Damn right, I'm spreading the word. Look forward to more of this, from ChristianJ and others.
http://antimisandry.com/98christianj-on-misandry
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Witch and The Priest
Roughly a year ago, Mary Winkler decided she had received enough abuse from her oral accounts, and allegedly had a heated argument with her preacher husband where the shotgun she held, on accident, went off.
Never mind that the wound itself was indicative of a premeditated murder against Matthew Winkler, and despite claims of past abuse, including sexual acts that she didn't like, Mary was not in the midst of struggle defending herself in a life or death situation. Never mind that the day Mary Winkler shot him, they both were supposed to have a meeting at a bank, whereupon Matthew would discover Winkler was involved in scams including bank fraud and wire fraud. This included cashing counterfeit checks in her name and her husband's, that he had not previously known.
I don't know if Matthew truly 'abused' Mary or not, but it seems remarkable that friends, religious associates, and family members declared otherwise. And regardless of motive, if Mary had been a man committing the same crime with a wife, it would have been considered an act of a fiend or a coward. But Mary is now free after only serving seven months, and although she is in a custody battle with Matthew's parents over the children, they are now without a father, and have a murderess for a mother. I don't even want to imagine what it's going to be like for them now that this tragedy has occurred.
The story of Matt and Mary Winkler is very telling---the defense of a battered/abused woman, sans proof, is still utilized as justifiable homicide, and in the eyes of gynocentric laws in our Western culture, women still can receive a slap on the wrist. When men do the same exact thing, they are usually nailed to the wall. As much as feminists' outright lie about that women receive harsher penalties for the any crime, the results indicate something quite different. Over the years, we have been exposed to more and more of these articles keep revealing the universal push that we're somehow supposed to swallow like a jagged, bitter pill: women who kill men do it out of reaction to systematic punishment and humiliation because of patriarchal oppression and malevolent men, and men who kill their spouses are, well, still evil men who wield the proverbial sword of that perceived cruel domination over victimized women.
Remember, that Winkler's sentence was to be a maximum of three years.
Occasionally, a modicum of sense prevails. Years ago Susan Wright claimed the same abuse card, and performed her own style of premeditated murder with a Basic Instinct style twist: she lured her husband, Jeff, into a rather kinky sex act, and while tied up, eventually stabbed him nearly 200 times. The jury was, at first, almost sympathetic towards her crocodile tear tale until the reality of seeing the bloodied bed hit them square in the face: thankfully, they had the impetus to find her guilty, although her conviction has a clause in it---it's not for life, and in thirteen years she is up for parole. If a man had sadistically killed a woman in the same manner, he'd never see the light of day if he didn't qualify for the death sentence in that particular state.
There's a lot more I could add, but I'll leave readers with these thoughts---until we, if ever, hold women just as accountable as men for their actions, for better or ill, our society with continue to sag under the weight of giving guilty women license for brutal crimes, while men are still ever-carrying the burdens of it on their backs. When more and more men continue to wake up about the disparities of injustice towards them and its inherent hypocrisies, those who don't politically protest may get so disgusted that social obligation will sound like a hallow concept rife with the toxins of exploitation. They will rebel by not giving credence to women, not helping them, and walking away.
The hideous irony of feminism is clear: when women win over men, ultimately, they lose. When will they realize that harming men only can continue to backfire?
Much has been said about the "disappearance" of men in many avenues, but no fact is so disheartening to find that men's lives are considered second rate---or worse---than American women's. If women want men to participate in the social compact, they will have to accept this challenge, warts and all. How women decide to exalt self-responsibly, I do not know. They shouldn't be surprised when Atlas truly shrugs---after all, enforced self-sacrifice, along with the fact that a man's life is viewed as disposable under a woman's whim, that more men are rebelling against the very system that innately devalues them.
Never mind that the wound itself was indicative of a premeditated murder against Matthew Winkler, and despite claims of past abuse, including sexual acts that she didn't like, Mary was not in the midst of struggle defending herself in a life or death situation. Never mind that the day Mary Winkler shot him, they both were supposed to have a meeting at a bank, whereupon Matthew would discover Winkler was involved in scams including bank fraud and wire fraud. This included cashing counterfeit checks in her name and her husband's, that he had not previously known.
