I was friendly, just friendly, with a guy once, at a bar that I go to frequently and at which I have lots of friends (male and female). He friended me on Facebook. We started talking, and we had a lot of the same interests. He was pretty cool, although I wasn't interested in dating him. He asked me to hang out, and I said sure. He then mentioned something about a "date," and I gently but explicitly clarified that I was not interested in dating him or anyone at the moment, but I would be more than happy to hang out as friends. In the same conversation, we decided to just split a bottle of wine at my apartment and chat.It's actually not a question of "how dare you not be interested in me when I was interested in you", but rather, "how dare you spend time with me while not being interested in me." If someone is interested in you romantically, and you permit them to go out and spend time with you despite your lack of romantic interest in them, you are being selfish and cruel. That is true of both men and women.
He came over. We were having fun. We were talking about all of our mutual interests. And then he brought up the idea of dating me again.
"I am not trying to be cruel here," I said, "but I want to be clear, to manage expectations. I am not interested in dating you, and that's not going to change."
He threw a temper tantrum.
"I swore off women a few weeks ago," he said, "but I made an exception for you."
Basically, "how dare you not be interested in me when I was interested in you?" Even though I had made it very clear that I was not interested, he had assumed that I still was. He did the right thing, I guess. He didn't give up when I turned him down. But it was pretty revolting, rather than attractive. It was basically the "friendzone" idea - that if a man is interested in a woman, and he is nice to her, and he does all the "right" things, he is entitled to her dating him. If she's not interested, it's because she's a bitch, or friendzoning him, and it's entirely unfair. It's not because, well, she's just not interested. And that's her right. Just because a man "does the right things" doesn't mean he "gets" the girl, like in a video game where if you play it right, you win.
It doesn't matter if you "clarify that you are not interested in dating him or anyone at the moment"; it doesn't take a genius to figure out that "not interested at the moment" is often going to be taken as "maybe in the future", especially by nice guys who have been told their entire lives that if they only hang in there and be themselves, eventually they will be rewarded with True Love from a Good Woman.
That was the cause of the temper tantrum. He had done everything right. And yet, he didn't get the girl.
Eliza is trying to spin this as male entitlement, when really it is nothing but the selfish entitlement of the desired. If you're not interested in dating someone, THEN DON'T GO OUT WITH THEM. Not as friends. Not as anything. Stay home and be lonely, because otherwise what you're doing is using them for companionship, which is every bit as cruel as using someone for sex. Probably crueler, actually, because at least if you're being used for sex, there is a good chance you'll get off on occasion. Of course she would be "more than happy to hang out as friends", because she was more than happy to use him without giving anything he wanted in return.
The friendzone is inherently unfair. It's the desired female counterpart of the male sex stable, in which the desired male keeps the various living sex toys he periodically summons to polish the royal penis in one form or another. As with female emo porn vs male visual porn, society is presently operating under the mistaken impression that women using men for companionship is somehow better than men using women for sex.
It isn't. Using people is wrong, whether one is honest about it or not. Sex slavery and theft don't magically become acceptable simply because the individual committing it is willing to admit that he's guilty of it.
199 comments:
I was not interested in dating him or anyone at the moment
I'm sure. Until, that is, an alpha male comes along who provides the requisite gina tingles...
Women are so amusing.
Yes. Splitting a bottle of wine in an apartment, just the two of you, is a date whether you call it one or not. So she told the guy she didn't want to date and then immediately made a date with him -- a pretty intimate one at that, in her own apartment. To him that looked like she was just playing hard to get or didn't know her own mind -- pretty standard with women. That's also a common anti-slut defense: a girl who hasn't quite broken up with her last boyfriend yet, or who has told herself it's too soon to start a new relationship, will say she doesn't want one, and then put herself in a position where she can say, "Hey, I said I didn't want to date, but I got drunk and then someone I was naked, so it's not like I'm a slut."
It didn't help that she obfuscated things with the lie that she didn't want to date "anyone at the moment." If you don't want to date someone, just say that and stop there. When you add reasons -- especially unbelievable ones -- it only makes each reason seem less meaningful.
I like how she reveals the big lie men are taught about attracting women, though. Here's a guy who's "pretty cool" and with whom she shared lots of interests. That's exactly what guys are taught to do: be cool and find shared interests, make friends with her, and let things develop from there. But it doesn't work that way. Friendship based on shared interests never turns into attraction. If there's an attraction from the start, she may pretend to be friends at first and then let it turn romantic. But the attraction has to be there first, and it has nothing to do with whether you like the same bands.
Five years ago I was pursuing a lanky princess, being unaware of all things red pill, and convinced that our many social, family, and physical commonalities foretold great romantic things. (We are both from the rural midwest and both had places in/near Manhattan.) We were walking down the street and she stopped to chat with a good looking guy for a couple of minutes, introduced me, promised to "catch up with him soon" etc. Then we continued. "That's Sam," she said. "He thinks he still has a chance." As dumb as I was, I did spend a month or so deconstructing the meaning of that.
Though I'm sure I'm still in her friendzone, she does call or text for dates a few times a year. We all know that, best case, I'm just her fallback AFBB choice. (The last time we did go out she had a meltdown over cocktails and was openly weeping about her choices, lack of children, the way her career was going sideways; then she was kissing me.) It was completely fine, from her perspective, to move in and out of focus with me, for a few years. (I got as high as an FWB at one point, but not for long.) Just as now it's completely fine, from my perspective, to limit my interactions to polite updates, and cards at the holidays to her parents.
I think she has a core sincerity. That's what I saw in the weeping in the lounge. It's overwhelmed by her habits of managing and manipulating high value men in the most competitive sexual marketplace in the country, and the laziness that comes from being built like a runway model while working as a corporate exec. Thank goodness that, across the arc of this 'relationship', I have learned what a friendzone and a lane changer are.
I experienced this exact scenario 15 years ago when I was a low delta (hell, I may have even been a gamma at that point in my life)...tantrum and all. I'm quite embarrassed by my behavior at the time. Regardless, I finally got the girl to admit that when she said "at the moment" she didn't mean during this period of her life when focusing on her career or something like that. She literally meant at the very moment the words were coming out of her mouth and she could absolutely be interested in dating someone 30 seconds from now if the right someone came along. She absolutely understood how it was interpreted by men though. I later discovered she had a bevy of guys on the hook waiting for the "right" moment.
She literally meant at the very moment the words were coming out of her mouth and she could absolutely be interested in dating someone 30 seconds from now if the right someone came along.
It's interesting that they find nevertheless pretend to find it so hard to grasp that the player who says "I love you" is only speaking about that very moment and he may love someone else 30 seconds from now if she happens to be attractive enough.
I experienced this exact scenario 15 years ago when I was a low delta (hell, I may have even been a gamma at that point in my life)...tantrum and all.
Why don't you explain, for Eliza's benefit, what you were feeling about the way the woman treated you.
That was a total date, and one that screams, you are about to have physical contact. Maybe the girl was only mad he ruined it before she got her "new friend" to give her a foot rub too, but only a friendly foot rub.
She wanted to goad him to the temper tantrum so she could feel contempt for him and elevate her status (the temper tantrum sounds rather unmaly IMHO, especially given her intuitive disgust at it). She makes a point of saying she's not cruel... because she knows she's being cruel. Woman need orbiters to convince themselves they are in the same league as a possible alpha. Men should be on the look out for such emotional baiting and sex traps.
One wonders what this woman does on an actual date if she's letting horny friends ply her with wine, alone in her apt.
-theflyerinblack
From an early age, most women are taught that great romances come from friendships. My mom repeatedly said that to me while I was growing up, that I should marry my "best friend", and a lot of the YA romances I read were based in friendship. The boy next door, that kind of thing.
Unfortunately, most of us don't see the change that occurs in our reading material as we grow older, where the sweet YA friend-boyfriend is replaced by the testosterone driven, aggressive lover. We still think we're waiting for our "best friend", when our true desire is for an irreverent cad. It's a serious disconnect that causes a lot of problems, obviously.
This guy made so many mistakes, it's hard to pick just one.
We started talking, and we had a lot of the same interests. He was pretty cool, although I wasn't interested in dating him.
Translation: I was interested but the beta was strong with this one.
He asked me to hang out, and I said sure.
These days "hanging out" is in fact a date.
I would be more than happy to hang out as friends. In the same conversation, we decided to just split a bottle of wine at my apartment and chat.
When explicitly offered the Friendzone. Explicitly refuse, 'Lets make this clear. I'm not your friend. You are a woman who has what I want'.
In the same conversation, we decided to just split a bottle of wine at my apartment and chat.
Sweet Jesus!
When approaching a woman a man is afraid of rejection and that is it. That is all that a man has to be afraid of. To which my reply is: "You pussy, you know what women are afraid of when they are being approached by men?
Kidnap, rape and murder!
You as a man spend weeks of your life without being afraid for your life but this fear happens to women on a daily basis. Grrl power fantasies not withstanding women are always weaker than men in general. They are right to be afraid because they are always at risk.
A male had indicated more than casual interest and she had brought him to her apartment with the intent of splitting enough alcohol to lower inhibitions of every type. As well as reduce her ability to resist sexual assault One of three things was in play.
1. He was so obviously neutered that he presented, absolutely no threat at all.
2. He was so physically pathetic she had no doubts about her ability to overpower him, even half drunk.
3. She was hoping the wine would bring out the Alpha in him.
He came over. We were having fun. We were talking about all of our mutual interests. And then he brought up the idea of dating me again.
You were on a date dumbass. You killed the vibe right there. What you said was, 'date'. What she heard was, 'I wish to pay for food and entertainment I cannot readily afford in order to oblige to feel you should have sex with me. You weren't doing well to start with chum and this killed the one, low stress shot she was giving you.
"I am not trying to be cruel here," I said, "but I want to be clear, to manage expectations. I am not interested in dating you, and that's not going to change."
He threw a temper tantrum.
"I swore off women a few weeks ago," he said, "but I made an exception for you."
Real Cary Grant move there.
Lack of game claims another victim. If she was genuinely uninterested (which I doubt due to the apartment thing) the time to end her offer of infatuated orbiter status was at the bar.
There is no getting around this, it was all the guy's fault
Cataline, nah, it's true that he could have avoided a painful situation if he'd been less clueless, but she's responsible for her actions too.
Our grandmothers knew better than to be alone with an interested man (or any man, really) and a bottle of wine. It presents far too many possible dangers, rape being the least likely. He might get pushy and have to be rejected, causing embarrassment and social discomfort later. She might get in the mood unexpectedly and do things she'll regret later. Just being alone with men in compromising situations might damage her reputation (though that's less of a problem these days, when women brag publicly about their sexual experience more than men ever did in the locker room). It was a situation every girl was taught to avoid if she wanted to maintain any pretense of being a quality girl suitable for marriage.
"I don't want to date you, but come over and have a few drinks alone with me," means one of two things:
1) I really don't want to date you, but I'd like to use you for companionship and an ego boost.
2) I want to have sex with you, but I need deniability so I don't feel like a slut, so please play along.
The problem is, most guys can't tell the difference, so they best thing they can do is go along and hope it's not #1. Which it usually is.
Looks like Cataline Sergius has deconstructed the incident out for us. No further "what happened" commentary needed.
Where did Eliza's story come from?
These women are a piece of work. Never date them. I suppose the dilemma is knowing what is a real date and hanging out. She did say she wasn't interested. There was no hints. She was explicit. But we all know her actions, not what she said. This is where trusting her actions fails.
"I don't want to date you, but come over and have a few drinks alone with me," means one of two things:
1) I really don't want to date you, but I'd like to use you for companionship and an ego boost.
2) I want to have sex with you, but I need deniability so I don't feel like a slut, so please play along.
I think of it as:
1.5) I don't want to date you at the moment, but I'm a little bit curious, so come on over in the flesh so I can see how alpha you are. (Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised... although I probably won't.)
Now, Eliza may deny that she would date this guy even if he had come over and acted just like Rhett Butler, due to something she didn't like about his looks. But Cataline is right: a man being invited over to a woman's apartment just doesn't normally happen.
There's also the point of "I explicitly told him..." What women think is "explicitly" and what men think it is are two very different things. To a man, it means saying directly "I'm not going to date you." To woman, it means a long rambling story or maybe, at best, "I'm not really looking to date/I'm really happy being on my own" wich in this case was followed by "Let's grab a bottle of wine and go back to mt place." (a date)
I can count on one hand the women I've known who could speak plainly and directly.
DD
There is no getting around this, it was all the guy's fault
Give me a damn break. While this guy is hardly blameless in his emotional outburst, or even feeling he had to ask if it was a date when he was obviously in he middle of one, this woman broadcast sexual availability, but tried to pretend she wasn't.
Think about this:
If I came home from a stressful day at work and my wife said, "hey you, let's have wine and talk about things you're interested in, just us two" while flipping her hair about in her favorite outfit, how exactly would any normal person take that? As romance, no way around it. The girl is a liar.
-theflyerinblack
God, I needed these posts 20 years ago! Hope they're still here for my son in about 11.
This kind of puts the lie to that Mat Walsh post. He wanted to define things be a "real man" etc & she said no. Then laid it out all in public.
But Cataline is right: a man being invited over to a woman's apartment just doesn't normally happen.
