Dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man", to show women's poor dating behavior and unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves.
- Main Forums
- What's Hot
- TRP.RED
- Tribe Forums
- TheRedPill
- Tribe Management
- Create New Tribe
- Manage My Tribes
- Find New Tribes
- Recent News
-
-
ogrilla99 Pez "The Pussy Dispenser" Pimp 1w ago
Man, even when women are trying to pretend to be allies with men, they can't get it right.
The author's argument basically boils down to: "hey you guys, us young women totes want you to hit on us and stuff. Don't listen to the older women [just 10 years ago] who threatened you with rape charges, being blasted on facebook, job loss, reputations ruined, etc. We totally won't do that, trust us!"
As others have stated, #MeToo wasn't that long ago. It's not like asking white people now to pay reparations for slavery from hundreds of years ago. But more importantly, it doesn't matter if only 1% of women believe this (in reality, a far higher percentage of her age cohort do, even if it may be somewhat less than the millenial generation). #MeToo and the rest of 2010s feminism raised the stakes for flirting with women, and as a result, you only need a small percentage of women within your cohort to make the risks not worth it.
"the idea that young 20-something year old women who weren’t even around when this shift was occurring need to be “held accountable” for the wrongs of their forebearers? That sounds like an argument for reparations"
No one is "holding accountable" these 20s women. Men are simply just not engaging with them anymore. Not to punish them for the sins of their older sisters, but because they've decided the risks aren't worth it. We're not asking for reparations. It's the other way around: young women are asking men to ask them out again. Why do we not have the free choice to say no?
To make an analogy, even in Russian Roulette, the risks of blowing your brains out is "only" 1/6. Most of the times you pull the trigger you'll survive. And yet, no one without certifiable mental issues plays because the consequences of that 1 out of 6 chances is so bad, it's not worth it.
So even if you accept her premise that Not All Women Are Like That(tm), she doesn't understand that enough women are, that the risks are not worth it. Ask any man, even in the 2010s, and they'll happily tell you that the #MeToo movement was overblown, most men aren't harassers and most heterosexual women didn't mind flirtation (from the right guy). Heck, the problem wasn't that girls didn't want to be chatted up, it was that that's all they wanted; a quick ego boost to reassure her that she was desirable, with no interest in following through with a date or a relationship. The biggest problem with flirting is that it's a waste of time unless you're in the top 10% of men who can convert that flirtation into something more on a regular basis. But #MeToo made that math even worse by handing bazookas to every woman out there who was having a bad day. Even if most women won't pull the trigger, would you willingly risk them blowing you away?
She completely gives up the game when she tells men it's unreasonable to be worried about the consequences of flirting due to the fear of reputation loss, career damage, etc., while accepting women saying they're uncomfortable with strangers asking them out because of the risk of violence. Here is the most maddening quote:
“Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”
The objective truth is that men are much, much more likely to be the victim of violent crimes than women, and regardless, overall violent crime rates, including sexual assault and rape, have come down significantly since the 80s/90s. No one ever tells a woman she's being ridiculous worrying that some shy guy fumbling through an awkward flirtation with her might turn out to be an axe murderer. No one even asks why she's so scared of this when women in the 80s/90s had much higher risks and yet still seemed to be able to handle unwanted attention okay. And yet she accuses men of being cowards for using feminism as a shield for their own insecurities, while fully accepting women using an unfounded fear of physical violence as a shield for their own insecurities.
Which brings me to my last point. After all this faux-empathizing with men, her last part betrays her true feelings. Men who don't approach women are now "cowards". It can't be that such men have made a rational choice that the juice ain't worth the squeeze. No. Men who refuse to follow female dictates are either cowards if they don't approach, or possible axe murderers if they do.
I mean, look, if you want to convince men to start approaching again by trying to rationally argue that their chances for success are higher than they think, the chances of bad outcomes is lower than they think, and that the young women of today aren't the same as the young women of 10 years ago, fine. I'm not necessarily convinced, but you're welcome to state your argument. But if you resort to shaming men who disagree as "just want to blame their cowardice on feminism", then fuck off. You're the perfect example of why men don't even want to bother engaging in this debate with women any more.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
For an actual good, desirable woman, it is so easy to snag a good man, even with below average looks.