I don't know if Matthew truly 'abused' Mary or not, but it seems remarkable that friends, religious associates, and family members declared otherwise. And regardless of motive, if Mary had been a man committing the same crime with a wife, it would have been considered an act of a fiend or a coward. But Mary is now free after only serving seven months, and although she is in a custody battle with Matthew's parents over the children, they are now without a father, and have a murderess for a mother. I don't even want to imagine what it's going to be like for them now that this tragedy has occurred.
The story of Matt and Mary Winkler is very telling---the defense of a battered/abused woman, sans proof, is still utilized as justifiable homicide, and in the eyes of gynocentric laws in our Western culture, women still can receive a slap on the wrist. When men do the same exact thing, they are usually nailed to the wall. As much as feminists' outright lie about that women receive harsher penalties for the any crime, the results indicate something quite different. Over the years, we have been exposed to more and more of these articles keep revealing the universal push that we're somehow supposed to swallow like a jagged, bitter pill: women who kill men do it out of reaction to systematic punishment and humiliation because of patriarchal oppression and malevolent men, and men who kill their spouses are, well, still evil men who wield the proverbial sword of that perceived cruel domination over victimized women.
Remember, that Winkler's sentence was to be a maximum of three years.
Occasionally, a modicum of sense prevails. Years ago Susan Wright claimed the same abuse card, and performed her own style of premeditated murder with a Basic Instinct style twist: she lured her husband, Jeff, into a rather kinky sex act, and while tied up, eventually stabbed him nearly 200 times. The jury was, at first, almost sympathetic towards her crocodile tear tale until the reality of seeing the bloodied bed hit them square in the face: thankfully, they had the impetus to find her guilty, although her conviction has a clause in it---it's not for life, and in thirteen years she is up for parole. If a man had sadistically killed a woman in the same manner, he'd never see the light of day if he didn't qualify for the death sentence in that particular state.
There's a lot more I could add, but I'll leave readers with these thoughts---until we, if ever, hold women just as accountable as men for their actions, for better or ill, our society with continue to sag under the weight of giving guilty women license for brutal crimes, while men are still ever-carrying the burdens of it on their backs. When more and more men continue to wake up about the disparities of injustice towards them and its inherent hypocrisies, those who don't politically protest may get so disgusted that social obligation will sound like a hallow concept rife with the toxins of exploitation. They will rebel by not giving credence to women, not helping them, and walking away.
The hideous irony of feminism is clear: when women win over men, ultimately, they lose. When will they realize that harming men only can continue to backfire?
Much has been said about the "disappearance" of men in many avenues, but no fact is so disheartening to find that men's lives are considered second rate---or worse---than American women's. If women want men to participate in the social compact, they will have to accept this challenge, warts and all. How women decide to exalt self-responsibly, I do not know. They shouldn't be surprised when Atlas truly shrugs---after all, enforced self-sacrifice, along with the fact that a man's life is viewed as disposable under a woman's whim, that more men are rebelling against the very system that innately devalues them.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Still Around, People
Once I'm back from vacation, which is this week, I'm going to come in tackling various themes. And yes, even SR attracts women (including a statuesque vixen that seems curious to indulge my personal hedonism---nope, she's not an exotic dancer or escort) despite his detractors labeling him as misogynist.
Makes you wonder about the respect level towards manginas. I am anything if not honest. Bowing down to women, in order to garner favor, has never been my style. Manginas gather more resentment for seeking approval above personalized standards of conduct.
Makes you wonder about the respect level towards manginas. I am anything if not honest. Bowing down to women, in order to garner favor, has never been my style. Manginas gather more resentment for seeking approval above personalized standards of conduct.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
MMA, Detox, MGTOW blogging, Feminism, and other cynical stuff
It's been a puzzling and dismaying couple of weeks. Two bloggers from the UK have almost completely vanished with little fanfare, and those of you already familiar with the MGTOW scene, already know something about the disappearing acts, although I won't go into detail here, except to save the questioning for the private forums for now. I will say godspeed to them if by any off-chance they are reading this, and wish the best.