Not normally, especially with alcohol involved. Most girls would be more careful to keep him at a distance for a while until he's firmly in orbiter territory. As Cataline said, if she really wasn't interested, she must have been extremely confident that he was already too neutered to make a fuss.
I have seen it happen, though. The common factors seemed to be:
1) She was very attractive, the type that's used to guys doing things for her just to be in her presence, so she expects him to fall into place and take whatever crumbs she's offering like all the rest.
2) She was at least a little crazy, BPD or something. That allows her to compartmentalize and see him as whatever she wants him to be, not considering him as a person with his own goals and desires that might conflict with hers.
Here's how I tell the difference between a woman who is NOT interested and one who is: I use Big Brother, a.k.a., Facebook.
First of all, if they're attracted to you or see potential with you, they will accept a friends request. If they're not attracted to you, they won't.
Now, clink on "Events" in the left-hand bar. (Note that you have to use a desktop computer or an iPad to do this; the method doesn't work on an iPhone.)
Click on an event. Any event.
If you see buttons labeled "Join", "Maybe", "Decline", and "...", hit "..." then "Invite Friends".
If you see buttons labeled "Join", "Save", and "Invite", hit "Invite" then "Choose Friends".
Note the thirty or so names that appear. This window, the "Event Invite Friends" list, is your friend.
But... if you stalk people on Facebook, the list will be spoiled. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, consists of: stop stalking. I mean, don't stalk anyone, hit Like on anything, write comments to anybody... your activity on Facebook should drop to an absolute minimum. You can do whatever you want on your own page if others comment on it, or read the News Feed, but nothing beyond that.
The Events Invite Friends list shifts every few days. If you stalk people but they don't stalk you, their names will progressively slide down the Events Invite Friends list. Ideally, you should have a situation where the names appear in order of how much they stalk you. The first thirty names will tend to consist mainly of either your relatives or girls who like you, although once in a while I do get what appears to be a jealous guy interested in one of the girls who likes me, heh.
And naturally, the higher in the list they appear, the better. Many of the girls below the absolute top of the list may be long-distance; others may be in a relationship but think of you as an option in case their boyfriend disappoints them and they break up. In one of my own cases, a girl was floating down around the 20th place, but shot up near the top after she broke up with her boyfriend.
So, be prepared to run Game on any attractive girls who have floated to the top of your Events Invite Friends list and who are not long-distance. The End.
Blaming the dude for not handling his frustrations better is fine; we all should master some form of enlightened detachment while evincing Cavalier-poet scale sprezzatura. It usually takes a while, if not a lifetime, however, to do so.
A couple of notes: "Come to my house for drinks" is not the same as "let's play chess in the park and discuss how bad Franzen is." Guess which one promises at least a little fooling around?
Also, when women recount their intersexual anecdotes they are never reliable when they are 100% unambiguously supportive of the woman's angle of attack. As this one is. If I were to guess, "at the moment" she invited him over she reserved for herself the option of sexual activity. He came, he failed her tests, immediately she became an aggrieved pomo female being hit on by a loser/beta/crybaby.
Guys are going to find themselves in ambiguous situations where the women go guard-rail to guard-rail (friendzone to lover), perhaps in the span of 15 minutes. There's no point in understanding it, there is a point in recognizing it when it occurs. And even if she's got her shirt off and is stripped down to her thong, if this hot-cold stuff starts happening, just get up and politely say "I'm sorry, I don't have time for this sort of thing." (Nor do you have a leg to stand on if the next day she decides it was regret sex i.e. rape.)
Remember, all women know what the friendzone is; no women are "I'm just so confused." Politely extract yourself from that demolition derby, on first blush. Otherwise you're just another chump who "thinks he still has a chance."
I always made a habit of leaving immediately whenever a girl started the ambiguous game. No explanations, no recriminations, just an immediate: "Well, I've got to go. See you later."
No calls the next day, no communication initiated. Never really talked to about one-quarter again. The rest never tried to pull that crap again. Nothing gets the hamster spinning like being abruptly walked out on without warning or explanation by a man she thought was interested.
Some number of years ago I was in a relationship where I went from being king of the hill to a temporary friendzone resident. In short, after several months of apparent success, I was more or less informed that I was soon to be replaced by bigger fish. This had been a shift I not only anticipated, but expected. Not being the type to simply abandon a pursuit because of a hurdle, I naively played by the strategy guide prescribed to me by everyone I talked to: be her friend and be patient. I even took it a step further, albeit somewhat disingenuously (I wanted to see the reaction I would get), and tried to give her reassurances about our relationship. This was met with horror and a near total loss of any “sigma” points I had racked up until that point. Instead of playing the game like I usually do, I tried to be Mr. Nice to get what I wanted. Needless to say, I later found myself in a carrot-stick scenario and acting like a complete dweeb inside the friendzone.
This carrot-stick scenario, Eliza, is exactly what you’ve created. What you need to understand about men is that we rarely dabble in the middle ground. We want what we want; nothing more, nothing less. By being friends with this fellow, inviting him over to your place, hanging out and so on, all your succeed in doing is dangling an unattainable goal in front of his face for your own benefit. While you sit there soaking up all of the warm and fuzzy Friendship™, he sits there hopelessly trying to engineer a solution to his problem. Your amusement comes at his expense.
To make this easier to understand, it is the same situation that would arise if you interviewed for a job you wanted, only to be rejected and told that you could intern indefinitely, since you’re such an otherwise satisfactory applicant. The company is more than happy to utilize your labor. You’re good at whatever it is that you do. They just won’t pay you full salary for it, that’s all.
This is exactly what you are doing to your so-called friend. It is pure exploitation, plain and simple. As such, if he were to come to me for advice, I’d tell him to drop you from his list of candidates or buddies as fast as possible. In accord with my Golden Rule, when the girl says ‘no’, you go. Period. I’d also recommend you do the same. There is simply no merit, nor anything friendly, about using someone to entertain yourself.
I dunno, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but if she invited him to her place for some wine then its hard for me to believe that she wasnt at least somewhat romantically interested in the guy, at least at one point. Though it's possible that she changed her mind about it before he actually showed up, but couldnt flake at that point.
Women are so amusing.
There more I learned about women, the less amused I became with them. As a society we really are handling them the wrong way.
Why don't you explain, for Eliza's benefit, what you were feeling about the way the woman treated you.
Will she get it? Will she even care if she does?
Nothing gets the hamster spinning like being abruptly walked out on without warning or explanation by a man she thought was interested.
The setting was a military wedding I had been dragooned into serving in as an usher. I am of course sweating to death in my dress blues. In North Carolina. In August. The bride was only three months pregnant with her first kid, which was sweet by the standards to which I had become accustomed.
At the reception I approach one of the bridemaids. Things seem to be going well enough. She laughs at my jokes, stays within two feet of my personal space. She finally gives me an arm pat when laughing at one of my jokes. Buying signals have been given and I ask for her phone number, (which dates me rather badly, I realize).
She stopped smiling considered for a moment, then took a half step back. "I'm really, really busy right now. Maybe you could give me your phone number?"
Well I knew what that meant. Whoops! False positive. Time to punch. "Sure it's 000-0003. I was one of the first in line. Anyway I gotta go hit the bride in the arm and kiss the groom." Turned on my heel, left and didn't look at her again.
Two hours later, just as I'm leaving she catches up to me and gives me her phone number.
And yes I waited five days to call her. She was delighted to hear from me.
There is no getting around this, it was all the guy's fault
Of course, everything is. That's what feminism is all about.
But Cataline is right: a man being invited over to a woman's apartment just doesn't normally happen.
Yes it does. Women use men for all kinds of things all the time. She was using him for something like our host has explained. That he failed to see this and act on it does not excuse her bad behavior.
D. Lane, your analogy reminded me of this great bit I stole from someone on IRC years ago:
A woman has a close male friend. This means that he is probably interested in her, which is why he hangs around so much. She sees him strictly as a friend. This always starts out with, "You're a great guy, but I don't like you in that way." This is roughly the equivalent for the guy of going to a job interview and the company saying, "You have a great resume, you have all the qualifications we are looking for, but we're not going to hire you. We will, however, use your resume as the basis for comparison for all other applicants. But, we're going to hire somebody who is far less qualified and is probably an alcoholic. And if he doesn't work out, we'll hire somebody else, but still not you. In fact, we will never hire you. But we will call you from time to time to complain about the person that we hired."
she must have been extremely confident that he was already too neutered to make a fuss.
Yep! And it happens all too often.
Funny, the reverse often happens with me. I'll hang out with a woman I have no sexual interest in, thinking we can be just friends, and after a while she throws a fit and refuses to talk to me anymore. I used to think women would be perfectly happy to stay in the friend zone, but it appears they are rather insulted if every man doesn't fling himself at them. So, basically, women like the friend zone as long as they are the ones imposing it. They can dish it out, but they sure as hell can't take it.
Vox is actually kinder about this than I am. This is called leading someone on and it's actually a form of psychological abuse. The guy had a tantrum because he was psychologically attacked.
How can most of you dismiss the scenario "a glass of wine with my new girlfriend (who happens to be a man)" with such certitude? How do you go about differentiating this from a date with plausible deniability.
In college "alone with me" meant "make a pass at me." A few pretended to not know that, so when I left I took my wine.
Always bring the wine so you take it when you leave.
Basically, "how dare you not be interested in me when I was interested in you?" Even though I had made it very clear that I was not interested, he had assumed that I still was. He did the right thing, I guess. He didn't give up when I turned him down. But it was pretty revolting, rather than attractive.
AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
He did not do the right thing. As others have pointed out, he did what everyone outside the 'sphere will TELL HIM is the right thing. But he did the worst possible thing as far as generating/maintaining attraction goes. I don't blame him for this, as I'm sure he was only doing what he thought was supposed to be "tried and true" but he was nevertheless wrong, and I think I can safely say that NO ONE in the 'sphere would advise this strategy.
and I think I can safely say that NO ONE in the 'sphere would advise this strategy.
I know I wouldn't. As a Christian I wouldn't have entertained the notion of 'dating' in the first place, let alone going up to her apartment. Why would I want to spend time with a woman whom I would not consider wife material, and why would I consider a woman who would spend time alone with a man in her apartment to be wife material?
Why don't you explain, for Eliza's benefit, what you were feeling about the way the woman treated you.
In this case I would describe myself as confused (not atypical for my relations with women at that age) and betrayed. I didn't feel betrayed because some woman wasn't interested in me. That describes most of my dating life in my 20s. Rejection was common. But because this woman specifically did and said things that led me to believe she was interested in me romantically.
I had known her socially for a year or so and we had gone out 4 or 5 times over the past several months. On our last date I brought up the topic of us becoming a couple. The exact quote from her was "I've thought about that." Then I got something along the lines of "I'm not sure I want to date anyone at the moment."
I was thinking that she was really busy in her career and thoughtfully considering if now was the right time to pursue a relationship. I didn't want to badger her about the topic so I generally left her alone for a while. I did see her in a group setting a few more times. I had an expectation that she would let me know what she was thinking or want to have another conversation about it. She dropped the topic like a hot potato. The next time we went out I brought it up again and discovered that, no, she really wasn't interested in dating me and never really was. That was when I exploded. Not only was this someone who had led me to believe she was interested, this was someone who I trusted would be very honest with me if she were not.
While rejection was commonplace at that time in my life she did so in a way that was especially painful. From a personality perspective she really was one of the coolest chicks I'd spent time with and we had a lot of common interests. During the long dry dating spell of my 20s the way she treated me allowed me to build up a lot of hope that a) the dry spell was over and b) it wasn't over because I settled for some slumpbuster. It was an especially devastating event for me at the time.
I later described my experience to a friend who also knew her feeling very shameful that I had exploded at her in anger. He said she deserved it since he could tell me about four other guys who had a similar experience (himself included).
Needless to say that I, and any other guy with a modicum of interest in game, can look at this now and see so many things I did wrong. In retrospect I really wasn't secure enough to handle a real relationship and surely put out a huge desperate\beta vibe. Some feminist will surely argue that it was completely my fault for not being careful enough or because I just fell off the relationship turnip truck. Perhaps. But they'd have to also argue that a con man should be absolved of his misleading deeds because he found an easy mark. Or that a player should be absolved of being a cad because a woman wants a relationship so bad she's willing to sleep with a guy in hopes that it will lead to one. I doubt that will happen.
Vox, what was the first part of Eliza's missive that you'd addressed? Is Eliza the 'EH' in your post a few days ago?
When I told friends, both male and female, that I had started reading about the Alpha Game philosophy and was trying to get some understanding of it, they invariably said, "Why would you engage with those misogynistic fuckers? They hate women."
This comment thread is, I think, what they would look at and think that.
Aside from a few thoughtful responses aimed at helping me understand this situation, I have seen the following:
"As a Christian, why would I spend time with a woman who wasn't wife material? If this woman spends time with men, she is clearly not wife material."
I am not a Christian. I don't hold Christian values. In fact, I have casual sex, and I think it is healthy to do so. I also spend time alone with entirely platonic male friends. I feel like men and women have a lot to contribute to each other, so it's good to have both sexes in one's life.
"She is being selfish and cruel by trying to be his friend."
How is that selfish and cruel? I enjoyed his company, he enjoyed mine. Why shouldn't I try to be his friend? If he can't handle it, then he should say so. But that's not my problem. I wanted to be his friend.