You only hear stuff like this from women with a storied past, trying to worm their way back into the game using words as weapons. It's the femsplaining equivalent of a gamma rant. Never any concept of personal accountability and consequences for stupidity, just misdirection and blame shifting.
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
"45% of 18 to 45 year old men have never approached a woman in person"
Yep, after three decades of "Men ain't shit" being pushed down our throats, I don't blame them.
Want men? Be a woman that we would approach. Of course, that requires defying the feminist programming, so I'm not holding my breath.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Here's another way of looking at this:
Back in the early days of feminism, there were actual men who had problems cooking and cleaning for themselves and doing laundry. I have an 80 year old Vietnam vet neighbor bachelor whose place looks like a hermit and he can barely cook for himself. He knows how to boil spaghetti and that's it but he gets by.
Nonetheless, most men QUICKLY adapted, didn't we? I'd say that most men are functional about these essential "housewife" chores including childcare and cooking. Men are FANATICS about their cast iron cookware.
So here's the thing: Men aren't doing the asking out and paying anymore. It's no longer 1950. Yes? Men were reminded of the year, every year, when we asked women to be "traditional" and we got it. But women will basically die alone and childless because they "can't" adapt. Or, our society will eventually reject this "women's equality" stuff because if women can't adapt, isn't that the basis of being "equal" to men? Us men if we can't survive, we die. They want equality with us? That's the bare minimum.
StrongWoman 1w ago
One thing that made me completely stop approaching or asking women out for dates is that even when you think you have a date, you might still end up sitting there alone, never to hear from her again. Or, a woman might say yes to a date only to spend time with you to get closer to one of your "friends" (more like backstabber) and then ends up sleeping with him. Both happened to me several times, and of course I am not going to undergo such a procedure ever again.
Of course, this is not the experience everybody else is having, but in my personal case I would argue that it is indeed women's fault that (some) men don't approach anymore. I remember those few times I got rejected with a polite "No, sorry, I have a boyfriend" or similar, which does not faze you anymore two days later and it's totally fair play and okay, but when a woman acts as if she likes you and then sleeps with your friend, while you really really like her (big mistake), that leaves a mark forever.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1w ago
I can honestly say that no woman that I have ever had an interest in has slept with one of my male friends.
That's one of the incidental benefits of having lots of overweight and unattractive male friends, I guess.
No, sir. Instead, the women I really liked would sleep with other dudes instead. Sportsball players, drivers of fast red sportscars and Big Men on campus. And then-- after the whirlwind relationship in which she would find herself fighting with 4 or 5 other women over the same dude-- would come back to me, sobbing, rhetorically demanding why he wasn't more like me.
The conversation would usually involve some admixture of Her saying "WHY WOULD HE FUCK ME IF HE DIDN'T REALLY LIKE ME?!?!" The obvious answer of "because sex feels good" was too disgusting and base to even say out loud. Apparently, her vagina was really good to fuck-- but that was only the gateway drug to the intoxicating divine crystalline entity of pure blinding light that resides in her personality and not in her vagina. Even though her vagina was So Totally Amazing And Better Than All The Rest, or so I'd heard and never actually experienced for myself.
Eventually, amid the sobbing and gnashing, I might ask something stupid like "If you knew he was a stupid asshole, why did you sleep with him?" was met with "BEACUSE HE SAID HE LIKED ME!!!" to which, I would say "But... I said I liked you... why didn't that matter?" "WELL THAT'S DIFFERENT!"
...at this point, you sort of want to kick her out of your dorm room and want to chug the vodka that I couldn't afford to buy.
StrongWoman 1w ago
"That's one of the incidental benefits of having lots of overweight and unattractive male friends, I guess." I totally agree, it is really fascinating. I have a friend who is even shorter than me (I am ~5'8'' and he is 5'6'') and when I am with him, women like me more compared to when I am with a good looking friend who is 6'2''. They are really just taking in what they see and pick what is "best" (taller, richer, bigger schlong diameter) in that given moment. They don't like you "as you are" but they like the best they can see right now.