That being said, although I write here on a semi-regular basis myself, this is far from dead in cyberspace, and I fully intent to continue to probe deeper issues when I can. My MMA training is fine, although right now I've taken some herbal and fiber supplements to flush my system, so pumping iron was placed on the backburner until tomorrow. Alas, I didn't get to see the recent cage matches part of my crew signed up for up close and personal, but even a couple of the guys that lost actually went down fighting, literally. Good show!
A few "evil" thoughts before more next blog post:
-What can feminism do for men? What's in it for men? Even the question has been skewed by feminists to mean even posing the question means its an extension of male entitlement. I counter by stating that men should look out for their own self interests at all times, because feminism will never, and I mean NEVER do it; past, present, or future. Not one bit. Unless you're a male feminist getting a good volume of "female attention" (nudge nudge, wink) and have a salary built on spinning yarns and believing your own self-righteous bullshit.
-What good are women "friends" if they don't do you any good? What purpose does it serve it all they are going to do is act coy, cry for help, bitch about their husbands and kids (in a one-sided tangent that doesn't stop about the same goddamn problems), never give their loyalty in return, provide a shoulder to lean upon? Even a decent blowjob doesn't allay the months upon months of being used as an emotional tampon, only to be discarded when your utility worth is deemed non-existent. And women are supposed to be more loyal than men?
-It is women -- not men -- that are pushing men into non-mongamous trysts, the use of sex workers and therapists, and quiet civil disobedience. It is women who are divorcing men out of boredem. It is women who are committing to the idea of hypergamy versus the reality of committing to hardworking men, after their party years have taken its toll and sleeping with dregs is no longer desirable. Women do not want to share life with men. If they did, they would make a serious effort for it. They want a beta male who has the appearance of an alpha, who ultimately caves in to women's whims and desires, and go to the next man if the former outlives his usefulness---providing she already has more than a toehold in the latter's life.
-Young American women are scared to death with relating to men as global human beings. It means that they would have to treat men as emotional and spiritual equals. It is something they cannot have, and will prove to be their future failing in life.
-Feminism is a tool, a means to an end, for certain women who "pick and choose" between traditionalism and "equality." Their cognitive dissonance doesn't bother them, because they don't spend a wealth of time with self-examination.
-Young women who are harboring a selfish, myopic, short term gain, and stunted system of dealing with men are refusing to see that is already backfiring on them, and they still deny their own complicity because the default mechanism in their psychologies is to blame men wholesale, even completely innocent men they cannot have, because they are resentful they have to "settle."
-Many men realize that a polyamorous approach is more desirable than the financial serfdom of living with a nagging, used up single mother with brats sired with a thug or a nobody, which was the mum's selection in the first place. Only manginas and the desperate seek them out, and even they might rebel if like an abused dog, they get kicked around too much.
-Gossiping skanks believe that the male-bashing they do behind our backs is out of our range. Guess what---we're doing more than eavesdropping, we're figuring out what makes you tick as well, and what we have to do not to get hurt by conspiring female jerks again.
-Many men resent the idea of "woman as leader" not because of her sex, but because her abuse of power. If anything, women politicians that are openly feminist dump more heat on men while allegedly favoring women, all for the sake of furthering their political careers; VAWA, IMBRA, rape shield laws, background checks when seeking foreign brides . . . the list goes on. Their track records have proven them untrustworthy and unfair, caring about their own self-promotion, and they turn a blind eye towards men's rights. Pray those that aren't openly feminist don't have a clandestine ax to grind.
-Too many women are in the upswing of the sport of blaming men, remaining clueless why men are completely sick of their bullshit they spew about how an idea relationship consists of, and what a true family is all about. Single moms are guilty as charged.
