutely terrifying for women to say no.



As I've said before, it seems dangerous to take that sort of risk when you aren't the woman in question. Again, half of that is pressure due to societal expectations of how men and women should feel about sex (the "she doesn't want to seem 'easy'" part).


I've already outlined what is wrong with persistent cajoling, and I'll mention again that the thing you're completely disregarding is a lot of women's attitudes towards sex in the context of society's current old-fashioned attitudes regarding male and female desire. Sex under such circumstances can trigger guilt and victim-blaming by the victim. Manipulating someone into sexual relations is at the very least a moral hazard. Using sex as reward/punishment, to get something from somebody or as blatant emotional manipulation isn't respectful conduct. If you are with someone and your sex drives are disproportionate or your expectations are radically different, there is no way to have a mutually healthy sexual relationship. If one person has to repeatedly beg the other for sex as I have outlined before, it's probably a sign that the relationship isn't going to work. I also don't mean to imply that every single sexual encounter requires the people involved to be equally into it, but in the case of committed relationships, it should be easy to tell when desires are simply incompatible.

As a side note, seeking sex from other sources isn't inherently bad either IMO, as long as the two people in question have agreements in place. Not to derail too much here, but I have my suspicions that polyamory (not that polyamory can simply be reduced to the desire to have more sex) is a natural orientation just like all the others on the spectrum. But that's neither here nor there, really.



Congratulations? Women don't have to agree with each other on everything, you know.


I would certainly consider it a lack of respect if carried to an extreme, sure. That sort of thing is toxic, too. I'm not as biased as to think women can do no wrong in these sorts of things.

What you don't seem to get is that this is just the way the world works. What would happen if everyone only asked once for something they wanted? Obviously, it would seem like they didn't really want it. In order for someone to express how important it is to them, they need to ask more than once because there really is no harm in asking, as the saying goes. If you want men to not ask more than once, then you are limiting their ability to express the importance of their desires/needs.

Every single human being in existence has gotten what they wanted with a little persistence. And if it harms you to be asked more than once for something, then that's nobody's problem but your own. Toughen up and develop your mental resolve and resilience. People can ask until they're blue in the face, but changing your mind and acquiescing due to being convinced never constitutes coercion.

[PaulConventionWV]

Define masculinity.

Why?

[PaulConventionWV]

In fairness, there are a bunch of date rapist types who take any form of communication from a nearly unconscious woman as a 'yes'.

That's not what we're discussing and it's not really relevant.

[Rothbardian Girl]

What does "won't take no for an answer" mean exactly? Like, if she says no he will force her? Because that is rape... if the woman TRULY feels like she is being violently threatened, or has good reason to believe that she would be if she keeps saying no, that is rape..

A lot of women (and I'm sure a similar situation occurs with men as well) specifically have developed social maneuvers to placate people who make unwanted advances toward them. When I go to bars, I like to people-watch a lot; now, this is introducing alcohol into the mix, but the basic idea is unchanged (and it occurs with people who aren't drunk, too). Oftentimes it appears as though the woman is into the guy chatting her up and sitting just a little too close, and as a bystander one might wonder why the woman chooses to humor the man. The thing is, though, humoring the guy is a rational choice that avoids conflict, especially since the expectation might be for the woman to be nice and 'non-bitchy'. As an aside, Louis CK actually devoted some of an episode of his show to explaining how this works. So I guess my point is that not enough women understand that being assertive is important, and this extends to relationship settings as well. It's something that isn't easily solved by telling someone to "toughen up" when assertive behavior in women generally isn't rewarded or even mentioned as an option. What do I mean by this? A lot of it goes back to socialization and parenting as well.

By the way, I don't want to get too caught up in what constitutes a man 'asking too many times' for sex. Cajoling and emotional manipulation for the express purposes of sexual activity imply something very different from and more insidious than simply asking to have sex more than once. By the same token, having a completely open discussion about the ebb and flow of sexual desire within a relationship is exactly the right thing to do - the problem is when these issues are not talked about between the people in the relationship. That is when things become unhealthy.

[pessimist]

Why?

So everyone knows what you mean by it.

Is it psychological? physical? spiritual? philosophical? A combination of all of them?

Is the bourgeois womanizing guy in a business suit who cheats on his wife the embodiment of masculinity? How about the blue collar, beer-guzzling sports fan that occasionally likes to smack his wife around in front of his children when he has one of too many?

Maybe you're referring to the big, buff gym rat types who immerse themselves in homoerotic imagery as being the epitome of masculinity?