"She is clearly delusional/manipulative, because she wouldn't have invited him to hang out if she didn't want to sleep with him."
Sigh. Ok. The only interaction men and women can have is sexual? I couldn't have legitimately just wanted to have a low-key evening with my friend? Just because I am a woman does not mean that I have no control of my faculties and no capacity to be considerate. I understand that he felt misled. I can see how, and I appreciate that feedback. But I wasn't manipulating him. It was miscommunication. And I think many of the male-female interactions you guys refer to are miscommunication.
And, most offensively:
"Regret sex, i.e., rape."
I've been raped. It was date rape. There was alcohol involved. But I can tell you that it was not just sex I regretted. I spent five years recovering from PTSD because of it. And, although not everyone has intense of a response as I do to being sexual assaulted, no woman wants to be a victim. Women don't call sex they regret rape. Women get raped so, so often. It's not made up. It's the real deal. And being dismissive of the very real trauma that being raped is by calling it just "sex we regret" is so incredibly hurtful and disrespectful, not to mention ignorant.
I'm really trying to be open-minded and understand this community. I'm trying to understand what is so appealing about it, how it isn't misogynistic, what you all feel works, aside from just being a group of people who hate women and think we are inferior. I do think there is more nuance than that. But there is no need to attack my very honest, genuine questions and call me names.
Thanks.
@JamesV
Hmm... sounds to me as if you were in the Delta Lukewarm Zone, rather than a friend zone. By that I mean your anti-Game wasn't so bad that she didn't want to hang out with you at all, but your Game wasn't good enough that she wanted to make love to you. As with many Deltas, she couldn't decide whether to throw you into her "Gamma/Omega" bin or her "Alpha/Beta/Sigma" bin, and kept you in a holding pattern.
But, being the Delta Lukewarm Zone is extremely common, since most men are Deltas, but because the men involved don't understand what's going on, they label it the "Friend Zone". One of three things happen:
1) The men eventually Gamma out of it by bitching at the woman, and the woman drops them like a hot potato,
2) The woman ages a few years, possibly fattening a bit too, and because her SMV is now more or less equal to the Delta's, then she starts a relationship with him,
3) They drift apart, whether by the man finding someone else or their physically moving away from each other, or
4) The man improves his game and she starts a relationship with him (which is, of course, relatively rare).
There's also the Boyfriend Backup Zone, in which case the girl is looking at the man as a possible next boyfriend if she breaks up with the current one. The only problem, of course, is that the man doesn't know if he's Backup #1 or Backup #17. Possibly, they overlap, with the Delta Lukewarm Zone simply being those men further down in the Backup list.
@Eliza
"She is clearly delusional/manipulative, because she wouldn't have invited him to hang out if she didn't want to sleep with him."
Sigh. Ok. The only interaction men and women can have is sexual? I couldn't have legitimately just wanted to have a low-key evening with my friend?
Men and women aren't the same, so you can't expect male-female friendships to work.
Here are the only cases where you can invite a male friend over and not expect him to want to jump your bones:
1) You're fat/ugly,
2) He has a girlfriend who is significantly hotter than you, or
3) He's gay.
That's it.
Don't do it otherwise unless you see yourself as perhaps having sex with him.
Got it?
Yes.
How is that selfish and cruel? I enjoyed his company, he enjoyed mine. Why shouldn't I try to be his friend? If he can't handle it, then he should say so. But that's not my problem. I wanted to be his friend
No, you didn't. You're not his friend. He made it clear that he wanted romance. You didn't. What you did was no different than a man who takes sexual advantage of a woman.
Consent doesn't magically make everything right.
The only interaction men and women can have is sexual? I couldn't have legitimately just wanted to have a low-key evening with my friend?
Now you're getting it.
By the way, no offense to you personally -- I believe you and all -- but someday I hope to meet a woman who wasn't date-raped.
I have had plenty of male friends who I have/had platonic relationships with. Some of them have been married. Others have been single. But it's worked because, well, we're both adults who can manage base sexual urges. Quickly, we got over any attraction, and were just people to each other.
Calicorishev - someday I, too, hope to meet a woman who wasn't date raped. So far, I've met three in my life. The current culture, especially on college campuses, but also at bars, is a particularly insidious one. You can choose to dismiss it, but I can tell you that rape, whether it's a stranger or not, is fucking devastating and not something people make up. People complain about catcalls on the street. Fuck that, I do not give one fuck about some dumb dude talking about my juicy ass. Just ignore it. But the number of sexual assaults that happen (and my friends have told me the stories, something you might ask the women you doubt to do, and they are heartbreaking and so obviously wrong) is just off the charts, and not something to dismiss. It happens. The reason you hear about it so much is that it happens so much.
@Corvinus
I reflected on this many years later after I learned about game. It is possible but highly unlikely. While I don't remember the exact conversation we had I recall being it being very clear that she wasn't interested. This is when we had the discussion that when she said she wasn't interested in dating anyone at the moment she really meant at the very moment those words were coming out of her mouth. I constructed a scenario of her walking out the door 5 minutes from now and upon meeting a guy she would be willing to date him if it was the right guy. Yes, she would. I explained that was very misleading. She countered that her statement was true and at the moment (that exact moment) she wasn't interested in dating anyone. She also said that she was seriously confrontation-avoidant and didn't know how to handle the situation.
As I said in the last post I later discovered she had done the same thing to several other guys I knew. Since we shared a social circle I was able to see the kinds of guys she was willing to date. With a realistic assessment of the situation I cannot deny those guys were much better looking that all of the guys I knew who she led on, much more socially connected and exceptionally better off monetarily.
There is very little doubt in my mind that I never had a real chance. This isn't a lamentation though. Vox asked me to explain so I did. Sometimes we are lucky we don't get what we seek.
I enjoyed his company, he enjoyed mine.
No he didn't, which he showed clearly when he realized nothing else was going to happen. You know what he was thinking the whole time? Probably partly about what you might look like naked, or looking up from his crotch. Also things like, "Now? Should I go sit next to her? Was that just a hint? She seems to be getting tipsy; is she trying to let something happen? I wonder if she's loud when she comes. Should I make a move? That last thing she said was a little suggestive; should I try a dirty joke? Is she going to ask me to stay?"
If you're not attracted to him, that probably creeps you out, which it should. But that's why people used to have enough sense to teach girls not to do that. It's why college dorms -- or entire schools -- used to be single sex, and why men weren't allowed into the girls' dorms after hours. It's why unmarried girls didn't used to live alone. Did you think all those restrictions were just mean grownups trying to spoil everyone's fun? Everyone used to know those situations were dangerous, before we got so stupid about this stuff.
If you get a husband and he gets a wife, then the four of you can get together and enjoy some male-female companionship over a game of Parcheesi. But alone, over a bottle of wine? Nope, sorry, that's not friendship. That's sex, or blue-balls, one or the other.
If men are supposed to be so protective of women, why do men doubt rape victims? Shouldn't it make them want to protect them and cuddle them and never let them be hurt again? Why do you have to insist that women are making it up?
@ Cornivus
"3) He's gay."
That's how most women treat their average submissive heterosexual guyfriend. You can either call it emotional neutering or psychological castration. Women will treat these guys as some asexual being, a girlfriend if you will.
Female/male friendship is a myth entertained only by women and manginas. I can't even rationally comprehend how I could connect on any subject worth my interest with women, even if she is my long time platonic bestie. Men and women have differents life agendas and their struggles are incomparable.
Eliza, I said I believe you. I don't know you well enough to accuse you of anything, and it's too far off-topic to get into the wider problem of "regret rape," so I shouldn't have mentioned it. I take back any implication that you weren't raped.
I have a question for the whole gang here.
Many of the articles I've read on Game sound painfully misogynistic to me, although that is not said to dismiss your belief in them. I wonder if you feel like there is a degree of misogyny in the AG community, and what you think about it. I also wonder how you feel about women, personally. Do you feel any anger, or hurt, or anything that might complicate your relationships/perspectives on women? I know that I certainly do toward men, and it is something I fight often. I have a hard time trusting men, and have gone so far as to avoid romantic relationships entirely for several years. I am consistently telling myself that all men will not treat me badly, all men are not the same, all men are not terrible. I wonder if any of you feel like you might do that with women - see us all the same way, believe that all women are pretty horrible and, apparently, stupid, too.
Some of the things that people write just sound like they hate women. Think women should be subservient because they are inferior, not because they are different. I can understand the idea that women and men are different and should play different roles. But the value judgment of superior/inferior sounds a lot like just hating women to me. Some of the language here, as well, is so dismissive of women as human beings. Is this culture about respecting women as different from men, or about lauding men as the only really legitimate people in the world?
but someday I hope to meet a woman who wasn't date-raped.
LOL...LOL... I'm still laughing as I type this.
I have had plenty of male friends who I have/had platonic relationships with.
If you spent time with them among groups of other people, including their wives in the cases where they were married, then that's platonic friendship. If you spent time alone with them, sharing interests and personal thoughts and so on, you were enjoying their companionship while they were hoping it would pay off in the bedroom. Yes, every single one. Yes, even Steve, who insisted all he wanted was friendship -- even Steve was waiting for the go-ahead to make a move.
"If men are supposed to be so protective of women, why do men doubt rape victims? Shouldn't it make them want to protect them and cuddle them and never let them be hurt again? Why do you have to insist that women are making it up?"
I have only ever met one woman who was raped. I live in Europe and know that their are certain areas in my city (+10^6 inhabitants) which I should avoid. I also know that dispite that fact that I am physically impressive (as in fit and not fat) their are certain situations that I should also avoid. See what I just did. Women should be cautious because whatever they have heard they can not always be in control.
If men are supposed to be so protective of women, why do men doubt rape victims?
1) if feminist women want equality with men, why do they still think men are supposed to be protective of them?
2) Why do women re-define rape to suit there whims?
No calls the next day, no communication initiated. Never really talked to about one-quarter again. The rest never tried to pull that crap again. Nothing gets the hamster spinning like being abruptly walked out on without warning or explanation by a man she thought was interested.
Which, upon reflection, is another way I know this girl was leading me on. When I disappeared for a while (before the blow up) her hamster was completely indifferent.
Some of the things that people write just sound like they hate women.
Hating the foolish things that people do and hating people are two very different things.
"using them for companionship, which is every bit as cruel as using someone for sex. Probably crueler, actually, because at least if you're being used for sex, there is a good chance you'll get off on occasion"
I've always said this too. Generally when a girl is "used" for a fuck, she still gets the fuck out of it, and (considering she puts effort in too), enjoys that moment at least. The bloke then leaves, and maybe she feels bad about that, but fuck at least she isn't psychologically tortured over a long period of time.
Whereas the inverse of this is the woman outright using the man for companionship and emotions, while her actions speak completely different. Inviting him over to her apartment for alcohol? Really now.. They're then PERFECTLY happy to string the bloke along for months, years and so on, giving hints of more, but outright denying it when the time comes, this is psychological and emotional torture, hence the guy's outburst. This is worse when coupled with the indoctrination of treating women "nice" and "following their signals" etc that men get told all their lives to follow.
I've always said the same that using someone for their emotions is just as bad as using someone for their body. And if it's stretched out, it can even be worse, at least the latter is more honest, while the former is completely deceptive.
In my past I've had a few girls do this sort of thing, but were more blatant about wanting me prior to the denial. Fuck, one girl LITTERALLY said "I'm sexually frustrated, can you come help me out?" Then after going out for a bit and getting back to hers, decided she wanted me to sleep downstairs.. Cue feelings of annoyance, betrayal, confusion and humiliation for me.
Another was a girl who came over to mine, saying all these dirty things about what she wanted to do with me etc, then when it came down to it, oh no she wasn't "ready" for that (she wasn't a virgin), despite still kissing me all night etc. Unfortunately it was too late in the night to just tell her to fuck off, but I'd had enough. I started clearing out the spare room, and told her that fine, since she'd decided she didn't really want to share my bed with me, she could stay in there for the night. Prompt her wide eyed look at the (emotional) rejection, and her sucking me off, (she was dripping wet too). Still didn't have sex, but was interesting how she changed her tune.
Now I'm no alpha, but have slept with around 20 different women, but these moments really stuck out to me. Although it was the wrong thing to do, I can totally understand the guy's outburst, this sort of shit is downright HUMILIATING, and even worse, a waste of fucking time. I'm one of the calmest, non-violent dudes ever, but I've never felt such a rage as I did at those moments. Realising that a lot of women want only to be wanted. And heck, those were moments where the girl was absolutely BLATANT about wanting sex, imagine how many incidents like this go on in bloke's lives (like in the OP) where they keep it ambiguous, yet the guy is still supposed to follow through and "make the move" etc, yet put one foot wrong and the attraction landmine explodes to nothingness.
Although I don't like playing a victim, I think it could be fun to coin a term "emotionraped" for moments like these, where a woman leads a bloke on purely for her own benefit. After all a lot of women willingly go into sexual situations and then complain of being "used" after.
Many of the articles I've read on Game sound painfully misogynistic to me, although that is not said to dismiss your belief in them. I wonder if you feel like there is a degree of misogyny in the AG community, and what you think about it. . . . Some of the things that people write just sound like they hate women. . . . the value judgment of superior/inferior sounds a lot like just hating women to me. Some of the language here, as well, is so dismissive of women as human beings. Is this culture about respecting women as different from men, or about lauding men as the only really legitimate people in the world?