-Men, with still too few positive leadership roles coming from forefathers, aren't looking to matriarchal figureheads for several reasons, including the fact women don't want to truly understand men (they already think they do) Instead of providing more respect, nurturing them, mentoring them, and giving insight, they up the ante with guilt and shame, thus continuing the cycle of alienating and turning men off to them. Since they demand social obligation from men as a right, they get weak and and tenuous results because they refuse to uphold any similar conditions in the social compact.
That being said, although I write here on a semi-regular basis myself, this is far from dead in cyberspace, and I fully intent to continue to probe deeper issues when I can. My MMA training is fine, although right now I've taken some herbal and fiber supplements to flush my system, so pumping iron was placed on the backburner until tomorrow. Alas, I didn't get to see the recent cage matches part of my crew signed up for up close and personal, but even a couple of the guys that lost actually went down fighting, literally. Good show!
A few "evil" thoughts before more next blog post:
-What can feminism do for men? What's in it for men? Even the question has been skewed by feminists to mean even posing the question means its an extension of male entitlement. I counter by stating that men should look out for their own self interests at all times, because feminism will never, and I mean NEVER do it; past, present, or future. Not one bit. Unless you're a male feminist getting a good volume of "female attention" (nudge nudge, wink) and have a salary built on spinning yarns and believing your own self-righteous bullshit.
-What good are women "friends" if they don't do you any good? What purpose does it serve it all they are going to do is act coy, cry for help, bitch about their husbands and kids (in a one-sided tangent that doesn't stop about the same goddamn problems), never give their loyalty in return, provide a shoulder to lean upon? Even a decent blowjob doesn't allay the months upon months of being used as an emotional tampon, only to be discarded when your utility worth is deemed non-existent. And women are supposed to be more loyal than men?
-It is women -- not men -- that are pushing men into non-mongamous trysts, the use of sex workers and therapists, and quiet civil disobedience. It is women who are divorcing men out of boredem. It is women who are committing to the idea of hypergamy versus the reality of committing to hardworking men, after their party years have taken its toll and sleeping with dregs is no longer desirable. Women do not want to share life with men. If they did, they would make a serious effort for it. They want a beta male who has the appearance of an alpha, who ultimately caves in to women's whims and desires, and go to the next man if the former outlives his usefulness---providing she already has more than a toehold in the latter's life.
-Young American women are scared to death with relating to men as global human beings. It means that they would have to treat men as emotional and spiritual equals. It is something they cannot have, and will prove to be their future failing in life.
-Feminism is a tool, a means to an end, for certain women who "pick and choose" between traditionalism and "equality." Their cognitive dissonance doesn't bother them, because they don't spend a wealth of time with self-examination.
-Young women who are harboring a selfish, myopic, short term gain, and stunted system of dealing with men are refusing to see that is already backfiring on them, and they still deny their own complicity because the default mechanism in their psychologies is to blame men wholesale, even completely innocent men they cannot have, because they are resentful they have to "settle."
-Many men realize that a polyamorous approach is more desirable than the financial serfdom of living with a nagging, used up single mother with brats sired with a thug or a nobody, which was the mum's selection in the first place. Only manginas and the desperate seek them out, and even they might rebel if like an abused dog, they get kicked around too much.
-Gossiping skanks believe that the male-bashing they do behind our backs is out of our range. Guess what---we're doing more than eavesdropping, we're figuring out what makes you tick as well, and what we have to do not to get hurt by conspiring female jerks again.
-Many men resent the idea of "woman as leader" not because of her sex, but because her abuse of power. If anything, women politicians that are openly feminist dump more heat on men while allegedly favoring women, all for the sake of furthering their political careers; VAWA, IMBRA, rape shield laws, background checks when seeking foreign brides . . . the list goes on. Their track records have proven them untrustworthy and unfair, caring about their own self-promotion, and they turn a blind eye towards men's rights. Pray those that aren't openly feminist don't have a clandestine ax to grind.
-Too many women are in the upswing of the sport of blaming men, remaining clueless why men are completely sick of their bullshit they spew about how an idea relationship consists of, and what a true family is all about. Single moms are guilty as charged.
