By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Cubedramirez said:
Beta males. Gene pool was supposed to clear them out, now instead they are allowed to get old enough and angry enough to commit acts of terror because they're failures.

Back when I was young those kids would have learned early on how to gain confidence by being forced to address conflict but now are allowed to fester and live comfortable.

I'd be ashamed if my son turned out to be one and like hell if either of my daughters bring one home; I'd break such a little shit.

Little danger of that, being brought home by a girl is not characteristic of an incel.

How exactly was the gene pool supposed to "clean them out"? Obviously they won't reproduce, but you phrase it as though something was supposed to kill them off before they "get old enough and angry enough to commit acts of terror".



SpokenTruth said:
Cubedramirez said:
Beta males. Gene pool was supposed to clear them out, now instead they are allowed to get old enough and angry enough to commit acts of terror because they're failures.

Back when I was young those kids would have learned early on how to gain confidence by being forced to address conflict but now are allowed to fester and live comfortable.

I'd be ashamed if my son turned out to be one and like hell if either of my daughters bring one home; I'd break such a little shit.

1. We are not primal instinct functioning animals.  We have long since evolved past that stage...well, most of us.

2. Shy men /= incel terrorists. 

3. You would prefer a hyper-masculine son or son-on-law over a calm, mild mannered one?  The former would be more likely to assault your daughter.

That posting was satire



Jaicee said:
Aeolus451 said:

Meh. I never liked that expression "as a" woman or some other identity. It doesn't really mean anything  because people aren't monolithic in general. It doesn't even work "as a feminist" because as you explained, there's different kinds. Anyway, I like conversations  like this believe it or not. They're entertaining and mentally stimulating. I'll check out that vid as I'm going thru my daily podcasts and what not.

I don't think I'm projecting. I think that the vast majority of women and men want to get along and for there to be equality. I think the vast majority of women and men (people in general) want to have sex with, form lasting relationships, have a family with eachother. For the most part, western feminism/the MGTOW movements are antithetical what people want and poisonous to relationships. If anyone is projecting their interests, it's feminists onto women and MGTOWs onto men.

Collectivism and the collective good aren't mutually exclusive. I get what you're saying about rad fems being more interested in the collective good but I disagree about liberals  of today and the conventional left being more individualistic. They are obsessed with collectivism but only with certain groups in society being a part of their umbrella group. Everyone else they demonize. There's also alot of sex negative fems in there. The way you're using liberal in context with feminists makes me you're talking about sex postitive fems. I don't consider them liberal. This ties into the marxists and I agree with ya on them in general. 

I agree on with ya on the born gay thing but likely for different reasons. I think that people make the choice and not their impulses. Alot of people don't like this because it means that people are ultimately the one responsible for their choices and not something that's convenient to blame. Some might misinterpret my stance on that because they think that I'm religious because I'm right leaning. I just think that a person's choice is a very powerful thing and a person gets to choose most of their life and not some god or their impulses. My stance on "born gay" ties into my interactions with lesbians and my opinion on choice.

I agree with you on lesbians in general. I used to be friends with alot of them (shared interests). I get along with them well except for the man haters and the ones who became one because of sexual abuse/sponsal abuse. I was introduced to and became friends with lesbians thru dating bisexual women. Lesbians kinda think like guys when it comes to women. Conversations were pretty intriguing, entertaining and enlightening for me. I realized fairly quickly that lesbian is more of a mutable term rather than a absolute one. 

I think the non-binary stuff is nonsensical but hey people can do what want but therein lies my problem with them, they or their advocates want to dictate thru law how others refer to them. I'm just not okay with that authoritarian shit. I'm fine with using the intended gender of trans women and men when look like that gender because it falls in social norms to some extent but again they shouldn't force people thru law. 

Yeah, sometimes I enjoy these types of conversations too, as long as they don't get too bitter. It's a challenge, you know, trying to communicate productively with someone you disagree with almost entirely, but precisely for that reason, it can feel good to succeed and I think we have to some degree here. It makes for a worthwhile learning experience!

Anyway, you say that "there are a lot of sex negative feminists out there". Really, because I've seen exactly one self-described sex-negative feminist lifetime total so far (this one five years ago), and she wasn't exactly a radfem, or for that matter anti-sex or particularly unreasonable at all. She was simply someone who felt that society should not actively promote sex as a life goal, but rather should be publicly neutral on.