You appear to be trying to determine how much the androsphere jibes with your preexisting beliefs and views. This is not the correct starting point. Better to first examine whether or not there is any truth to be found here.
He should have understood/known better. If he had, he would have banged you all night after that bottle of wine. More casual sex for you. Understanding woman does not = hating them. Too damn easy once he reads here for a bit.
If men are supposed to be so protective of women, why do men doubt rape victims? Shouldn't it make them want to protect them and cuddle them and never let them be hurt again?
Hmm, is that why you want your asexual male friends, to basically be your teddy bears? How sweet.
Problem is, the teddy bears want sex.
Why do you have to insist that women are making it up?
Here's a clue for you: the only difference between "rape", and sex with a man you love, is that in the case of "rape" a man you don't particularly care for is doing the sex.
That's it.
Why do you think in the rape hysteria, they always go on about "most of the time, the rapist is somebody you know"?
Duh. It's because the "rapist" thought she wanted it.
Actual malicious rape, where the man is doing it to deliberately hurt her, is not that common, and confined almost entirely to black and Muslim men.
You can't have it both ways, missie. You can either join the hookup culture and get "raped", or keep your legs closed until marriage. Those are the only choices.
Realising that a lot of women want only to be wanted.
There it is.
And there is also the "dog barking in the manger" phenomenon. The dog can't eat the hay, but she doesn't want the cows to have any either.
Eliza,
Your assertion that you both enjoyed your time together drinking wine alone in your apartment was amazing. I actually paused my New Vegas session to respond. What made you think he enjoyed it? His blowing up on you should have been your clue that he wasn't enjoying that at all. He wanted to have sex with you, and if you deny realizing that, you are lying.
Conscientia - That's fair. I guess I thought we were both enjoying our time together, but clearly he wasn't. It's a little insulting because, what, my company isn't enough if I'm not gonna fuck you? But, yeah. You're right.
Corvinus - that is entirely untrue, and entirely ridiculous. I've had plenty of sex with men I didn't love. I've had sex with men I did love. And I've been raped. And I can tell you, from firsthand experience, that it is different. Rape doesn't have to be a stranger or at gunpoint to be rape. When you're telling someone no and pushing them off of you and begging them to stop and they still insist on fucking you? That's rape. Whether you know the person or not. The idea that you can think that is, well, because you, thankfully, have never been raped.
Veorary - that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm trying to understand what everyone is saying, glean some truth, and then compare it to the views I already hold. I'm asking for thoughts and sharing my perceptions, not pre-judging anything.
What she indicated to him - I'm not interested in dating anyone at the moment, so lets go to my place and split a bottle of wine.
My gut says her hamster was considering a spin of the wheel.
" my company isn't enough if I'm not gonna fuck you"
I am currently working in a 90%+ women environment. The company of women is not all it's cracked up to be. I spend my lunch breaks either reading, meditating or working on my memory palace. I don't avoid lunching with them but when I do it is for the entertainement value that I get out of acting aloof and jerkboyish never for their insights.
@Salt - I can tell you it absolutely was not. But I can see why you would perceive that, and I can see why he did. I'd say that's an issue of male/female miscommunication.
@Rek, see, that is pretty much undeniably misogyny. Women have no value unless it's sex? You have no interest in the company or insights of women, universally?
When you're telling someone no and pushing them off of you and begging them to stop and they still insist on fucking you? That's rape. Whether you know the person or not. The idea that you can think that is, well, because you, thankfully, have never been raped.
Wrong. Read this. And don't comment here again until you do.
http://www.returnofkings.com/26422/how-women-train-men-to-rape
I'm not trying to troll or be baited. I'm sorry I responded to clearly confrontational/incendiary comments. I really do want insights, here.
Eliza,
This is part of the reality you have to recognize between men and women. Men are only interested (or not interested) in women for one thing. Women know this at some level and use it to their advantage. Not all, but do to varying degrees.
Another tough fact you have to internalize is solipsism in your part, or projection. That inherent self centeredness women have coupled with projection can allow you to fool yourself into thinking that if you are enjoying yourself, he is too.
My wife complains to me that we can't have sex because her hormones won't let her. This is, of course bullshit but it begs the question of who is in charge, and what is a convenient excuse. Most women are not self aware to any extent. Most women that use that excuse wouldn't accept it from anyone else.
Eliza,
You give a lot of men casual sex, but not this guy. What is the criteria a man must meet in order to get sex with you? Have you considered how insulting this has been for this guy. Something he likely still believes is an indicator of attraction, sex, is something you give away easily, but not for him. You've had sex with men you don't love, sex with friends (I'm assuming), sex with anyone when it you feel like it, but not him, not this guy who gives you conversation and companionship. Are you starting to understand what's being said to you here? Are you trying to understand how men truly think (when they're being honest, not the ones who say whatever it is they think you want to hear)?
Do you ever plan on getting married? If so, you may want to know that your husband will find it horribly repulsive how much you've given sex away. And there will never be a time he'll understand you telling him "no" considering what you'd been willing to do for other men. Just some things to think about.
@Corvinus, I can't engage in this conversation. Just because there is some article by some man who thinks that women have misled him? I can cite hundreds of women to you who have had the feeling that I've had. The violation. It's excruciating. There is literally someone inside of your body who you do not want there. I know I can't do it justice, explaining that feeling. It's horrible. Horrifying. But it's not my fault that one time, one dude met one woman who said no when she meant yes. She was in the wrong, too. But that has nothing to do with the fact that I know too many women who said no, meant no, fought, and no one stopped. I'm sorry you think that's acceptable. It's heartbreaking and discouraging that you do.
It's not a question of miscommunication. Communication is not the essence. Miscommunication is the female go-to excuse for every situation that goes south. Imposed female paradigms on men is the root cause of your situation.
@eliza -
Then she screwed up big time. If a guy brings up going on a date, no matter your communication of no, you don't proceed to invite him back to your place for some Vino. If there was any originating miscommunication it was hers.
Oh, SarahsDaughter. Get into the 21st century. Even the 20th. I know hundreds, literally hundreds, of married couples in which the woman had sex before marriage. Not everyone is a sexually uptight Christian. Sorry.
There are plenty of criteria men must meet in order to sleep with me. Casual sex doesn't mean fucking anything that moves. Even if it did, there would be no reason for me to explain who I chose not to sleep with. Choosing to sleep with someone, anyone, is just that - a choice.
My parents have been together for 31 years. Neither one was a virgin at marriage. They have an exceptional marriage, an admirable partnership, mutual respect. And an active sex life. Not everyone is stuck in old-fashioned madonna-whore complexes.
Veorary - that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm trying to understand what everyone is saying, glean some truth, and then compare it to the views I already hold. I'm asking for thoughts and sharing my perceptions, not pre-judging anything.
@Rek, see, that is pretty much undeniably misogyny.
No. It's not a matter of pre-judging, strictly speaking, but rather comparing what you see here to your preexisting misogyny barometer to determine if we pass or fail. Put the barometer away for now.
No, I know what I consider to be misogyny. I am allowed to have that belief. I'm not trying to pass or fail anyone. I'm trying to explore thoughts that don't necessarily fit in with what I intrinsically believe.
So a guy who's been rejected is supposed to feel better about it because the woman will have casual sex with lots of other guys?
I'm just going to repeat something I said early in the thread, about women who do this kind of thing -- inviting guys over for intimate chats and convincing themselves they don't want anything:
2) She was at least a little crazy, BPD or something. That allows her to compartmentalize and see him as whatever she wants him to be, not considering him as a person with his own goals and desires that might conflict with hers.
Thank you.
Suit yourself. But in that case you are never going to truly understand what is being said here. Instead, you are going to form it into a caricature of your own mind, and I don't see why anyone here should indulge you in that.
I can tell you that rape, whether it's a stranger or not, is fucking devastating and not something people make up.
You're woefully uninformed, Eliza. It is something that is very often made up, in fact, according to several studies that have been done, it is something that is USUALLY made up. Women have even, rarely, been jailed for it. And, as somebody said, it's almost hard to meet a woman who doesn't claim to have been raped, date-raped, or near-raped.
In fact, one of your biggest problems is obviously that you love to talk about being raped. You mentioned in one of your first emails to me. You were quick to mention it here. I'll bet you tell every guy you go out with that you were raped. It appears to be one of your favorite stories.
When you're telling someone no and pushing them off of you and begging them to stop and they still insist on fucking you? That's rape. Whether you know the person or not. The idea that you can think that is, well, because you, thankfully, have never been raped.
Please. By your definition, practically everyone of either sex who ever went to college has been raped. If one date rape was enough to give you PTSD, you'd probably be catatonic if you'd been woken up by a complete stranger as often as half the men I know have. I mean, have you honestly never given a blow job to a guy who didn't want it and told you so? Plainer girls pull that stuff all the time on guys they think are hot, especially when they're drunk.
My personal favorite was when one of my housemates who hadn't even gone out the night before woke me up one morning.
"Did you bring someone home last night?"
"No, I was over at X's place."
"Did Mike?"
"I don't think so."
"Then who the fuck is that blonde in my bed and how did she get there?"
I am allowed to have that belief.
You absolutely are. Just as we're allowed to have the belief that you are a narcissist who gets off on having been "raped".
The violation. It's excruciating. There is literally someone inside of your body who you do not want there. I know I can't do it justice, explaining that feeling. It's horrible. Horrifying.
Oh, lawsy, it must have been so totally and completely different from the times you were having casual sex with some guy who didn't even know your name. Your problem, Eliza, is all in your head. You want to be messed up and victimized because you think it makes you interesting. It doesn't. It makes you a cliche.
Oh, SarahsDaughter. Get into the 21st century. Even the 20th. I know hundreds, literally hundreds, of married couples in which the woman had sex before marriage. Not everyone is a sexually uptight Christian. Sorry.
Newbies are so adorable. If you're interested.
I said that to you because it was eye opening for me. When I thought back to the male friends I had, after reading here for a while, I saw the truth in what these guys are saying. I had a lot of male friends and was very much in the 21st century, leaving a path of disillusioned men behind me. There was nothing about me, so fascinating, that these men would want exclusively as a friendship. Tip, neither is there much about you that fascinating. What is enjoyable to men is sex. And they'll put up with how unfascinating you are in the hopes at having access to your bed.
Wow. So many attacks. So much horrifying ignorance. So much rape-denying.
Lordy, Vox! A friend's (Mr. Y) roomate (Mr. X) came home one night with two chicks. Y was asleep in his room when the one X wasn't with came in, woke him, and said "your friend said I could come in and sleep with you". She proceeded to remove her clothes and climbed into bed. Y said she was quite hot.
It's a little insulting because, what, my company isn't enough if I'm not gonna fuck you?
The reality is that your company is too much if your not going to, as would be any attractive females company. There is a reason for the saying "don't hang out at the barber shop if you don't want your hair cut", but I suppose that one disappeared when common sense did.
Wow. So many attacks. So much horrifying ignorance. So much rape-denying.
Just go away, Eliza. Think what you like. I have zero interest in your narcissistic posturing and your rape-obsession. Perhaps you can start a blog. Call it The Violation. And every day you can post about how having been raped affected you that day.
"Monday: I was going to have cereal for breakfast, but [Trigger Warning!] the way one cheerio was stuck through another one reminded me of the time I was date-raped, and so I decided to have a piece of toast instead. Horrifying!"
"Tuesday: Jeremy called and wants to go out. He seems a little rapey, though, so I wasn't sure if that would be safe, going on a date like that. So, I just told him to come over at 11 PM, as a friend."
"Wednesday: Jeremy was a complete gentleman and kissed me on the cheek when he left. He didn't even try to date-rape me. Maybe he doesn't like me. (frowny face)"
Why all the anger? That's what I don't quite understand. Maybe I'm being trolled. I should stop responding. But why is there so much vitriol when a woman shows up? Why is acknowledging the fact of sexual assault such a horrible offense? I'm legitimately trying to understand you guys. But you are not making it easy.
It's a little insulting because, what, my company isn't enough if I'm not gonna fuck you?
Based on your performance here, it wouldn't be enough even if you were.
@Rek, see, that is pretty much undeniably misogyny. Women have no value unless it's sex? You have no interest in the company or insights of women, universally?
Most women lead quite boring and mundane lives. Most women are quite consensual in their worldly views. Most women will talk about inanities.
"no value unless it's sex?" "universally?"
Don't be so daft.
WE, of course, know that women's company gets tedious really fast. But why would we expect THEM to know that? They have never experienced it from our perspective. I fully believe that a woman could perfectly reasonably think that mere social interaction gives the man as much as the woman. I'm going to give her the benefit of doubt here.
Eliza,
SD is right. Few things are more boring than having conversations with women for their own sake. Would you find it interesting if I went into details on the minutiae of my hobbies or job? Your eyes would probably glaze over. That happens when we listen to you too. All we are interested in is sex. That is the result of testosterone constantly surging through our bloodstream.
This is reality. Deny it at your own risk.
Why all the anger?
It's not anger, Eliza, it's contempt. Learn the difference.
But why is there so much vitriol when a woman shows up?
There isn't. There are scores of women who read here and a few who comment here. As hard as it may be for you to get this through your thick little skull, you are not the representative of all women.