-Men, with still too few positive leadership roles coming from forefathers, aren't looking to matriarchal figureheads for several reasons, including the fact women don't want to truly understand men (they already think they do) Instead of providing more respect, nurturing them, mentoring them, and giving insight, they up the ante with guilt and shame, thus continuing the cycle of alienating and turning men off to them. Since they demand social obligation from men as a right, they get weak and and tenuous results because they refuse to uphold any similar conditions in the social compact.
Monday, June 18, 2007
The Death of the Nice Girl
Where are all the nice girls at? Don't tell me. I already know. They are supposed to be devoutly sitting in the church pews waiting for a future husband to come along. They are supposed to be taking care of themselves concerning their health to make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex. They are supposed to be improving themselves in very fashion, so they are well-rounded individuals men can't resist and feel impelled to be at their sides.
Uh huh.
I may be going against the grain when I state this, but I do think good women are "out there." Trouble is, their exists a dearth of them that seem to be dwindling. Chances are awfully high the the good ones are either scooped up, or in the process of being in the dynamic of being with a man already. Funny how that seems like the flip side of American women's complaint of that all the good men are either married or gay. I don't exactly feel much sympathy for women who blither on like this---it's basically an excuse to stay single and bitch about their condition to their fair weather friends.
Even worse, the ratio of good men to good women is out of whack. I'm not certain about how that ratio is numerically, but I do know how it ultimately plays out for men. There's a lot of single men that are that way for a myriad of reasons, but one of the reasons is what I've stated above, and with the amount of single moms, cast iron bitches, used/washed up sluts, nutjobs, and the more gender feminist minded aren't likely candidates for the man who is more discriminating in his tastes, or serious about having a marriage and family (and children that are legitimately his) that isn't going to crash and burn. Hence, more paucity of good women: add to the fray that the women (men are wary of) overestimate their proverbial market value and shame men who don't date them with shit behavior, I can't say I blame men for not even courting women anymore after a time.
Now, I don't completely buy the traditional lines women repeat, either. I've read where apparent nice gal types have an awful time with shyness and making moves, but it seems like an excuse not to become intimate with men on more than one level. Seems like they have no problems with letting men trip over themselves in order to secure a relationship with them; of course, the responsibility lies at the men's doorstep, her work involves showing up and spending an hour and a half on her looks. You pay for dates. You ask her out. You follow up. You have to say and act in all the right ways. There's no promise that those things will iron out any of your differences or make her bond with you more. Basically, she has veto power and if you're not presenting yourself as a good catch, it's still up to her what occurs, if anything. And men have all the power? Even personally, in this situation? Will she continue the pursuit in kind? That's if she won't meet with her friends and family with any modicum of chagrin at all by being with you---even if you hit it off, your value plummets quickly if peer pressure demands you're a loser unfit to polish her shoes on a shine box.
Women will often go for what other women want, including men. Even a "good" girl will follow some of the examples of a bitchy alpha female if she feels it won't help being affable. The more dirty fighters will conspire if it requires backstabbing, cheating, lying, turning others against each other, stealing a man from his own girlfriend or wife, or even worse tactics. Yet good men still languish without a date, and if they complain about it, they are bitter whiners. But women take sexual rejection infinitely harder than their male cohorts and will even wreck havoc if thwarted. Most men, even half assed players, get used to periods where they are dateless or sexual specters on the primal landscape. Single women, even ones who don't put out easily and use sex as weapon once in a relationship, get tied in knots when they aren't attracting men like they used to.
Interesting how women use, "You should get laid/you're a loser that can't get laid."
And men are the ones obsessed with sex? What? Women aren't? With their vociferous amounts of babbling concerning their children, their asses, their boobs, their sex lives, birth control, abortion, tampons, PMS, how to give better blowjobs, or competing with other women over the slim minority of men deemed worthy, while dressing up sexy for the approval of their tenuous partnerships they developed they label as "friends?"