"Because he said he liked me" is not the reason any woman sleeps with a man, but of course I believed those things, too, and I don't think I need to explain this around here, "hamstering" etc. They way they make up things in their head goes beyond anything I could ever imagine. One of my "hot friends" (can have any girl at any time, but is weak as a character (grew up with a weird single mom, without a father), alcoholic, no money etc.) was with a girl once, but he broke up. She then kicked up the engine to full hamstering and a few weeks later she came up with the following: He actually loves her, but he can not feel it right now, but she knows it, because of the perfect chemistry between them, and so to truly discover his love for her, he should go to therapy. And she actually meant it and kept pressing me and others for months to get him to do therapy. (Not that he did not need any form of therapy for his several issues, but going to therapy to make him love her is...without words.)
First-light Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
Not a bad effort. Still says "men should try harder". Maybe actually don't bother guys. What are you going to get? -The number of an available slut. What are the odds she shares any of your values or wants anything you want in life. All you know is she wants attention.
Its not approaching that is the problem, it is that modern dating is fucked. So why bother approaching? Dating was about finding a wife. Now its about entertaining women for free in return for possible short term sex -if you can make her believe you are top 20%.
Who wants a "date" on those terms?
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
"500,000 Men Die in War, Women and Children Most Affected" Energy to this article.
The part they fail to grasp is that men can still be arbitrarily punished and/or humiliated at a whim, even if a woman insists she is not an "annual bitch conference" attendee and was too young to be there or any of the other myriad excuses proffered for why she should get a free pass. Any woman can at a whim decide with the full support of modern society to put a man who made an unsatisfactory approach on blast to the point that it could even affect his career. And most men don't by default have the option of spreading their legs or marrying into wealth to get bills paid, and by definition of being male do not get a pussy pass on anything, so they have to be more conscientious than women do about things that screw up their professional prospects.
Long story short, men have way more to financially, legally, and socially lose from a traditional dating approach than women do.
And among the better case scenarios is she actually turns him down with tact and grace, but the man is still out the time, resources, and effort it takes to go to venues where in person approaches are both possible and acceptable.
Which leaves an ever shrinking band of probabilities that actually work out for most men when it comes to traditional dating.
So why should the monkey dance? What are men getting out of rolling the dice on whether or not a particular woman is a cuntasaurus rex or not via traditional dating approaches? That is, that is both worth the effort and that they could not get for less risk and effort elsewhere?
Simpler and more efficient for men to just shotgun swipe on apps like Tinder since a good chunk of "traditional" dating is shallow performative time wasting bullshit anyways. If these women have a problem with missing out on on the gravy train of traditional dating (that benefited women to the detriment of the majority of men), they need to take it up with their elder sisters who ruined it for them. Men didn't ask for this, men aren't allowed to fix this, so attempting to shame them into trying harder isn't going to work since there is nothing worth the effort for modern men when it comes to "traditional" dating.
Or alternately they can proactively prove themselves to be worth the effort. Not holding my breath on that happening. And no, ladies, just getting dressed up and standing around at a bar or club doesn't count as that any more than a side of beef becomes USDA prime just because it got hung up in a cooler.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
I chuckle that this woman’s argument that they’re “not the same woman” wouldn’t fly if a man asked her to come over to his place on a first date and she responded she was worried about her physical safety even if “not all men” are dangerous.
It’s not just that, but there’s no law that says these women can’t approach men and some are doing so. Heck, the dating apps were initially shunned by women who favored waiting around but found men had absconded even back 2 decades ago.
She interprets statistics an amusing way: 1/2 of men making approaches “got dates”. Not laid. Just dates (which he pays for) meaning 1/2 got NOTHING but social awkwardness and pumping up the feminine entitlement attitude from being approached. She doesn’t even realize that “dating” isn’t fun for men because she’s so self-absorbed. Dating is a job interview you pay to go on.
She complains about “dating communism” but in a sense, isn’t that what it is for women who will demand even mediocre women get the same level of approaches and rituals that hot women do?
“Traditional” dating isn’t traditional. Over a century ago, people met via friends, family/church events, school, and introductions and courted at the parents’ home. It BARELY worked in my parents’ generation.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1w ago
It's a little bit rich for these women to make distinctions when it comes to allocating blame now. I sure as hell didn't see a lot of distinctions about blame 10 years ago.
Now we need to treat people as individuals and act as if we were all born yesterday.