Were you referring to the hard working Christian family man? The radical Muslim? The Vikings? Samurais? The Aztecs? What do you mean by masculinity?

In all honesty, I find that many men obsessed with the concept are often conflicted with their sexual orientation. I am not saying that ALL of them are, but it's just a general observation.

[euphemia]

Maybe I'm just the little fat grandma, but I've been married over 30 years to the same guy. What I told our daughter is that she should not plan to be married until she is willing to commit to being sexual with her husband at least 2-3 times a week for the rest of her life. It is unfair to ask a man to commit to an exclusive relationship that does not also include being regularly and willingly sexual. It's the one thing that should not ever be in question, barring serious illness or disability.

It is still a mutial choice. Women should stop being naive. If they are not willing to choose to be enthusiastically sexual with their men, they should stay doggedly single. Don't expect the calls, texts, flowers, candy, movies, and dinners. Most men are not pigs. They are men. They deserve not to be minimized for how they are wired. And men should respect themselves enough to be honest with that and not be involved with women who ignore their needs.

Just my opinion and my experience for over 30 years. If any of you guys want to present an honest argument to the contrary, I'm here to listen. Life is too short to be silly about basic biology.

[William Tell]

It is psychological? physical? spiritual? philosophical? A combination of all of them?

Yes.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/0...nhood-protect/
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/0...ood-procreate/
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/0...nhood-provide/

[Deborah K]

Maybe I'm just the little fat grandma, but I've been married over 30 years to the same guy. What I told our daughter is that she should not plan to be married until she is willing to commit to being sexual with her husband at least 2-3 times a week for the rest of her life. It is unfair to ask a man to commit to an exclusive relationship that does not also include being regularly and willingly sexual. It's the one thing that should not ever be in question, barring serious illness or disability.

It is still a mutial choice. Women should stop being naive. If they are not willing to choose to be enthusiastically sexual with their men, they should stay doggedly single. Don't expect the calls, texts, flowers, candy, movies, and dinners. Most men are not pigs. They are men. They deserve not to be minimized for how they are wired. And men should respect themselves enough to be honest with that and not be involved with women who ignore their needs.

Just my opinion and my experience for over 30 years. If any of you guys want to present an honest argument to the contrary, I'm here to listen. Life is too short to be silly about basic biology.

As an old married grandma myself - I concur.

[PaulConventionWV]

A lot of women (and I'm sure a similar situation occurs with men as well) specifically have developed social maneuvers to placate people who make unwanted advances toward them. When I go to bars, I like to people-watch a lot; now, this is introducing alcohol into the mix, but the basic idea is unchanged (and it occurs with people who aren't drunk, too). Oftentimes it appears as though the woman is into the guy chatting her up and sitting just a little too close, and as a bystander one might wonder why the woman chooses to humor the man. The thing is, though, humoring the guy is a rational choice that avoids conflict, especially since the expectation might be for the woman to be nice and 'non-bitchy'. As an aside, Louis CK actually devoted some of an episode of his show to explaining how this works. So I guess my point is that not enough women understand that being assertive is important, and this extends to relationship settings as well. It's something that isn't easily solved by telling someone to "toughen up" when assertive behavior in women generally isn't rewarded or even mentioned as an option. What do I mean by this? A lot of it goes back to socialization and parenting as well.

By the way, I don't want to get too caught up in what constitutes a man 'asking too many times' for sex. Cajoling and emotional manipulation for the express purposes of sexual activity imply something very different from and more insidious than simply asking to have sex more than once. By the same token, having a completely open discussion about the ebb and flow of sexual desire within a relationship is exactly the right thing to do - the problem is when these issues are not talked about between the people in the relationship. That is when things become unhealthy.

Every woman has the opportunity to be assertive on her own. She can't depend on society to create the right environment for assertiveness to be acceptable. In fact, that is the opposite of assertion. That is trying to mold your surroundings so that you don't have to be assertive. If women want to be assertive, then they should BE ASSERTIVE. The only way to do that is to ASSERT YOURSELF. Asserting means not depending on others to express how you really feel. Society is not going to change, so it's best to modify your own reaction rather than trying to modify the behavior of a million other people.

[PaulConventionWV]

So everyone knows what you mean by it.

Is it psychological? physical? spiritual? philosophical? A combination of all of them?

Is the bourgeois womanizing guy in a business suit who cheats on his wife the embodiment of masculinity? How about the blue collar, beer-guzzling sports fan that occasionally likes to smack his wife around in front of his children when he has one of too many?

Maybe you're referring to the big, buff gym rat types who immerse themselves in homoerotic imagery as being the epitome of masculinity?