Christianity or any other religion holds no guarantee she internalized solid character values. Tramp stamps be damned. It's another indication of the hive mind American women either adopt or innately possess---I'll let the armchair theorists debate whether or not it's sociobiological imperatives that lead them to the habituation of such nihilistic hedonism; the ersatz rebellion of tattoos, piercings, drunken and stoned at an endless array of nights, hopping from one man to another, one club to another, in a desperate search for the next thrill at the party. Capricious in her ways, the "spiritual NOT religious" females aren't terribly different from women who feel they are the (a)moral arbitrators of those values---since they are women and feel justified in taking the tenets and either absorbing them as they see fit, or changing them in mid-stream when they work against her egocentrism.
Nice girls? Yeah, I may have gotten off the beaten track here, but you're outnumbered by the women I've outlined above. I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but I'm tried of arguing about it anymore.
Uh huh.
I may be going against the grain when I state this, but I do think good women are "out there." Trouble is, their exists a dearth of them that seem to be dwindling. Chances are awfully high the the good ones are either scooped up, or in the process of being in the dynamic of being with a man already. Funny how that seems like the flip side of American women's complaint of that all the good men are either married or gay. I don't exactly feel much sympathy for women who blither on like this---it's basically an excuse to stay single and bitch about their condition to their fair weather friends.
Even worse, the ratio of good men to good women is out of whack. I'm not certain about how that ratio is numerically, but I do know how it ultimately plays out for men. There's a lot of single men that are that way for a myriad of reasons, but one of the reasons is what I've stated above, and with the amount of single moms, cast iron bitches, used/washed up sluts, nutjobs, and the more gender feminist minded aren't likely candidates for the man who is more discriminating in his tastes, or serious about having a marriage and family (and children that are legitimately his) that isn't going to crash and burn. Hence, more paucity of good women: add to the fray that the women (men are wary of) overestimate their proverbial market value and shame men who don't date them with shit behavior, I can't say I blame men for not even courting women anymore after a time.
Now, I don't completely buy the traditional lines women repeat, either. I've read where apparent nice gal types have an awful time with shyness and making moves, but it seems like an excuse not to become intimate with men on more than one level. Seems like they have no problems with letting men trip over themselves in order to secure a relationship with them; of course, the responsibility lies at the men's doorstep, her work involves showing up and spending an hour and a half on her looks. You pay for dates. You ask her out. You follow up. You have to say and act in all the right ways. There's no promise that those things will iron out any of your differences or make her bond with you more. Basically, she has veto power and if you're not presenting yourself as a good catch, it's still up to her what occurs, if anything. And men have all the power? Even personally, in this situation? Will she continue the pursuit in kind? That's if she won't meet with her friends and family with any modicum of chagrin at all by being with you---even if you hit it off, your value plummets quickly if peer pressure demands you're a loser unfit to polish her shoes on a shine box.
Women will often go for what other women want, including men. Even a "good" girl will follow some of the examples of a bitchy alpha female if she feels it won't help being affable. The more dirty fighters will conspire if it requires backstabbing, cheating, lying, turning others against each other, stealing a man from his own girlfriend or wife, or even worse tactics. Yet good men still languish without a date, and if they complain about it, they are bitter whiners. But women take sexual rejection infinitely harder than their male cohorts and will even wreck havoc if thwarted. Most men, even half assed players, get used to periods where they are dateless or sexual specters on the primal landscape. Single women, even ones who don't put out easily and use sex as weapon once in a relationship, get tied in knots when they aren't attracting men like they used to.
Interesting how women use, "You should get laid/you're a loser that can't get laid."
And men are the ones obsessed with sex? What? Women aren't? With their vociferous amounts of babbling concerning their children, their asses, their boobs, their sex lives, birth control, abortion, tampons, PMS, how to give better blowjobs, or competing with other women over the slim minority of men deemed worthy, while dressing up sexy for the approval of their tenuous partnerships they developed they label as "friends?"