Absolutely. Fucking, Laugh riot.
ogrilla99 Pez "The Pussy Dispenser" Pimp 1w ago
yeah, when #MeToo came out and guys pointed out that less than 0.0001% of men have the power of a Harvey Weinstein to force women to sleep with them in exchange for greenlighting their movies, rather than saying "you know what, you're right. We keep saying sexual harassment isn't about sex, it's about power, and the truth is, most guys in this world have very little power", they kept defining sexual harassment down until guys with little power could ostensibly do it: so-called micro-aggressions, , most hostile work environment complaints ("Guys don't joke around with me the way they do with other guys in the office!").
And now they want to make distinctions about Not All Women. Okay...
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1w ago
Then there was also a batted-around concept of "contra-power harassment," which argued that men in subordinate positions could absolutely harass women who possessed power. So men don't actually need any power to harass women.
The jurist who came-up with the notion that "sexual harassment isn't about sex, it's about power" (Cathy Mackinnon) wrote a bunch of articles in which she argued that SEX is actually about power, and not about sex. Meanwhile, she herself had a boyfriend that she could be seen with in public.
She very badly wanted to come-out and say "consensual sex does not exist" but she couldn't do that without being laughed at. And so the haziness remained.
Although it was denied over and over, she basically argued in at least one place in print that women cannot consent to sex because of "patriarchy." And the next step, if you do the logic, is that all sex within patriarchy is rape.
Naturally, to argue that "all sex is rape" sounds bonkers, so there was a great deal of fog which was generated about this point in the 1990s. They wished to have it both ways: women cannot consent to sex, but that doesn't mean that all sex is rape.
I had very late night arguments about this in college. The logic went 'round and 'round, because ... well, there was a certain coterie of women out there who were uncomfortable with sexual attention from men.
Meanwhile, lesbians could go ahead and harass their female underlings at will.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Yup. In a way, a woman that whines that men aren't approaching as much as she thinks they should is in effect telling on herself.
A woman that offers enough to a man from the dating experience doesn't have to worry about lack of approaches. That tier of woman is quickly taken off the market and it no longer concerns her.
The tier of woman that is concerned by it though? Those are the covert foodie calls and and attention whores who are losing their easy grift. Plantation owners upset that the slaves realized they could just walk away.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Minor quibble: In the context of women "offering enough" to get approaches, the issue is all she "has to offer" is her looks. Granted, lack of face pierced, tatted up young women without blue hair is a rarity nowadays but nonetheless, the corporate nuns I met who were otherwise quite good looking didn't get approached and this was back in the 1990's.
"More to offer" might mean they engage in some form of feminine "game": Putting themselves in venues where there are lots of available, eligible men rather than just going back and forth from work to home but even so, it will be a numbers game except in terms of rejection that men experience, hours of time spent, say, going to a art event and waiting and perhaps one or two men chatting her up she isn't attracted to.
Perhaps what made spinsters back a century ago so difficult to hitch up wasn't just that they were old maids by age 25, but rather the social circles that this "system" works best was gone: They weren't in high school or even college anymore ("Mrs degree"), people were paired up at work or she was in a small department comprised mostly of women, and so on.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Yeah what I mean by women who are "offering enough" is that they have more than just passing the looks cutoff, and thus retain a particular man into an actual relationship instead of a string of situation-ships.
Most women can pass that looks cutoff, the problem is sealing the deal once they do so that they aren't stuck playing a numbers game like men are. Which women tend to lose hard at over time.
The ones relying on the quantity game of approaches instead of quality game are the ones telling on themselves.by complaining about lack of quantity of approaches by men.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Consider, as you say, the paradigm of counting quantity of approaches, versus quality and relationships, and how that ties both "traditional" public approaches to dating apps. In both, the men do the vast quantity of approaches, even quality ones, and deal with rejection while women's rejection is passive, almost like the way semiconductors work by "electron holes" traveling through gates.
Women don't experience rejection directly. If she hits a bar with a good socialization factor, she is likely to get hit on particularly on "Ladies' Night" but the "man she wants" "rejects" her by not noticing her, but she can dismiss it as bad luck or the guy being a "autistic loser" who didn't take her hints.