Were you referring to the hard working Christian family man? The radical Muslim? The Vikings? Samurais? The Aztecs? What do you mean by masculinity?

In all honesty, I find that many men obsessed with the concept are often conflicted with their sexual orientation. I am not saying that ALL of them are, but it's just a general observation.

I really just meant to mention in passing a time when masculinity as we know it would become obsolete.

And don't make me laugh with that "most men obsessed with masculinity are closet cases" nonsense. That's just more tripe rustled up by the ultra-liberals with absolutely no backing. It's rhetoric, not an actual observation other than with severe bias. You see what you want to see.

[pessimist]

Yes.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/0...nhood-protect/
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/0...ood-procreate/
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/0...nhood-provide/

Awesome.

So all of us tall skinny nerd/stoner hybrids can become real men in 3 easy steps?

[pessimist]

I really just meant to mention in passing a time when masculinity as we know it would become obsolete.

And don't make me laugh with that "most men obsessed with masculinity are closet cases" nonsense. That's just more tripe rustled up by the ultra-liberals with absolutely no backing. It's rhetoric, not an actual observation other than with severe bias. You see what you want to see.

generally that is true though.

[PaulConventionWV]

Maybe I'm just the little fat grandma, but I've been married over 30 years to the same guy. What I told our daughter is that she should not plan to be married until she is willing to commit to being sexual with her husband at least 2-3 times a week for the rest of her life. It is unfair to ask a man to commit to an exclusive relationship that does not also include being regularly and willingly sexual. It's the one thing that should not ever be in question, barring serious illness or disability.

It is still a mutial choice. Women should stop being naive. If they are not willing to choose to be enthusiastically sexual with their men, they should stay doggedly single. Don't expect the calls, texts, flowers, candy, movies, and dinners. Most men are not pigs. They are men. They deserve not to be minimized for how they are wired. And men should respect themselves enough to be honest with that and not be involved with women who ignore their needs.

Just my opinion and my experience for over 30 years. If any of you guys want to present an honest argument to the contrary, I'm here to listen. Life is too short to be silly about basic biology.

I like the way you word this and agree whole-heartedly. I'm not going to tell my girls what to do for their men because I think that's the mother's job. Only a woman can teach developing women how to handle these situations. Reaching a mutual agreement often involves negotiation, and no amount of negotiation should ever be considered coercion. If a man wants to ask 30 times a day for the rest of his life, then he can do that if he wants and there's nothing wrong with it. I can't imagine a woman that would want to be with him, but again, she has to make that choice whether she wants to or not. She can't expect society to make it for her.

[pessimist]

“Manhood is the social barrier that societies must erect against entropy, human enemies, the forces of nature, time, and all the human weaknesses that endanger group life.” -David D. Gilmore

Why all the penis metaphors?

[specsaregood]

Maybe I'm just the little fat grandma, but I've been married over 30 years to the same guy. What I told our daughter is that she should not plan to be married until she is willing to commit to being sexual with her husband at least 2-3 times a week for the rest of her life. It is unfair to ask a man to commit to an exclusive relationship that does not also include being regularly and willingly sexual. It's the one thing that should not ever be in question, barring serious illness or disability.

As an old married grandma myself - I concur.

Maybe you two should be some pre-marriage counselors.

[PaulConventionWV]

generally that is true though.

No, it's not. Link to studies or stop propagating that idiocy. It's pure rhetoric based on biased observation. You see what you want to see.

[euphemia]

Every woman has the opportunity to be assertive on her own. She can't depend on society to create the right environment for assertiveness to be acceptable. In fact, that is the opposite of assertion. That is trying to mold your surroundings so that you don't have to be assertive. If women want to be assertive, then they should BE ASSERTIVE. The only way to do that is to ASSERT YOURSELF. Asserting means not depending on others to express how you really feel. Society is not going to change, so it's best to modify your own reaction rather than trying to modify the behavior of a million other people.

Indeed. And the way to do that is to be honest. When I was single, I made a practice of being up front. "Thank you. I'm not into casual relationships."

[PaulConventionWV]

[/FONT][/COLOR]Why all the penis metaphors?

Why are you asking us? Ask David D. Gilmore.

And to be fair, you made the association between the word "erect" and "penis", not him.

[pessimist]

Dude, read those links. There is a bunch of underlying....

just read it.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Is the bourgeois womanizing guy in a business suit who cheats on his wife the embodiment of masculinity? How about the blue collar, beer-guzzling sports fan that occasionally likes to smack his wife around in front of his children when he has one of too many?

These examples describe dirtbags. These people are the antithesis of masculinity.