"Sex-positive" or "pro-sex" are what I like to call posturing terms. They're terms that some liberals use to imply that anyone who brings a feminist critique to the conduct of the sexual arena (e.g. opposing sadomasochism and other so-called kinks or the commercialization of women's bodies or polygamy or supporting age-of-consent laws, or maybe even just supporting #MeToo) is just simply uncool. Of course radfems don't actually oppose sex! Or the inclusion of sexuality in media or whatever for that matter. We just feel that sex should be egalitarian and that makes us unsexy in the eyes of a sexist society.

I think that for you the "sex-negative" moniker here probably just means that you didn't like Anita Sarkeesian's critiques of sexual objectification in games or something. That's not the same thing as actually opposing sex or the inclusion or sexuality in mainstream media.

Okay, I've gotta go to work now. Had a few, figured I'd finally get around to responding.

 Sex-negative fem and sex-positive fem aren't meant to be used as a self-described label but rather as a simple classification for the two general stances within feminism on sex work, modeling, sexual freedom, etc which is is the main point of contention within feminism.  Sex-negative feminist in particular, is not a self-described moniker because it has a negative connotation and it would make a person's stance clear which would make it easier to challenge. This is what should be labelled as the great debate on women's choice on what they can do with their body.

Sex-negative feminists ultimately want to do away with all sex work, modeling of attractive women (because it can be considered objectification by their standards), depictions of attractive women in fictional work (comics, video games, etc) and roll back the sexual revolution. They want to remove or limit all women's choice in relation to this stuff by removing the option entirely.  Their reasoning doesn't really matter because it will be something that sounds good PR-wise but won't be the truth. They're favorite tactic is "men like it" or "it's the result of the patriarchy". Believe it or not but sex-negative feminism is more prominent in feminism as a whole. They tend to have a sexist attitude towards men. I don't think that they don't like sex but they're more prudish in general and some don't like men.

In summary of sex-positive feminism, they believe that it's ultimately women's choice with what they do with their body and it's all okay just so long as it's their choice. They are t he most compatible with general society just because they don't demonize men and people have become open minded about sex. They are generally trotted out as the poster girls of feminism.

I said that about Anita because that's her stance on this and she's always playing the victim or making up shit for more "support" as in more money. 

I don't really know rad fems position on this stuff but my post is mainly about feminism in general.



Remember that virgin is a very common insult online. I'm glad I don't base my self esteem around how much sex I had.



SpokenTruth said:
Cubedramirez said:
Beta males. Gene pool was supposed to clear them out, now instead they are allowed to get old enough and angry enough to commit acts of terror because they're failures.

Back when I was young those kids would have learned early on how to gain confidence by being forced to address conflict but now are allowed to fester and live comfortable.

I'd be ashamed if my son turned out to be one and like hell if either of my daughters bring one home; I'd break such a little shit.

1. We are not primal instinct functioning animals.  We have long since evolved past that stage...well, most of us.

2. Shy men /= incel terrorists. 

3. You would prefer a hyper-masculine son or son-on-law over a calm, mild mannered one?  The former would be more likely to assault your daughter.

"We are not primal instinct functioning animals."

lol really? if you truly believe that you are incredibly naive

if people were truly rational then feminist could never by the majority claim to advocate for women's issues while at the same time proclaiming that a man can become a woman simply by identifying as one

 

"You would prefer a hyper-masculine son or son-on-law over a calm, mild mannered one?  The former would be more likely to assault your daughter."

the former would also be more likely to be heroic and not a coward

 

"Shy men /= incel terrorists. "

all incels without fail are shy men who are too afraid to approach women... shyness is their core problem

teach men to be aggressive  and direct and the incel issue would vanish instantly

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 08 June 2018

o_O.Q said: 

"Shy men /= incel terrorists. "

all incels without fail are shy men who are too afraid to approach women... shyness is their core problem

teach men to be aggressive  and direct and the incel issue would vanish instantly

Not true. I'm not too afraid to approach women, I do so often, just never with successful results.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 08 June 2018

curl-6 said:
o_O.Q said: 

"Shy men /= incel terrorists. "

all incels without fail are shy men who are too afraid to approach women... shyness is their core problem

teach men to be aggressive  and direct and the incel issue would vanish instantly

Not true. I'm not too afraid to approach women, I do so often, just never with successful results.

come on dude you don't seem to be bitter and resentful towards women... i'd hardly put you in the same group as the guys who identify as incel

and most guys go through loads of rejection anyway



o_O.Q said:
curl-6 said:

Not true. I'm not too afraid to approach women, I do so often, just never with successful results.

come on dude you don't seem to be bitter and resentful towards women... i'd hardly put you in the same group as the guys who identify as incel

and most guys go through loads of rejection anyway

Well, you are right, I am definitely not in the same category as those who'd want to commit murder/rape in response to not getting laid, I'm only incel in the sense that I'm currently celibate despite not wanting to be.