My point being, for men and women BOTH, being a "quality" mate is secondary to the approach factor but yet, it's a necessary part of a relationship. When my wife complained a few times I wasn't doing enough housework, I pointed out to her how our entire marriage and family was due to my initiative. Shouldn't that count for SOMETHING?
So I have fun on twitter/X when a woman gripes about men not doing enough housework, I say: "You could have asked out a better quality man and paid for dinner, you know. So whose fault is that?" and... they erupt in anger, call me incel (which I deflect), and then say they're happy and THEN, get this immediately, block me.
For all this talk about how men aren't keeping up with "equality", (most) women cannot handle the most basic element of relationships: Going up to someone, risking rejection, and acting like an adult during a date.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
"But what have you done for me LATELY?"
Well of course they got Big Mad. You didn't play along with the little game where they get all the perks of equality but none of the responsibilities, and worse, you publicly made that game obvious to onlookers. How Dare You?!
And just like the women in the posted article, their dating woes are effectively self inflicted by not using their agency wisely. Nothing is stopping these women lacking frequent approaches from men from doing approaches themselves, or optimizing the few approaches that do occur into a desired outcome for all parties.
No they just want to sit and complain and damsel until Someone Else™ rescues them from their plight.
Fuck 'em. Literally and figuratively; it's the only thing they are good for.
hhhhdmt 1w ago
I read this article a few weeks ago, naively expecting this would be one woman who wouldn't blame men.
But alas, i was wrong.
She is lying. The young women today may not be the same ones screaming in 2016 but they believe in the same things.
Why doesn't she comment on the epidemic of young 20 something women lying about men "staring" at them in gyms, filming these men without their consent, and putting this up online to falsely label men creeps?
The women lying about men harassing them in gyms are doing it TODAY. Not 10 years ago. TODAY.
Why is this a man's job to approach women? Why, miss equality? Because you're "traditional"? Are you a virgin, miss traditional? An actual one, not a "born again" one.
The 20 year old women today learned from the 30 year women from 10 years ago. The young women today do not exist in a vacuum. They have learned from their older sisters, friends and mothers.
What a pathological liar this woman is. Still finding a way to blame men. I hope she ends up single for life.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1w ago
Very much so. But the #MeToo movement has burnt itself out, hasn't it. And the sudden appearance and disappearance-- as if by a slowly-flipped light switch-- sort of speaks to its contrived nature. Despite how the whole thing was supposedly borne not of bad men in certain positions, but as some kind of deep and intractable structural phenomenon of society itself.
With the exception of Harvey Weinstein, most of the other accusations fell apart after scrutiny. Huh. Where did all the permanent baddies go?
Overwhelmingly, from start to finish, #MeToo turned out to have been confined to a specific stratum of women within media, academia and a few other Internet-based niches. The conflict was not women vs men, so much as upper-middle-class women using accusations as a weapon to unseat the slightly higher-up men situated above them. It was elite women going-after more elite men. The pathetic likes of you and I possessed nothing that the accusers wanted, and therefore had nothing to worry about.
There was an early 20th century German socialist woman named Clara Zetkin who outlined what she called "bourgeois feminism": the bourgeois feminist wishes to join the upper class, exploits the lower class, and views men of her own class as her enemy. God help me, that looks like the best sociological explanation of #MeToo that I have ever seen.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1w ago
The accusations against him which I examined (admittedly I did not get to all of them) fell apart too.
If you read the women's own accounts, he solicited prostitution from them in exchange for movie roles, and they prostituted themselves.
They could have said no. They could have lived a normal life. But nooooo, being a movie star was so important that they just had to consent to prostitution just to revoke consent 10-20 years later!
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
MeToo may have imploded but most women are primed to be offended by something/anything. Hence the mile-long 'ick' lists and all of the 'decentering men' that still persists.
No thanks, I'll take my peace instead.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Shit, that can be damn near be assumed to the the feminine default coding period unless socialized sufficiently to counteract it. Thus the aphorism of not treating women like princesses because then they'll just treat you like a peasant.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
The "ladies and gentlemen" romantic paradigm was based upon feudal oppression system. There's a reason why the French revolution was so ugly.