However, should someone mistakenly use this to challenge my misogynist credentials and accuse me of whiteknighting, I'd ask them to reconsider the specifics of my argument. I maintain that my misogyny score remains unmolested.
Markku,
A true misogynist is a man who hates women more than other women hate women.
C. R., this sounds like a sneaky attempt to challenge my misogyny score with a No True Scotsman argument. I will defeat it, lemmetellya! I've worked long and hard for that score, I'm not giving it up that easily.
lol Vox, I can so imagine that. Also at:
"When you're telling someone no and pushing them off of you and begging them to stop and they still insist on fucking you? That's rape."
Heh I very much doubt many males would support this sorta shit. As in when the lass REALLY doesn't want it.
Heck the girl I mentioned who sucked me off when I mentioned I was going to put her in the spare room, she was laying there DRIPPING WET saying she didn't want it etc. Can you imagine what sort of fucking position that put me in? She was obviously testing me, seeing if I was "man" enough to just take her, (and so she could deny she was being a slut). But of course, there's always that risk, and also if a lass is playing outright humiliating games like that with me, then she can fuck off, isn't worth my time or sex.
Women do that sort of shit to blokes all the fucking time, and you wonder why so many are so aggressive and pushy about it? You outright demand they be "man" enough to do so, then possibly call them a monster when they do, depending on your specific feelings at that exact point in time (or anytime afterwards) of course.
ACTUAL RAPE, as in when the lass is fucked while passed out (and NOT already in a blokes bed after going out getting herself drunk off her face), I'm talking about having a drink spiked or drugged (likely VERY rare), OR when a lass is literally pinned down by a bloke (or many) and forced while laid there crying in despair, is horrifying for blokes too, as in we don't support it, AT ALL. Also as Vox said, that type is mainly around the black and Asian communities. I've seen a vid online of an Indian girl in the jungle being obviously forced by a man, while his friends watched, I turned it off as her cries of despair sent chills down my spine.
So don't just fucking casually toss in "Rape" and "Misogyny" into any conversation and debate that's NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH THE TOPIC, just to try and turn all attention to you. Get fucked off. Many people have had bad things happen to them, yours isn't more important than any of theirs.
Majority, and I'm talking the MAJORITY of blokes would NOT (actual) rape a woman. Yes they would feel humiliation, anger, confusion and all the rest, but like the guy in the OP (and myself in the situations I mentioned, DESPITE it being a fucking test) absolutely would not do it. NOT just because of the possible consequences, but because we actually have a fucking conscience. Would prefer to have sex with someone who reciprocates and enjoys it instead, and doesn't fuck around "testing".
There are plenty of criteria men must meet in order to sleep with me.
Nope! Only one.
Just go away, Eliza.
But save the URL, so you can come back in a few years when you decide you want to settle down with a stable guy and can't figure out why your (claimed) dispassionate and utilitarian attitude about sex doesn't bring the romantic types running with rings and flowers.
I know hundreds, literally hundreds, of married couples in which the woman had sex before marriage.
Yep! And with each partner the wife had before married the odds on divorce went up. I wonder how many of those hundreds of marriages are still intact or will be over the next decade.
...I explained that was very misleading. She countered that her statement was true and at the moment (that exact moment) she wasn't interested in dating anyone. She also said that she was seriously confrontation-avoidant and didn't know how to handle the situation.
As I said in the last post I later discovered she had done the same thing to several other guys I knew. Since we shared a social circle I was able to see the kinds of guys she was willing to date. With a realistic assessment of the situation I cannot deny those guys were much better looking that all of the guys I knew who she led on, much more socially connected and exceptionally better off monetarily.
There is very little doubt in my mind that I never had a real chance. This isn't a lamentation though. Vox asked me to explain so I did. Sometimes we are lucky we don't get what we seek.
@JamesV
Well, it looks to me as if you and your buddies were far down on her list, like in the #10s to #20s, although, as I mentioned, she DQed you when you "Gamma'd out" by bringing up the subject to her. The guys she did get with were #1, #2, #3, and so forth.
It's sort of like the classic Ladder Theory from the '90s, with the difference being that I don't accept the existence of a "Friends Ladder", I think all the guys she's friends with are on her Real Ladder, just very far down on it, below many, many other men. If all the guys higher than, say, her #19 got wiped out in a plague or World War, then perhaps #19 would have a chance, but not otherwise. (Ladder Theory's version of my "Gamma'ing out" would be the "Abyss".)
My parents have been together for 31 years. They both love each other and genuinely like each other. Each had sex before marriage, with other people and with each other.
My parents have been together for 31 years. They both love each other and genuinely like each other. Each had sex before marriage, with other people and with each other.
Good for them. But (and here is the point) precisely no one here cares. The amazing thing is that on your very first day commenting here on the blog, you not only managed to talk about getting raped, but shared more information about your parent's marriage than I have about mine in the entire existence of this blog.
The reason you're not married like your parents, the reason you may never get married like them, is because any man who is capable of meeting your no doubt lofty standards would rather amputate his own penis with his teeth than find himself stuck in a car with you for 45 minutes.
@Vox - I'm just trying to understand and communicate with people in this community. I'm working off of the knowledge I have of male-female relationships, and trying to translate and reconcile your beliefs into these relationships. I didn't think there could be absolutely no nuance in this community's views on women and marriage.
There are many reasons I'm not married like my parents, but a large one is that I do not want to be. There is a temptation to tell you how many men have asked me out in the past month, but I won't do that. Because why be defensive? Regardless, for a man who claims to value logic, ad hominem attacks are fallacious and meaningless.
Here's logic: One data point is by worthless when a claim is about odds, like it was now. One data point can only defeat the claim "couples that have had sex with another person than their spouse, always get divorced"
Now, if you said it to explain why you might be emotionally inclined to view such marriages positively, then that would be understandable. The marriage of your parents is the most important one of your life, and the one you know best.
But to the claim, it does nothing. It only explains your emotions.
Having read Eliza's story and all of her comments, I think the best service this and other websites can do is educate men how to avoid women like Eliza, who use access/denial of sex as their only power device, and who have way too much hamster-spinning rationalization going on in their heads. A woman like this is nothing but trouble, even if she does give it up to whichever guys pass her 'selection tests' and can be considered a pump-and-dump for a guy with game and the right attitude toward this type of thing. (Her rape fixation leads me to this conclusion of her being trouble, not to mention her inability to understand that her 'wine at my place' invite was cruel.)
Women like Eliza want to have power over men, and they get off on entrapping beta-delta-gamma-upsilon-psi-whatever guys who don't have a real-world, non-idealistic understanding of female psychology into situations like this.
Call my view misogyny. Call it whatever. I call a woman putting a man whom she knows wants her into a situation like this to be the ultimate in APPLIED MISANDRY.
I do think the guy to whom she refers was a gameless, clueless tool, but it's obvious that she was playing him out. His outburst gave her grist for her indignation mill, though. He should've known better and steered clear. But the promise of possible sex is a powerful thing.
Only Game can fix this. Only men becoming wise and overcoming the blue pill BS can save the world from the deleterious, decaying effects of unrestrained female hypergamy, as evidenced by Eliza. Because the cat is out of the bag, the milk has been spilled, and it's obvious that women cannot monitor and restrain their own hypergamy, and it's impossible to re-create the old social order, which kept women's hypergamy under control, thus keeping the cohesion necessary for a healthy society.
Regardless, for a man who claims to value logic, ad hominem attacks are fallacious and meaningless.
That is not an ad hominem attack. Words actually mean things, Eliza. You can't simply throw out magic terms you don't understand and expect them to somehow coalesce into a coherent statement.
There is a temptation to tell you how many men have asked me out in the past month, but I won't do that.
Of course there is. I expect there is also a temptation to tell us what you had for breakfast. It's called "narcissism".
Eliza.....
Your interactions here seem to be be a search for validation. This community dissects that specific behavior from 95% of American females every day, and then readily dismisses it as solipsistic because like the matrix, once you learn to see it...it is everywhere.
You are not special, different, and your behavioral traits are 95% predictable as are every others. Thats a bitter, red pill (see what i did there) to swallow.
Help?
"This community dissects that specific behavior from 95% of American females every day.."
No you don't. You try to apply your own pre-conceived notions about women onto the entire gender so as to validate your own wounding. That's what women do to men and it's behavior that is beneath you
"If you're not interested in dating someone, THEN DON'T GO OUT WITH THEM. Not as friends. Not as anything. Stay home and be lonely, because otherwise what you're doing is using them for companionship, which is every bit as cruel as using someone for sex."
I disagree. There is one acceptable way to use someone for company, and that is the gamer-zone.
"Oh, let's go back to my apartment and look through the D&D Next quickstart document."
"Say, X, I know I said I only like you as a friend, but I want you to roll up a DPS character on my shard. Can you raid on Fridays."
"Just look at your lack of decent Pokemon. You make me ashamed."
"Screw watching Game of Thrones, I have Yu-Gi-Oh cards. It's about time you learned."
Don't friendzone people. Gamerzone them. And then you'll be happy to give up sex entirely.
There is a temptation to tell you how many men have asked me out in the past month,
lol, women are so fixated on numbers. Always amusing seeing their face when I tell them that even the fatties gets lots of propositions (albeit from less desirable men). Easy test for them is to simply make a profile on a dating site. First try no pictures, count the messages, then try unattractive / fatty pictures, and do the same.
I've seen one girl's inbox, she had HUNDREDS of messages and she wasn't that attractive. And another who used no pictures had literally thousands.
I deleted my comment because I realized Vox wants to do some toying. Sorry about that.
Why don't you explain, for Eliza's benefit, what you were feeling about the way the woman treated you.
Will she get it? Will she even care if she does?
Maybe (to the first question), and probably not (to the second question). Either way, it's probably not worth wasting the time explaining it to her.
Any woman upset that men aren't moved by the word "rape" can thank their feminist forebears.
I recoil in horror at the thought of a woman actually being raped.
I roll my eyes at most accusations that simply mean she regrets it. If having sex with a pushy person and regretting it later is rape, then one could say I've been raped several times.... but that wouldn't be accurate.
Would I take enjoyment in shooting the shite with Stickwick about, say, the matter-antimatter problem of the quantum soup hypothesis, moments after Big Bang? In all honesty, I have to answer yes.
But now I have just given up the principle. It CAN, then, be a benefit to myself without sex, or promise thereof. So, it becomes a matter of statistical probability.
And now the issue just becomes iffy. How could I blame a woman for making that assumption about a sexless evening and a bottle of wine? She doesn't have access to the totality of my experiences, based on which I make my statistical assessment. I would be solipsistic to blame her.
Markku, Stickwick would be wise enough to know there's no need for a comfy couch and a bottle of wine if it is her expertise that will be discussed. And, from what I've learned of Stickwick, it's unlikely you wouldn't be further attracted to her once in her company. She's fascinating and attractive. Thus the husband she has (and her faith) that she likely wouldn't dishonor by putting herself in a position that could be misinterpreted.
Conscientia - That's fair. I guess I thought we were both enjoying our time together, but clearly he wasn't. It's a little insulting because, what, my company isn't enough if I'm not gonna fuck you? But, yeah. You're right.
I think it's pretty obvious from both your OP and your comments that, like most women in the western world today, you REALLY don't understand the first thing about men, and are obviously not willing to learn. You really should spare both yourself and any future male victims a lot of pain and aggravation and just quit while you're ahead.
All this is irrelevant to my point, which is that this is sufficient to prove that the claim "social interaction with a woman never benefits a man". To such absolute claims, even one counterexample is a defeater.
So, I cannot expect that the woman should know this by logic. How then? By male experience. Which I cannot expect her to have, for obvious reasons.
And now I have just exhausted my grounds for blame.
...prove the claim "(...)" FALSE.
Eliza said:
Corvinus - that is entirely untrue, and entirely ridiculous. I've had plenty of sex with men I didn't love.
And such a woman has historically been called a "slut," a "whore," a "harlot," or a "prostitute." Nothing personal; it just is what it is.
Eliza: I'm working off of the knowledge I have of male-female relationships, and trying to translate and reconcile your beliefs into these relationships.
. . . and therein lies your challenge. It's hard to accept that what you believe/think/operate from might not be all correct, or even a little (even about your parents). It sucks, in fact. So, if you are sincere in wanting to understand, you have to feel some frustration and pain. You may not know what you think you know. Try being more open-minded; stretch to a new place. And if you're as young as you seem to be, you might be able to influence your peers. That would matter. My question for you: you say you want to understand. Why?
The logic here is amazing. It's one thing to be rejected by a picky woman. But she's saying, "I've had sex with lots of guys, some of whom I didn't really care about. I think sex can be meaningless fun with lots of different people, as long as I'm not forced into it. You're a good friend I care about, a cool guy I really like spending time with. I know you really want this little, meaningless thing from me -- and no you can't have it, ever, not even once to make you feel better."
Some friend, who won't even give you her leftovers when you're starving.
If women want to know what men like and don't like, listen to men. It does no good to deny what they say just because you don't like it.
If rape is really so terribly awful as described and the consequences and feel-bad are so difficult to bear, I would think a person would arrange her life in such a way that she would never be in a position to have it occur. That is, in fact, how I have arranged my life. Because no amount of feel-bad on the part of others can make me whole if I am damaged.