Masculinity, in my opinion, would necessarily include the values that accompany social and biological maleness. Not doing the things you just described is the bare minimum you need to call yourself a "man." It's just a given that a man should not do these things.

People here can speak for themselves, but I think they're referring to a de-emphasis on masculinity in our culture. Government has taken over some of the functional roles that males once performed. Welfare is a good example of enablement that has written off the responsibility of fatherhood.

In all honesty, I find that many men obsessed with the concept are often conflicted with their sexual orientation. I am not saying that ALL of them are, but it's just a general observation.

One of the reasons that they're conflicted about just basic males roles is because so many have attempted to socially engineer maleness in a way that conflicts with basic biology and roles. If a young man knows that government is going to enable his irresponsibility, then he can further justify his impregnations of young women. The problem becomes exacerbated and cyclical when those male children do not have fathers to teach them responsibility in how to treat females.

Another example is women attempting to match men in aspect of living when it's difficult or unfeasible. There is absolutely nothing wrong with fathers staying at home to raise children, but it is not practical in the infancy years because only one sex is capable of breast feeding. Artificial milk is a social solution that is inferior to biology.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Every woman has the opportunity to be assertive on her own. She can't depend on society to create the right environment for assertiveness to be acceptable. In fact, that is the opposite of assertion. That is trying to mold your surroundings so that you don't have to be assertive. If women want to be assertive, then they should BE ASSERTIVE. The only way to do that is to ASSERT YOURSELF. Asserting means not depending on others to express how you really feel. Society is not going to change, so it's best to modify your own reaction rather than trying to modify the behavior of a million other people.

Where did I ever imply that being dependent on society was the answer? Time and time again I have advocated educational efforts, which involve women being assertive. Also, are you seriously claiming society doesn't change? Literally every notable upheaval throughout history proves you wrong. What makes these efforts any less likely to succeed than others? People aren't blank slates that can flip a switch and decide to stand up for themselves; usually, that is a learned behavior. Again, it's really easy for you to boil it down to "WHY AREN'T MORE WOMEN DOING THIS???", but there is more nuance to it than that.

[PaulConventionWV]

Dude, read those links. There is a bunch of underlying....

just read it.

Okay, I read it, and I think it's just you. You're the one making these associations, not anyone else.

[William Tell]

[/FONT][/COLOR]Why all the penis metaphors?

Lol man, you are funny.

[William Tell]

Awesome.

So all of us tall skinny nerd/stoner hybrids can become real men in 3 easy steps?

It's about mindset and behavior, most of all. So yeah, having honor makes you more manly than some wrestler who does not behave honorably. Those articles were good, but there's a whole lot more to manliness than just 3 steps I would think.

[PaulConventionWV]

Where did I ever imply that being dependent on society was the answer? Time and time again I have advocated educational efforts, which involve women being assertive. Also, are you seriously claiming society doesn't change? Literally every notable upheaval throughout history proves you wrong. What makes these efforts any less likely to succeed than others? People aren't blank slates that can flip a switch and decide to stand up for themselves; usually, that is a learned behavior. Again, it's really easy for you to boil it down to "WHY AREN'T MORE WOMEN DOING THIS???", but there is more nuance to it than that.

No, I never implied that society doesn't change; just that it's much more effective to modify your reaction to society instead of trying to change society to suit you.

And really, I don't think it's any more complicated than making a conscious decision to be assertive. You're making it complicated, not society. It's really quite simple. "Learned behavior" is no excuse if you are aware of your ability to be assertive. If you know how to be assertive, then there is no excuse for not being assertive other than your own laziness.

That's not to say it's easy, but nobody else can make your decisions for you, so it is a good skill to have. If you don't have it, then develop it. That's the only logical answer for the problem of not being assertive.

[Rothbardian Girl]

No, I never implied that society doesn't change; just that it's much more effective to modify your reaction to society instead of trying to change society to suit you.

And really, I don't think it's any more complicated than making a conscious decision to be assertive. You're making it complicated, not society. It's really quite simple. "Learned behavior" is no excuse if you are aware of your ability to be assertive. If you know how to be assertive, then there is no excuse for not being assertive other than your own laziness.

That's not to say it's easy, but nobody else can make your decisions for you, so it is a good skill to have. If you don't have it, then develop it. That's the only logical answer for the problem of not being assertive.

You're preaching to the choir here, but in certain situations, such as the bar scenario, it's understandable why some women don't know how to handle problems when they come up. It's a preservation instinct that can't be easily fixed unless the person has had proper education (most likely starting in childhood) about how to handle aggressive people.