"Kings" and "Princes" could treat women like "princesses" not because HE went out and worked 9 to 5 and paid all the bills, but his serfs did. That's why they were called "gentlemen": They could dress up in fancy wigs at court and look silly because they didn't do a day of work in their lives and were proud of it. They had inherited, or politically given, titles and entitlements and the princesses were the same. They rarely had to hold open doors for women because the servants did that.
Sit down menu restaurants are a relatively recent phenomenon in that after the French Revolution, displaced chefs without noblemen to serve offered their culinary skills to the masses. In other words, ironically, the concept of romantic dinner dates is largely owed to the tearing down the feudal order they literally romanticize.
There's an additional irony that most of what "ladies" associate with romance are drenched in peasant blood including something feminists either recognize or deflect: diamond rings. Due to a successful ad campaign by the South African diamond cartel DeBeers, women showed off overpriced jewels to flash how much money their "king" gave them for it largely putting most of that money into a Patriarchal apartheid regime. Designer clothes and bags are made by sweatshops exploiting either immigrant women or in the 3rd world (most sweatshops in NYC and LA are shut down due to outsourcing, last I heard.).
I theorize it makes these women angry with the men when the paradigm doesn't work because only "losers" (in their minds) appease and beg for sex from them, but they crave "strong" men who don't bend the knee but those are almost always Chad who has better options. That's I think where the "self confident but sensitive" trope arose: He should be Chad and rich but somehow romantic, in just enough way, to want to please her. Sort of like a Revenge of the Nerds fantasy movie/soft-porn where a hot girl comes to deliver a pizza and you don't have money but she loves to play video games and will give you the pizza if you give her sex and let her play video games with you.
So they're eternally "antsy" and miserable because The Real World doesn't match what they think it "should" and it's men's fault and they're angry about it. I can sympathize because that's how medieval peasants no doubt felt at times except the peasants had good reason to believe they were being shortchanged.
hhhhdmt 1w ago
The psychological pain that innocent men like Aziz Ansari, the man falsely accused by the mattress girls, and the other many men falsely accused is immense. These poor men will never psychologically recover from this.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1w ago
The weird dynamic with a complicit and credulous rape-happy media was captured by the retraction of a Rolling Stone correspondent who was covering the story of "Jackie" in a Virginia university in 2014, a full 2 years before the #MeToo madness broke-out and quickly reached its fever pitch. "Jackie" claimed to have been gang-raped after being thrown through the top of a glass table and raped on top of the broken glass. The intrepid reporter apparently had no interest in asking about the dozens of deep, gory scars and fatal blood loss that should've obviously resulted had her story been true.
In the end, it turned out that Jackie just might've needed a bit of light talk-therapy before blabbing to the press and the whole sordid affair could've been avoided.
The reporter's apology was not to those who were wrongly accused by "Jackie"-- for such people are beneath consideration of course-- but to all the millions of unknown victims out there who were failed by the reporter's lack of due diligence resulting from the preexisting ethos of "believe all women", even a woman who was self-evidently nutso.
hhhhdmt 1w ago
I remember that absurd bullshit story. I knew it was bullshit from day 1. The broken glass thing was absurd.
Sabrina Rubin Erdely was the lying reporter. She did not apologize to the men falsely accused. She only apologized to the hypothetical real victims who were effected by it.
Pathetic. At least her reporting career ended.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1w ago
When I was finishing my 2nd masters degree in the US, between 2005-2009, my university had a rape case. First, I should mention that the suburb in which the campus was located was very safe, according to the police statistics. It wasn't a high crime area and it wasn't at one of those alcohol-besotted frat parties that are supposedly hotbeds for sexual assault-- rape parties which were nonetheless enthusiastically attended by women who were advised to ignore all warnings and urges to self-preservation, for it is their god-given right to drink until blackout drunk at the oh-so dangerous rape parties.
No, it happened out in the parking lot at night. I knew this parking lot, because I had used it before. And it wasn't even the most distant parking lot, it was in the medium-ring belt of parking lots, well lit, with an emergency phone located fairly nearby. It was a rape and attempted kidnapping. By "two black males", which now sounds like a very calculated move on the part of the accuser.