Something that occurred to me was that if my husband was going over to the apartment of a woman, claiming she was just a friend, with a bottle of wine at night to meet with her alone, how would I feel about that? Would I question the motives of either my husband or the woman? Why would that situation be inappropriate for a married man but ok for a single man? He is still a man and she is still a woman.
Some friend, who won't even give you her leftovers when you're starving.
I know she doesn't see it this way, but he really is better off with out those left overs.
"If men are supposed to be so protective of women, why do men doubt rape victims? Shouldn't it make them want to protect them and cuddle them and never let them be hurt again? Why do you have to insist that women are making it up?"
My mother worked in the hospital ER for 25 years and told me 90% of the women who claimed rape made it up.
he really is better off with out those left overs.
No doubt. But the cognitive dissonance of the slut who won't bang a friend is pretty wild.
Imagine there was something you had plenty of -- let's say a huge book collection -- and it gave you pleasure to share it with people. In fact you enjoy sharing it so much that you've loaned books to quite a few people who didn't even return them, and it doesn't bother you. You got the pleasure of sharing, so it's all good.
Then your really good friend comes and asks to borrow one book, and you refuse -- precisely because you know it would mean a lot to him and he would take good care of it and return the favor any way he could.
How messed up is that? Is it any wonder it infuriates the guy?
How messed up is that? Is it any wonder it infuriates the guy?
It's pretty messed up and I understand his frustration.
Yet, in an scary sort of way, the whole episode reminds me of a guy who liked to use meth and his dealer friend would share with several buddies but wouldn't give him any.
Some day if he climbs out of the sewer he might be glad not to have further messed himself up.
Ah ok, so I was wrong. Sounds more like he was just a beta “nice guy” who she was using to get validation and emotional investment that her more “alpha” hookup partners who just “hit it and quit it” weren't giving her.
As an aside, I'd say that it's generally not a good idea for a man to try to have anything romantically to do with a woman who claims to have been raped, date-raped, near-raped, eye-raped, catcall-raped or whatever. Either A. she's a feminazi who thinks that any sex can be rape if the woman regrets it later, or B. she really was raped, and will then have trouble loving, trusting, and bonding with men because of the trauma her experiences caused. Not worth the trouble in any case.
@ Cail
"No doubt. But the cognitive dissonance of the slut who won't bang a friend is pretty wild."
Indeed. To be rejected by a virgin who is saving herself for her husband is one thing, but to be rejected by a girl who might bump into a stranger in a bar later that night and have sex with him in the parking lot is quite another,
"As an aside, I'd say that it's generally not a good idea for a man to try to have anything romantically to do with a woman who claims to have been raped, date-raped, near-raped, eye-raped, catcall-raped or whatever."
There's some wisdom in that, Retrenched. To tell you the truth, I think it would be far easier for a man to build trust and bonding with a genuine rape survivor, then with those who perceive everything as rape and wear their victimization on their sleeve like it's a badge of honor or something. Those kind of girls are usually so sexually confused, they pose a serious threat to any man who gets near them.
If you ever want to know how to tell the difference, women who have genuinely been raped, rarely brag about it.
Men who have truly beennin combat rarely discuss that either.
Eliza, you ever heard the "tits or gtfo" phrase explained?
http://imgur.com/r/4chan/pesMU
If you can grasp that, a lot of the rest of the site (heck most of the internet) will probably come into focus.
@Eliza
"I also wonder how you feel about women, personally."
disapointment
cail,
"But the cognitive dissonance of the slut who won't bang a friend is pretty wild."
As we both know, there is very little cognition involved.
She wants to make a good impression on a man who could be a good husband/provider candidate. She instinctively knows that being easy with him would make a bad impression.
Men will typically go slower the more attracted they are as well, often to their detriment.
I don't know if Eliza is still reading, but I'm just going to throw out some advice that worked for me, as a woman:
As women, the manosphere is REALLY FUCKING SCARY. And that'll last for a while. Seeing men's unvarnished thoughts, seeing them without apologies or any of the softening, coddling, or gentle lies we are used to is genuinely scary at first. Heaven knows after stumbling on Heartiste I almost never came back. However, there is a lot of truth and a lot of value to know here.
What you have to understand is that there are so feeeeeew places where men are allowed to blow off steam anymore, that a LOT of frustration, anger, and even bitterness will come out here in the comments. That's not the case for everyone, but it is the case enough to make comment sections painful to read until you have an understanding and sympathy for people here.
What worked for me was to pick a handful of sites where I knew (or perhaps I should say I felt) that the owners were sticking to factual and observable data/patterns, and just straight up ignore comments, and I did that for a few months. After a while, I understood enough to participate in comments, although I still rarely do so, because I generally don't see any need to try to nanny the menfolk, and I am usually late to add anything new anyhow. Still, I have never received any flack or derision for my few comments (One person did point out I was wrong in one thing, but they were not harsh, and were, in fact, quite respectful) and once or twice I have even been commended for my little insights.
You WILL see some bitterness, and some vitriol. It comes from men who have been so thoroughly abused, lied to, and taken advantage of, that they have nothing left but despair. Understanding this has lead me to try to be sympathetic (I confess it is not always easy), and to motivate myself to not give anyone cause to feel so about me, and to be a light for those I meet. However, I do think that the majority of the frequent commenters are not in this pit. Most of the men in the sphere have come to improve their lot and learn to do better, rather than just to complain. But they have good reason to be angry, and few if any places else to vent that.
If it may be of interest to you, the sites I originally stuck to were Dalrock, The Spearhead and The Rational Male. At the time, I had not found Alpha Game. Vox is an excellent host in his own way, but somewhat more, shall we say, aggressive than Dalrock, Rollo (Rational Male) and the usual contributors at The Spearhead. While I greatly enjoy his site, and don't mean to malign it, I'm not sure it is the best place for a woman new to the sphere to get her start, just as I would not recommend Heartiste, although I much enjoy it now. There are also several women who participate in the 'sphere (at various sites), but we must understand that it is the MANosphere, and we are here at the men's indulgence, on their terms, and we oughtn't try to make the rules here, any more than we would go to a stranger's house and presume to tell them how to run it.
I hope this will help you to remain open to learning more, and to do so in a way that will be better suited to our more sensitive female nature.
"Oh, SarahsDaughter. Get into the 21st century. Even the 20th. I know hundreds, literally hundreds, of married couples in which the woman had sex before marriage. Not everyone is a sexually uptight Christian. Sorry.
Sorry for what, coming across as a passive/aggressive, concern-trolling, cock-teasing, attention-whoring bitch? I'm "sorry" if that comes across as being crude and vulgar, instead of being a sisterhood-approved insult like slandering thoughtful, observant, previously-puzzled and frustrated men as being "misogynistic" when they'd just like to succeed with women without having to put their balls in a purse...or under a judge's gavel.
Pro-tip: Set an example of the respect we should have for women, Eliza, by not patronizing and belittling one of the few women who actually contribute meaningful insight on this blog. Just how do YOU "feel about the average woman, personally"? And I'm not talking about one of your prissy posse who always comments on how gorgeous you look when you try a new haircut or upload another selfie for your Facebook profile pic. Their praise and approval mean nothing, and you know it.
"sexually uptight Christian"
Industrial strength ignorance.
Eliza -
If you're still reading - there is a vital difference between understanding and accepting. Sometimes - oftentimes - when someone says they "just wants to understand," that person is really looking for a "hook" into which they can sink their teeth and try to shake sense into the others they are "trying to understand." If a gamma male, they are looking for a way to get the goodies without being challenged or threatened. In essence, they are looking for an opening to impose their will upon - or "enlighten" - the other/s.
Start with trying to accept what you are reading here, rather than trying to understand.
"Vox is an excellent host in his own way, but somewhat more, shall we say, aggressive"
Since the powers that be will only engage with strawmen, Vox plays that strawman to exhibit that even on their own terms they cannot defend their actions or worldview.
It would be great to email her father the "I have sex with a lot of men all the time" comments. I am sure he would be so proud of the strong independent youth she has become.
what, my company isn't enough if I'm not gonna fuck you?
No, Eliza, it's not. But you shouldn't feel insulted by that. For men, nobody's company (male or female) is good enough unless there's some fun activity involved. A man will get together with a buddy to shoot hoops, or play cards, or watch sports, etc., but not to just hang out and talk. That buddy could be a woman, if she's really into the same activity and contributes to his enjoyment of it. But if he's alone with a woman and all they're doing is talking, the fun activity he's looking for is sex. (If he's alone with a man and all they're doing is talking, he's gay.)
Eliza said: "sexually uptight Christian"
Desiderius reply: Industrial strength ignorance.
Amen. After marriage I became a Christian. Uncommitted/casual sex was nothing compared to married, committed sex - even with the same man.
Well, I'm NOT a Christian, so...different strokes. No need to criticize my choices. I don't criticize yours.
Here's a thought, and something I have practiced. I don't do "friendships" with women. I am friendly, but I don't get alone with women I'm not interested in. And if I am interested, I make it VERY CLEAR right at the start that I am romantically interested. Explicitly. If she balks, I walk.
Now, I have had friendships with women who were either 1) part of a social group I was a part of, and we kind of fell into a friendship, or 2) were/are the wives/girlfriends of male friends of mine. Here is the important part. If I ever fall into a friendship with a woman, I NEVER, EVER give her the opportunity to become romantically involved with my.
I refuse to be played. And I'm bold enough to make my intentions clear at the beginning of the relationship. Any woman who tries to put me in the "friend zone" after I've made my romantic intentions clear is just being selfish. There is a word for that - defrauding. If a man makes clear his romantic intentions, he is NEVER going to be an option as a friend.
And even the female friends that I do have, the teasing between us is sometimes sexual in nature - because women like to feel like a man is attracted to them. But I cannot tell you how many women who started out as my friends were very disappointed when I refused their romantic advances. I've turned the tables. Once you are in my "friend zone," you cannot get out. If you want a romantic relationship with me, you have to commit early to the possibility, or I move on.
I think the HUGE MISTAKE most men make is allowing themselves to believe that "making friends" is a good way to ease your way into a woman's life. Women are completely selfish for the most part. They want to talk about themselves, not about you. So, they long for male validation without having to reciprocate. Don't EVER play that game. Just don't.
If you want women trying to seduce you, as has happened too many times for me to count, then don't play the "friend game." Either be a friend, and never even consider the option of making the woman a romantic partner. Or start out the relationship as a romance. You save a lot of time by being clear and genuine in your intentions up front. If you are refused by a romantic target, take it like a man, and walk away. You've saved yourself a great deal of wasted time, effort and money. And a decent portion of those women will wonder if they've made a mistake and start chasing you - if you disengage.
But unless you are willing to actually become a genuine friend that NEVER considers having sex with the woman, don't be her friend. If you are even 1% interested in her romantically or sexually, it's just not worth the emotion torture of being her friend. Make you intentions known. Either be accepted or rejected. If rejected, walk away. If she comes back, then make the demand for commitment even stronger. Don't get played. Ever.
As for Eliza:
Sweetheart, you are deluding yourself. No woman should ever be alone with a man she's not willing to sleep with - especially late at night, over a bottle of alcohol. Maybe you don't like that, but it is reality. Like it or not, you are putting yourself into a position to either be hurt, or be the one who is hurting him.
This man made his romantic intentions apparent. Once he did that, you are at fault for leading him on if you try to be his friend. I'm not saying men and women cannot be friends. But it sounds to me like you've surrounded yourself with "non-threatening" men who don't have the balls to be clear with their intentions. I'm not blaming the men. They are no more at fault than you are for believing that you can "just be friends" with a guy who finds you romantically attractive. We are now on our 3rd generation in Western culture where all children, boys and girls, were lied to growing up, and neither sex has a clear understanding. Your frustration with what you term as "misogyny" is no different from the frustration expressed by many men here that your are being selfish and spiteful in how you use men. They are two sides of the same lying coin.
There is a reason that in times past, regardless of whether you were "Christian" or not, there were rules concerning the relationships between men and women. Men were expected to make their intentions clear at the beginning. Women knew that they would be expected to make a yes or no decision at the outset of the relationship. The delusion is that either sex can or should ease into friendship type relationships that would develop over time into romances. That is the fiction that has caused so much heartache. It leads to women claiming to be date-raped when the men believed that they were just "reading the signs." It leads to men feeling defrauded of their time and treasure chasing a woman you will never be interested.
Eliza, what you need to understand is the feeling of being defrauded is just as powerful in men, as the feeling you have had of being raped on a date. I am not underestimating the sense of powerlessness and frustration a man feels when he invests himself in a woman, only to be rejected. You can either choose to accept that characterization or not. But that sense of betrayal that a man feels is real, and it cuts very deep. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be raped physically again. So why would you be willing to do to a man psychologically what you don't want to be done physically to yourself? If you cannot see the parallels, then there is no hope for you to ever understand.
Well, I'm NOT a Christian, so...different strokes. No need to criticize my choices. I don't criticize yours.
That's New Age nonsense. If your choices are wrong and harmful to you and to others, then there certainly is a need to criticize them. It's called charity.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be raped physically again. So why would you be willing to do to a man psychologically what you don't want to be done physically to yourself?
That's easy: revenge.