Whoah whoah whoah!
Approaching women and getting all aggressive and weird is only going to get you thrown in jail with a restraining order.

Part of the issue with guys who have trouble with women is they don’t treat them like human beings. Incel types tend to try to (really poorly) play manipulation games and are generally jerky and creep.

For getting in relationships? Women are like men, they like things that they find interesting. With guys, we like a well presented lady who takes care of herself and isn’t all weird; women, like pretty much the exact same thing. Then it’s just about being interesting, which isn’t difficult; got a job? dreams? successes? And don’t be aggressive, be fun.

Don’t play games; have shit going on, because that’s interesting. Don’t stick around at one bar or party all night, because there’s only so many people you can meet there, and people like knowing what other people are doing. You’re at a party? think about the pub you’ll be hitting next. You’re at a pub? think about the dance spot you’ll be hitting next. You’re at a dance spot? think about the party you’ll be hitting next. That just gets people in general interested in doing shit. You’ll probably meet people that aren’t thinking of going, but it’s generally an excuse to exchange contact info. Even if you don’t pick up, you’ve got a high chance at getting
some kind of date going with someone.

Any way, it’s not rocket science. Just be yourself while doing stuff that’s fun with stuff lined up to anticipate.

And for God’s sake clean yourself up. I know cultures are different, but a lot of the trouble I see many guys having is the fact that they just look like a mess. Women are generally a lot better at this because they have a whole culture around cleaning up. Get out an iron, put next proper shoes, because looking like a slob isn’t impressing any woman.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

The real problem here is that today's society reinforces a certain behavior in men that is biologically unattractive to women. Women are biologically attracted to alpha males: men who are socially dominant and are able to express themselves with confidence in social situations (ie. football team captains, guys who ride motorcycles, guys who are musicians or artists and are good at expressing themselves, guys who are just fun and aren't afraid to crack jokes around a woman). A guy who can confidently have a conversation with a beautiful woman and tell jokes and be well-adjusted without having any fear of rejection to a woman is the equivalent of a stunning blond to a guy. I am not saying that personal interests, chemistry, values, etc... isn't important on an intellectual level to women, but it is a man's confidence that always forms the basis of sexual attraction in women. Even if you are half and half with some alpha and beta qualities, your girlfriend or wife's attraction to you will always be based on the alpha male traits that you do exhibit.

If you want to figure out how to get with women understand this: alpha males does not equal abuser, it does not mean sexist, and it does not mean treating women disrespectfully. John Wayne was a great example of an alpha male who was also a gentleman. Women will always be attracted to alpha males because there are a 100 million years of evolution backing up why women should be attracted to these kinds of men just like why men find large hips, well-formed breasts and facial symmetry to be attractive. To deny this is to deny reality.

The problem is that society tells men that it is good to be submissive and ashamed of themselves and that they should act more like women (it also tells women to act more like men). Women acting more like men isn't a problem from an attraction point of view since men are mainly biologically attracted to physical features and not so much feminine behavior. Unfortunately, for men who exhibit weak or submissive qualities, their dating prospects become greatly diminished since they are unable to create attraction in the opposite sex which is predominantly based on behavior. The worst part is that most women don't even consciously understand what they are attracted to and most will not admit that they find alpha males attractive since they think it is anti-feminist. As a result, there is very little guidance out there for men who have difficulty creating attraction in women. They can be as polite and kind as they want and even make themselves look as good as they can (including muscles and working out), but their dating success will be very limited if they are not able to exude the confident personality traits that drive women crazy.

The key is to just try to be the best version of yourself and try to cultivate self-confidence in whatever you do. Become a guider, a protector a helper and try to follow your conscience and do what is right. By becoming a good person and following what you know to be right, you will naturally start to become more confident around other people. Women will notice this too. You may never attract a super model, but you are likely to find somebody and it won't be artificial or an act.

Last edited by Illusion - on 09 June 2018