Now, I admit, the story was possible. There was no crazy sounding broken glass or UFOs with little deely-boppered green aliens. The only thing that made me suspicious was the location: it was a well-lit parking lot in the medium-inner belt of parking lots, and the only way out was a long one-way road designed to slow traffic. If I wanted to rape and kidnap someone, I would not have chosen that location; it just wasn't good if you wanted a quick getaway. And this would be two black men doing it in a very white suburb with a police reputation of singling-out black drivers in particular. Granted, none of that is proof of anything. Spontaneous crimes against targets of opportunity are not often well planned and sometimes criminals can be lucky and get away with brazen things. Still... it just didn't sound right to me, but I kept it to myself. Hey, I've been wrong about plenty of things before.
In the midst of this, I was at a late night project with some grad students, one of whom was Lil' Miss Feminist who would occasionally go-off on little jags about how she was under no obligation to regard her boyfriend's career as being more important than her future career, and she reads the great feminist authors and blah blah blah-- then when it was time to leave, she turned to me and put on this Tweety Bird act of needing an escort out to the parking lot cuz she's scaaaared.
Naturally, I told her that she could go ahead and do it herself, because she's such a feminist. Damn, did I get an earful!
Not only did I refuse to be her flunky, I encouraged all of the other males at the project to stay exactly where they were, and let Mz Equality do it all by herself.
A few months after the incident, the local media had these mealy-mouthed retractions about how the assault had never happened and that the accuser had made the whole thing up. Of course, the police didn't press charges, for that would dissuade future victims to speak-up, the poor confused lil' creature just needed a little talk therapy, false accusations are the one-in-a million fluke that never otherwise happen, the whole usual damage-control.
God, how I wish I'd printed those retractions onto paper and rubbed that gal's face into 'em.
hhhhdmt 1w ago
Interesting story. I am appalled by women like this and "Jackie", the rolling stone liar. Of course they deserve to go to jail.
Goes to show you that frats, drinking and parties are not the problem. Crazies like this will make up false claims even if the campus does not have alcohol fueled parties.
[deleted]
woodsmoke Respectful reprobate 1w ago
Removed for rule 1 violation.
Keep the focus where it belongs: on women's poor decisions and behavior.
PoopBeast Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
So her ultimate point is "not all of us women wanted this"
Too bad. You women don't police your own, just like the blacks, rainbow people, and any other perceived victim groups don't. You literally operate the same way politically.
And when these tiktok women, who the author seems to be defending, make their videos lamenting how men don't approach them while not acknowledging the obvious reasons for that dynamic, it shows bad faith.
It was almost a good article, but I swear... it's almost as if women can't do anything right.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
The women who didn't want this had every opportunity all the women had: To marry in their late teens or early twenties, have kids, and be great wives. The ones who did that, and reaped the benefits, are not the ones complaining.
Even when they are "taking responsibility" they are just blaming "feminism" instead of the patriarchy. It's never "I done screwed up and I'm very sorry," it's always blame shifting and misdirection.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1w ago
I always grin whenever old-school feminists need to go on the defensive when it comes to modern women complaining about men not holding doors open. The younger gals rightly blame feminists for it, and the feminists suddenly need to pretend to the young whippersnappers that they certainly had nothing to do with it, and such ill-tempered, sneering reactions towards some hapless schmuck holding a door never actually happened and is just a bum rap misdirection from lazy men who apparently decided via Borg hive-mind that they would not hold doors open for reasons that have nothing to do with, yanno, the ill-tempered, sneering reactions from feminists that worked a little too well.
All the good changes for women in society? Feminists totally take credit for that. But the death of holding doors open? Oh, no no no, that widespread change in gender roles was men's fault. Even when women get exactly what the feminists said they wanted, the feminists still blame men.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Yup. The further away from the iconic "19 year old debt free virgin with no tattoos" that a woman chooses to be, the more at fault she is for her dating woes.
Oddest-One-Here Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
A good woman who was raised right would make finding a good man to settle with a priority instead of listening to feminists who insist that women shouldn't even start looking for a husband any earlier than their late 20s which was seen as a thornback 100 years ago.
No-Stress-Cat Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
Sounds like a woman problem to me that only women can fix. *goes back to Call of Duty*
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
It always amused me how it was OK for young men to be banished to vidya games and porn...right up until women realized they weren't getting their bills paid by those men anymore and politicians were seeing potential tax revenue drop off a cliff.