@Cali
That's New Age nonsense. If your choices are wrong and harmful to you and to others, then there certainly is a need to criticize them. It's called charity.
Thank you, but I am perfectly happy with my choices. Choosing to have sex with people I am not married to is neither wrong nor hurtful, so long as it is consensual. People have had sex outside of marriage forever, except women were told that they were disgusting and shamed for doing so.
I could certainly criticize the emphasis on abstinence and virginity in Christianity as harmful, inane, and even abusive. But I am not making those comments to you. So please leave out the judgments on my sex life.
@Scott -
I will respond to this only once. But feeling led on, which I have experienced, and being physically assaulted and violated, which I have also experienced, are not remotely comparable experiences. Men who invest themselves in women and are rejected are disappointed. Yes, disappointment sucks. Rejection does not feel good. But comparing it to rape is absolutely absurd. Rape is a crime and a violation of basic human rights. Disappointment and rejection are life experiences that literally everyone has, and they are a part of what being a human is about.
@Liberranter -
Revenge achieves nothing. It doesn't appeal to me in any way. In fact, having been through pain, I would rather reduce the sum total of pain felt in the world than add to it. I have no interest in others feeling the kind of hurt I have felt, especially at my hand.
Eliza,
As I said, you can accept or reject the idea that the betrayal that a man feels is similar to the violation a woman feels at being date raped - which is qualitatively different from being violently raped by a stranger. I am not surprised that you rejected it.
All I can say is, "I tried."
No, it is not qualitatively different. Trust me. Try it sometime.
If you want, try this. Get someone, someone you vaguely know, to come into your apartment sometime and fuck your ass with while you scream into the pillow and beg him to stop. Then tell me it's different.
Having been though rejection, though the intensity of the feeling is very high, I wouldn't compare the two for an important distinction:
I DID, in fact, fail to produce gina tingles. I didn't understand why at the time, which confusion was largely the reason for the pain. Because when you don't understand what's wrong, you can't be sure if it will ever get better. But knowing what I know now, I was indeed the source of my own pain.
However, with a date rape, it isn't necessarily the woman's fault. Sometimes it is, when we're in fact dealing with Regret Rape. But not always. But in the case of rejection, it essentially always is the man's fault, though he doesn't know it at the time. The woman went to the date in the hopes of gina tingles, which failed to materialize. This in itself, is not a moral crime from either part, it's just an unfortunate fact. If they then go separate ways without any vindictiveness, I don't think either is in any way in the other's debt.
Of course also, if the woman leads the man on further, when she should reasonably have figured out she won't be attracted to him, then it's a different situation altogether. Then we're talking about cruelty for personal gain.
Anyway. This is silly. I'm trying to learn about this community, not be educated on what's rape or not.
Hmm. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "fault", as it's like a red cloth to a bull, for understandable reasons, when combined with "man's". Let's say "cause" instead. Similarly, when a woman gets rejected by a man, the cause is always the woman.
Except if it's fatness. Then fault.
Revenge achieves nothing. It doesn't appeal to me in any way. In fact, having been through pain, I would rather reduce the sum total of pain felt in the world than add to it.
Really? Judging from the content of your OP, you have a very strange way of going about that, one that is sure to be misinterpreted by nearly everyone. I suppose I could be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you don't consciously realize what you are doing. I'm not sure, though, given the stubborn rejection of the knowledge others here are seeking to impart to you, as well as the clarity in which the error of your ways has been explained to you, that such benefit is warranted.
I have no interest in others feeling the kind of hurt I have felt, especially at my hand.
Again, I could theoretically give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you're sincere in this statement, but simply unconscious of the nature of your own actions. But manipulating others for your own selfish gain, which is exactly what your behavior in your OP describes, puts the lie to that assertion. Whether or not you choose to accept that fact by applying your own flexible set of solipsistic "morals" is irrelevant and beside the point. In other words, "what I do doesn't hurt anybody" is NOT true simply because YOU declare it to be so.(I should add here "get over yourself, sweetheart," but I don't want to be rude).
Anyway. This is silly. I'm trying to learn about this community, not be educated on what's rape or not.
I think you need to carefully re-read this statement you just made and seriously consider modifying it. The reason why should be obvious.
@Liberranter -
I have never once argued that I didn't lead this guy on. I didn't see that, honestly, at the time. I thought I had been entirely honest and explicit, and he was making his own choices. I still think that, to an extent, but I can see how my behavior could have been misconstrued. That has been the one thing in these comments that I have not been disgusted by.
As for your second statement, if this community is entirely about policing what is and isn't "real" rape, especially without knowing anything about it, then that's pretty fucking disgusting, and not something I need or desire to learn more about.
Eliza,
I'm not telling you what rape is. I'm talking about the psychological damage, not the physical assault.
Using someone for your own personal satisfaction regardless of their feelings or desires. That is what I'm talking about.
I don't know, and don't care to know, the details of your personal situation. But you likely chose to be alone with the boy who raped you. That was unwise at the very least. I have two daughters in their early 20's. I am very explicit with them when it comes to not inadvertently inflaming a man's passions. I don't trust all the young men out there to be able to control themselves once inflamed. So, as a caring father, I instruct them on how to avoid such situations - because I know the sexual power that women wield. Being ignorant of that power because you were lied to growing up is excusable. Staying willfully ignorant of that power because you don't want to have to use it responsibly is not excusable.
Teaching a young woman to use that power responsibly used to be a common practice in our society, just as teaching men not to hit and physically assault a woman is still taught. Unfortunately, many young men in our society now grow up without fathers, without a strong man to teach them self-control. And as a result, we get situations like yours. But it is equally important to teach young women self-control when wielding the greater power they have. Unfortunately, young women are not being taught that.
What so many are really trying to tell you is that you have power, and you should use it responsibly. Taking a man home alone to share a bottle of wine is simply an irresponsible abuse of that power. And it should not be shocking when you sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind. Yes, the whirlwind is even more powerful. Yes, the whirlwind should be held responsible for himself. That doesn't absolve you of your responsibility for sowing the wind.
The difference in the two is a difference in "degree." And yes, I agree that date-rape is a higher "degree." But they are the same "in kind." The fact that the boy who raped you should have exerted even more self-control due to his greater power to inflict damage does not absolve you then, or now, from any requirement to exert self-control in the area of your power and strength - even if it is not capable of causing the same degree of damage.
One other comment concerning the greater sexual power women have vs. the greater physical power men have.
Neither has to be used badly. In fact, used properly, both can be used to the extreme benefit of the other sex. A man can use his greater physical strength to protect and provide for a woman in ways she cannot do for herself. Similarly, a woman can use her sexual strength - especially in marriage - to build up her husband in ways no other person can. The confidence and ego boost a man gets when he believes that his woman truly desires him, and expresses it in her actions by caring for his sexual needs is powerful.
Even if you are not religious, consider this proverb: "Hope deferred makes the heart grow sick, but desire fulfilled is as a tree of life."
A woman has an awesome power to be like a "tree of life" by fulfilling the desires of her man. That is a power no other person has. Or she can choose death, "hope deferred." If, as a woman, you have no intention of ever fulfilling that desire, then it is better to extinguish the hope immediately, than it is to allow hope to be sustained, but forever deferred. It is more merciful to cut a man off immediately than it is to allow hope to remain alive in his heart. Because it is that unfulfilled hope that drives so many of the angry, bitter, resentful comments we see throughout the manosphere. Toying with a man's affections is cruel and spiteful.
Perfect, Scott - that was very well put.
It appears Eliza doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions, though, so I'm sure the wisdom you've imparted here will go in one ear and out the other. In this, she's not alone; it seems the great majority of Western women want to be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and anything that seeks to limit or control that, explicitly or implicitly, is labeled as 'MISOGYNY". In their calculus, it's the men who need to adjust and control their behavior - the women need not do anything, because responsibility for one's actions is a drag. You go, girl!
One last thought.
Although many condemn Eliza for her ignorance concerning how to use her sexual power responsibly, the reality is that the man she's describing also had the choice to walk away the moment she rejected his romantic interest.
The biggest value in the manosphere that I see is that it is educating men on how to not fall prey to the abuses of sexual power that many modern women inflict on men - however unwittingly because they are not educated about that power. Many times, men set themselves up to be abused. In Eliza's case, the man involved set himself up to be abused, and it is not shocking that he felt violated.
But Eliza also set herself up to be abused by being alone with a man who had already expressed romantic interest. Fortunately, in this case she was not abused.
But what is so tragic about our current societal model is that the unwillingness to teach the truth to our children set BOTH men and women up to be abused by one another.
This is why I first addressed the men. Here is what I am saying: DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN HARM'S WAY. STOP BEING FOOLISH BY PUTTING YOUR HEART AT THE MERCY OF A WOMAN WHO WILL ABUSE IT.
And here is how I teach my daughters: DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN HARM'S WAY. DON'T BE ALONE WITH MEN YOU ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO - ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE ALREADY EXPRESSED ROMANTIC INTEREST.
(The last time we did go out she had a meltdown over cocktails and was openly weeping about her choices, lack of children, the way her career was going sideways; then she was kissing me.)
That was THE opportunity to move in for the kill -- both physically and emotionally.
Anyway. This is silly. I'm trying to learn about this community, not be educated on what's rape or not.Anyway. This is silly. I'm trying to learn about this community, not be educated on what's rape or not.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Scott, while I disagree with nothing you said, I think the ratio of comments about Eliza's character vs comments about her dejected "friend" has to do more with the fact that she wrote in. Had he written in, this whole section would be about the guy and what he needs to do to improve himself. At most, Eliza's character would be dismissed as selfish/unworthy.
McNeill’s illicit romance with her friend’s son lasted from April 2012 to June 2013, during which time the lovers had sexual intercourse at least six times.
What is this, you ask? This is rape culture. This 40 year old woman repeatedly raped this teenage boy, and it's a love affair. You seem to think rape culture is when rape exists in a culture. That's just stupid. Not everyone believing your side of the story is not rape culture. Joe Paterno looking the other way when Sandusky was caught plowing little boys in the shower; hell, everyone looked the other way on that one. That's rape culture. And wouldn't ya know it? The victims are males.
You say you don't need to be educated on what rape is, but you're the one who brought it up and bitches about rape culture on campus. Unless you're talking about Penn state, you should probably shut the hell up.
Trust: "Any woman upset that men aren't moved by the word "rape" can thank their feminist forebears. "
Yea, rape culture is boring. They've devalued their nuclear option to a firecracker. Morons.
I made that mistake when I was 17. Really, the cause is ignorance. If a guy likes you "that way", it's best not to keep inviting him with you anywhere.
Someone who really wants to have friends, will be angry and frustrated if all they get is offers of sex. Someone who really wants sex+romance, will be angry and frustrated if all they get is friendship offers. Especially when young, IMO. Just my observation. I don't think it's right to get mad at people who offer you what you don't want, and refuse to give you what you want - they don't know better and don't mean any harm. But it's not good to be those people, either.
Ghost,
Perhaps I'm giving Eliza the benefit of the doubt that she really is trying to understand. The fact that she seems very resistant to the explanations given here doesn't necessarily mean they aren't having an impact. Change is hard, and we shouldn't be surprised that something inside Eliza's heart and head is resisting the change being demanded. It is difficult to give up long-held beliefs.
So, if I appear to be a little more patient with Eliza than some others, that is probably true. Of course, she has the right to completely dismiss all the comments, and never return. But the fact that she has re-engaged - even in disagreement - is a small sign that she really does want to understand.
But I also thought that it is important to address the men who are commenting back to her. The reality is we've all been lied to. I was actually teased in high school for being to direct, and lacking smoothness in my approaches to girls. But then, I always had pretty girls for girlfriends, and the guys (and girls) who were offended by my directness were alone. The strategy worked then, and it continues to work now. I decide whom I pursue, and the fact that I deflect interest from women who I haven't chosen works for me, too.
The funny thing is that I knew nothing about the manosphere until a couple of years ago. Reading has made me understand why I have been successful with women. It was always a bit of a mystery to me before.
I truly didn't understand why a guy like myself, who I would rate as a 6-7 on a 10 point scale had so many really beautiful women find me attractive. I'm not the guy who wows women when I walk into the room. But within a very short period of time after I join in a group, I consistently get interest. What the manosphere has done for me is give me understanding. But it hasn't changed how I act toward women. I've always done what worked, and ignored the criticism of others.
It just seems to me that a whole lot of men are wasting a lot of time and resources on women who don't deserve that time and resources. I find it difficult to understand why. The straightforward approach just seems so much more efficient and so much more effective. So I find it difficult to understand why so many men are not using it. Is it fear? I guess I just don't find women intimidating. The maliciousness of some pretty women (and some who only think they are pretty) doesn't inspire fear, it inspires amused contempt and pity.
And in the end, that is how all men should view such women. The women to be held in esteem are those who actually LIKE men, and enjoy meeting their needs in a relationship. I know many such women, and do hold them in high esteem. I see the mean-spirited women as deluded, and deceived. I don't hate them, but I certainly don't waste a lot of my time and resources on them - no matter their beauty. This attitude ironically inspires them to treat me better than they treat others. After reading the manosphere, I now understand why. But that doesn't mean I recommend pursuing them, just because they seem to treat me more nicely.
If men are supposed to be so protective of women, why do men doubt rape victims? Shouldn't it make them want to protect them and cuddle them and never let them be hurt again? Why do you have to insist that women are making it up?