Whoopsie!
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
I'm chuckling. Back 40 years ago, it was about bashing men for "watching sports on TV all day", drinking beer with their buds, or playing pool. There is a similar dynamic in FPS games: The men are chatting, shit-talking, and having a good time all without having to beg for tail. So this is nothing new.
Heck, my father used to frequent an "institutional" bar in my home town where there was a section of the bar, "men only". It was a men's only space where the guys might just chat about what they normally do, but it was a sense of belonging. My first girlfriend griped about it and constantly tried to sit there (yeah, we didn't last long) but also, come to think of it, she griped once I didn't walk on the street side of the sidewalk "like a gentleman".
Here's the thing about the anti-porn stuff: It comes across as Thought Crime. What are men supposed to do? Control our sexual urges like monks, deny them completely OR somehow develop perfect game, which in a Hunger Games type system, gets harder by the decade? So he looks at pretty girls in media, thinks "bad thoughts", and relieves himself. The horrors!
Quite frankly, it's a reminder that us men are in a default state of sin. Our mere existence is offensive so we need to prove ourselves worthy to not be despised: Be successful, handsome, hard working, etc. to enjoy MERIT basic human consideration that a blue haired obese lesbian on welfare gets. No wonder so many trannies are out there! It's like men dressing up like women to get lifeboat seats on The Titanic.
Where am I going with this? A society that treats men as disposable and offers him little aid or support increasingly will elicit a reaction of ambivalence or apathy, which, considering a man's default state, is rather extraordinary. Indeed, imagine if men in the west behaved like men in other cultures who are subjected to this nonsense.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1w ago
Don't tease me with visions of luxury.
Anti-porn feminists would've had absolutely no problem with a publisher who wanted to fill the galaxy with man-on-man porn. That ought to have been enough to unveil their game within 5 minutes.
The term "objectification" basically boils down to "dirty thoughts." I've asked feminists online, exactly what harm is caused by objectification-- if I have private thoughts in my own head that I keep to myself and never act upon, what harm is actually being inflicted upon the person being 'objectified,' and the harm is always non-physical in nature. How do the thoughts in my head 'turn a woman into an object'? Am I Harry Potter?
What is "sex object" saying, by the way? That I want to have sex with an object and not a human? That's a disgusting accusation. If I really wanted to have sex with an object, I wouldn't need to look at a woman at all. People don't usually talk to objects, for instance. Or is the accusation saying that a sexy woman can't be a human in the male imagination? I dunno, I have a pretty good imagination.
What's the difference between 'objectification' and 'appreciation of beauty'? Well, only the well-trained feminist can make the distinction on a case-by-case basis. Okay, can women objectify men? YES, but-- and this is critical-- it's harmless when that happens. OHO. So that's harmless, good clean fun, tee hee, you can objectify all you want now. Which sounds rather like what I started-off asserting in the beginning, but that kind of 'rules for thee, not for me' double-dealing is just par for the course. Of course objectification is harmless good, clean fun when a woman is doing it. What, you think rules ought to apply??
And does the same accusation work for any kind of non-sexual situation? Like, when I say "hello" to a woman, am I treating her like a "greeting object"? When I follow that with any kind of conversation, am I treating her like a "communications object"? And when I don't say anything to a woman at all, am I treating her like a piece of scenery instead of a piece of meat?
Anyway, by this point, I find it hard to take the notion very seriously. It looks a lot like a lazy term of abuse wielded by sanctimonious bitches in their many, many interpersonal power struggles.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Women hate porn when they're not the ones making it and/or benefiting from it of course. When it is an easy paycheck for them it is wholesome heckin' empowering! Right up until they age or fat out of that and then it's heckin' problematic again.
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
AI Generation is going to blow the entire industry up - being able to make things with consistency based on anything you feed it, image, text prompt, etc...
Well, that is ultimate customization, and I don't see how the porn industry survives, or disagreeable women in general. When that gets extrapolated to robot chassis, well, game fucking over.
I'm interested to see how that resolves. Will it be the bludgeon that finally makes 'real' girls capitulate? Stay tuned....
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Once it gets to a certain point, it won't matter if they do or don't. Because they'll already have been replaced.