Because when YOU ENGINEER THE CONDITIONS leading up to the rape, it's pretty damned difficult to believe that the result is NOT what you wanted.
Case in point, back in 1983, there was a rape case at the University of Michigan that was infamous across the nation. The trial dragged on for a couple weeks.
Then, a surprise witness came forward for the defense -- a sorority sister of the woman who made the accusation. Said sorority sister testified that she heard the accusor say the following words just before leaving the sorority house: "I'm going to fuck a Fiji if it's the last thing I do tonight."
Within a minute, the prosecutor dropped all charges.
Too many women do this crawl in bed with a guy and get naked then claim to have been raped ALL THE DAMNED TIME, and then claim to be raped.
I won't even go into the fact that numerous official sources (FBI statistics, a female prosecutor in New York City, etc.) report such things as "upon investigation, 50% of rape allegations are PROVABLY FALSE," and "over 50% of all reported rapes are later recanted by the accusor".
Across the board, all other types of crime, EACH has a false reporting rate in the neighborhood of 3%.
The false reporting rate for rape is somewhere on the order of 75%.
"Women don't lie about rape."
Oh, yes the do. And always have (which is one reason why the Old Testament lays out the law that if a woman is "in the city and does not cry out" (i.e. wake up the neighborhood with her screams) that she cannot come along later and claim she was raped. Why would such a law even need to be mentioned if there was not ALREADY a problem with women making false rape accusations (There is no reason for a law to punish violations that nobody is committing).
Likewise, in movies from the 1930's even up to the 1970's ALL THE WAY UP TO THE "Women don't lie about rape" slogan, it was common to see women use threats of making a false rape complaint against a man who was disinclined to either reveal her criminal character, or not willing to assist her in some immoral way, with "I'll scream rape."
So, if you're wondering why men tend to be slow, deliberate, and very circumspect regarding when women make rape accusations... it's because there are far, Far, FAR more false rape claims than true rape claims. And as I noted above, one of my sources who claims this IS A FEMALE IN A POSITION TO KNOW.
That, and when you factor in the under reported figures of male rape victims, it turns out that men are more likely to be "rape-raped" (as per whoopi) than women. I know more men that have been raped, but I know more women who have claimed to have been.
Rape is a crime and a violation of basic human rights. Disappointment and rejection are life experiences that literally everyone has, and they are a part of what being a human is about.
Meal-whoring, attention-whoring, and time-whoring shoud be crimes, too, because they are just as psychologically damaging to men.
And to add insult to injury, women not only dismiss the men's complaint, but completely invalidate him as a person at all with responses as "you should be grateful" or other such nonsense, to deflect ANY sort of culpability away from women .... basically telling men that they're not being used, he's just failing to enjoy it.
So, Eliza, with regards to the time you were raped, how many men have EVER told you that your problem is your attitude, and it's not the man's fault that you just couldn't enjoy the experience for what it was. I ask, because that's basically the argument you're making here about your "friend" being out of line for blowing up at you after you attention- and time-whored him.
What you're describing your behavior as is the female equivalent of a john who takes off before paying the prostitute he just screwed.
Rejection does not feel good. But comparing it to rape is absolutely absurd. Rape is a crime and a violation of basic human rights. Disappointment and rejection are life experiences that literally everyone has, and they are a part of what being a human is about.
Not to a man, it doesn't.
Having been literally raped by a woman -- she decided to have sex with me while I was asleep...I woke up to find her on top of me riding me, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that that what you dismiss as minor and relatively harmless is not true.
Rejection doesn't bother YOU much.... therefore, you solipsistically claim that it doesn't bother ANYONE much.
Stop projecting YOUR preferences onto men.
Stop telling men what they're supposed to feel.
Contrary to feminist theotoric, we DO have feelings and emotions. But we rarely show them because any emotion other than anger or absolute joy gets punished by women in the most insidious and vicious ways. So we learn to hide our emotions from women. I have NO problem allowing most any man to see my emotions. With women... I am absolutely aloof. Why? Because THAT'S WHAT YOU WOMEN HAVE TRAINED ME TO DO.
And then you piss and moan that men don't display enough emotions.
And you can't figure out why your mere company, in and of itself, doesen't make men pleased? [Not even counting the inane banalities that most women... especially in the 17-23 set, believe to be utterly fascinating conversation.]
There is a time when the companionship of women without sex is temporarily enjoyable (assuming we are talking about an attractive woman). And that is during the recharge phase after orgasming. This is when pillow talk is supposed to occur. Because for a few minutes, men actually want to engage in small talk. (unless it is a hit it and quit it situation).
In every friendship relationship I've had with women, one or the other person wanted to have a romantic/sexual relationship, although I didn't always realize it at the time. I used to think that unattractive (to me) women were okay to be friends with, until I realized what total cockblockers they were and the reason why they behaved that way. I also realize now that I was setting up my own female orbiters and was rationalizing it because it had been done to me in the more distant past.
I'm not going to trivialize serious rape occurrences, but I will point out that the German women managed to survive multiple brutal rapes across much of their female population after WW2. Those who claim it is worse than death are snorting New Age crap.
Show me one reputable study that shows that women lie about being raped "75% of the time." Or even more than 2% of the time. That is just absolute nonsense.
I am in no way suggesting that men don't get raped. They do, and it's just as horrible and disgusting, and it's entirely disgraceful that our culture usually dismisses men who were raped.
Oh, and I can up your prosecutor - my mother is a judge, and she has never tried a rape case that was a lie, let alone "provably false."
Anyway, I will not engage on rape any further. I would like to learn how this community feels about women, how you interact with women, what values you hold dear. On any topic other than rape. Because this is just woefully ignorant and sad.
Here are some statistics, sources included at the bottom of the page, when you click through to "learn more."
https://rainn.org/statistics
And on false reporting:
http://ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf
This is a quick google search, with two websites that cite very reliable, reputable sources. Your turn.
Eliza,
The discussion of rape is inextricably linked to all of this. Can't be separated. Tom Brady will never be accused falsely of rape. By the way, several news stories of women lying about rape are surely headed your way.
Oh, and I can up your prosecutor - my mother is a judge, and she has never tried a rape case that was a lie, let alone "provably false."
1. That's because PROVABLY FALSE accusations never make it to trial. Don't be a dingbat, it's unbecoming.
2. I already cited the 1983 rape case, in which the prosecution dropped the charges when a sorority sister of the accuser came forward with evidence that yes, the accuser was lying through her teeth -- and had been doing so for almost a year.
several news stories of women lying about rape are surely headed your way.
Those are a poor counter to statistics. Stories make news because the events they describe are unusual, which supports Eliza's position rather than her critics'.
However, statistics on false reporting don't tell us much either, because very few acquaintance-rape accusations are provably true or false. Someone has to classify each accusation as true or false, and most of the time it comes down to who that someone believed.
Even in cases where the accuser later retracted her story, we don't know what happened for sure. She might have been coerced by family and/or friends of the accused.
I must be 70 bazillions times smarter than you, because it took me all of 15 seconds with google to find the following....[It's actually taking me 10x as long to cut and paste the text and create the links than to find them with the search engine. Either that, or... 1, you're a lazy git **AND*** 2) You didn't come here with an open mind, failing to get validation for your boorish behavior with regard to wine-date guy, you decided to argue rather than listen.
You are your own worst enemy, and will continue to be so. I know you're not religious, but the Bible tells time and again about how a certain ethnic grouprefuses to listen, and gets punshished by God as a result...over and over and over again. For the past 2500 years, they've been dispersed, and hounded from place to place, simply for REFUSING TO LISTEN TO SIMPLE ADVICE, WISDOM, AND INSTRUCTIONS.
1. False rape accusations are very common
Statistics on politicized issues like this are often untrustworthy. Many police departments resolve even the most obvious cases of false rape accusation by sending both parties home, recording no crime, and making the girl pinky swear never to do it again. But to my surprise, several decent studies have been done on the frequency of false rape accusations.
A meta-analysis by Rumney (2006) suggests that between 10-50% of rape allegations are false. Kanin (1994) arrived at an estimate of 40%, using methodology that strikes me as more trustworthy than a simple count of police-recorded ‘malicious accusations’, since many false rape claims are ignored. Kanin’s unique process was as follows:
Kanin investigated the incidences of false rape allegations made to the police in one small urban community between 1978 and 1987. He states that unlike those in many larger jurisdictions, this police department had the resources to “seriously record and pursue to closure all rape complaints, regardless of their merits.” He further states each investigation “always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects” and “the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. She is the sole agent who can say that the rape charge is false.”
The number of false rape allegations in the studied period was 45; this was 41% of the 109 total complaints filed in this period. The researchers verified, whenever possible, for all of the complainants who recanted their allegations, that their new account of the events matched the accused’s version of events.
Other studies have arrived at figures as high as 90%, such as Stewart (1981), who considered one case disproved because: “It was totally impossible to have removed her extremely tight undergarments from her extremely large body against her will.” I wonder if she lives near Nigel?
http://www.returnofkings.com/22079/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations-that-all-men-should-know
Part 2, due to 4096 character limit....
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/12/07/jury-quickly-convicts-woman-in-false-rape-trial/
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/08/former-student-sues-umass-amherst-for-expelling-him-over-what-calls-false-rape-accusation/x4g62dJY9QYvh5f2anJ4RL/story.html
Here we see that women are SOOOOO fond of falsely claiming rape or abduction that the FBI even has a full write-up on exactly how investigators can suss out false accusors:
It does not matter how “rare” it may or may not be. That is two lives permanently ruined per month, and that is two too many. When are people going to wake-up to the fact that women are accusing men of rape, knowing full well that the allegations are false and not giving a shit about the consequences the men will face because of these lies?
Some of the numbers coming out of England and Wales are:
Out of 159 suspected cases referred to the CPS, 35 ended in a prosecution.
* Almost half of the accusers were aged under 21, some were under 16.
* 92% of those prosecuted were women.
* 98% of those accused of rape were men, and the majority were aged over 21.
* 84% of those making false claims identified their “attacker”. One case saw a woman randomly accuse a man she saw on Facebook.
* 18% of those making false claims had “a mental health problem”.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-allegations-finally-getting-some-light/
Note FEMALE AUTHOR citing a 60% false accusation rate:
http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts-22.htm
That false allegations are a major problem has been confirmed by several prominent prosecutors, including Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen."
1) Random female author is not equal to fact/statistics. Just because someone's a woman doesn't mean she's right. That's anecdotal evidence.
2) Stories of false accusations also don't mean anything, because citing it happening doesn't mean it's common. Sure, it happens. Occasionally. Roughly 2-8% of the time. But yes, it makes news. Because it sucks.
3) If you'll read the article I posted on false accusations, you'll see that it goes very deeply into why those studies you cited are not reliable/reputable. So, yeah. I didn't say just any study.
4) Linda Fairstein is a known shit-starter. She is definitely not a reputable source.
Anyway. I am done engaging on rape. No, I don't have an open mind on this. Mostly because, well, I've actually done the research. This is one thing I am very well educated on.
Random female author? What part of head of the New York Count District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit did you not understand the first time?
Ok, it's now OBVIOUS, Eliza, thatyou're not interested in ANY information that doesn't conform to your existing prejudices, biases and bigotry. Since you are unwilling to have a sincere conversation or to talk about anything in good faith, but just to defend female privelige and your USI problem, I know have only one thing left to say to you:
So, fuck you, no more help for you, you no-empathy-having waste of skin.
When you're 50 years old, and you're single, all alone with your 37 cats, and a house that smells like a litter box all the way to the street, and your kids hate your guts for frivorcing their father for the most trivial of reasons.... just remember... it's all because YOU are unwilling to listen or learn from anybody.
You can live the rest of your life in misery for all I care. I'm done wasting time on an oxygen thief such as yourself.
Ad Hominem attacks! The best way to know you've won an argument.
No Eliza. You lost the debate the moment you chose to be a hypocrite.
All the sources that favor your position you blatantly labeled "reliable" while sources that are not in favor of your position you blatantly label "unreliable".
In other words, you're blinded by your bias.
Anyone care to count the number of times Eliza had brought up rape, declared rape off limits for conversation, then immediately brought up rape again?
Kid Jupiter: "Her rape fixation leads me to this conclusion of her being trouble, not to mention her inability to understand that her 'wine at my place' invite was cruel."
There needs to be an app that, when run, will ring like an iphone, and which you can then pretend answer. Imagine Eliza sitting there with a glass of wine and a beta orbiter, when he answers his phone and starts chatting up some other babe, grinning, laughing, and engaging in mildly salacious language. They after five minutes of this, he hangs up and says, "sorry, kid, I gotta go now, it's been fun", gathers up his coat and walks out. She would be fuming and her hamster would be spinning like crazy. All of a sudden her beta orbiter has demonstrated a much higher SMV and indifference to her "friendly " conversation. She suddenly sees herself as the world sees her: alone in her apartment, friendless, and unloved on a Saturday night. She would, I expect, call this "playing on a woman's insecurity".
To be honest, Eliza lost this debate the moment she invited a man alone over to her house at night to share a bottle of wine.
Wow, Hadley... I have a refurbed 10-year old Samsung (basic flip phone with terrible camera and about 6 built-in shitty apps) which has that capability built in.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.