Christianity or any other religion holds no guarantee she internalized solid character values. Tramp stamps be damned. It's another indication of the hive mind American women either adopt or innately possess---I'll let the armchair theorists debate whether or not it's sociobiological imperatives that lead them to the habituation of such nihilistic hedonism; the ersatz rebellion of tattoos, piercings, drunken and stoned at an endless array of nights, hopping from one man to another, one club to another, in a desperate search for the next thrill at the party. Capricious in her ways, the "spiritual NOT religious" females aren't terribly different from women who feel they are the (a)moral arbitrators of those values---since they are women and feel justified in taking the tenets and either absorbing them as they see fit, or changing them in mid-stream when they work against her egocentrism.
Nice girls? Yeah, I may have gotten off the beaten track here, but you're outnumbered by the women I've outlined above. I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but I'm tried of arguing about it anymore.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Happy Father's Day
To all of the fathers out there, and the most appreciation to my own.
If this is post is brief, it's not because of lack of desire, but lack of sleep. Kudos to you all.
If this is post is brief, it's not because of lack of desire, but lack of sleep. Kudos to you all.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
A Few Words about Women and Being "Taken"
In another form, a woman who'll I'll dub as KM, writes the following in regards to women and sexuality:
Oh, for Pete's sake. You guys tell yourselves whatever you want. I want to be held down. And it has nothing to do with the media or being schizo or anything. (Although I'm not ready to claim sanity yet...) It's a biological fact. And what's more, I'm willing to bet it's the woman who initiates it more often than not.
Ever read a romance novel? Um....never mind. Probably not. I've only read maybe 10 in my life. The thing is, the guy in the romance novel who gets the girl isn't the one who's all solicitous to make sure she gets home unmolested. She appreciates him, of course. But it's the dark stranger, the wounded, solitary count, the viking warrior who gets the girl. And he doesn't hurt her. He is forceful, yes, but has control. Look at Dracula. Well, I guess technically Dracula does hurt them, but he has the whole eternal life, undead attraction thing going for him.
Romance novels are not written to influence women. They're written to appeal to women.
Well, friends, I couldn't help but respond. Since I have trouble with such claims, I'll tell you why, here---I'll add a few things as I go tomorrow:
Even aside from women initiating it more often than not, hell, many men haven't even met women ask them out on a fucking date once.
Men are told by women to "treat them like a lady." Well, after seeing how decidedly unladylike women can be, why should they?
The one pivotal thing you must remember is that there has to be an underlying mutual consent. The gender feminists who want men, assiduously, to keep tabs on everything. They have men merely ask like little servants begging for crumbs and don't like gray areas because they operate out of fear. The women who play dangerous games of "rapo" like shifting from wanton slut to battered victim because they are lashing out at men because they feel like they have to maintain dominance and punishment---no matter how malefic its manifestation. That one time they didn't feel like it was consensual on a whim, simply because the relationship isn't going the right way, is the day he's in deep shit.
By doing the above, it ensues there is no "equality" in the sexual dynamic. The gatekeepers can stifle the valves of libido, and despite being having more control, blame the other for misreading cues or breaking the ground rules established. How interesting---the one with more power has less responsibility, and guess who's the one with more sexual power. This is where the feminists are in denial or clearly full of shit. It is also an undertone that's evident here---women's sexuality and essence is more significant and of import than men's, vulnerabilities be damned.
Many men are not given a manual for women and the sociobiology of sexuality, and when they do get something akin to it, it's often comprised of a couple of things---it's still about benefiting women, advice from women, and a good amount of filler. It's usually up to nice guys to fill in the blanks, and since that is often from inexperience, they can trip up---and that's, of course, their fault, even if they are in the dark.
If everything was cut and dried, there would be far lesser problems. But women often tell men, "Figure me out, I'm a woman, but I won't give you all the clues, but I change when I want" to "I wish you hadn't figured me out, it's scary"---because it indicates a loss of control when men truly understand women and sexual desire. Keeping men off kilter and committing sins of omission, even with intercourse, allows women the upper hand. Even the street talk on women when men get together and start comparing notes looks quite different from the idiotic maze women use in order to filter out men that are undesirables---men aren't interested in the fodder, they are interested in what works and not getting in the doghouse with women---IF they bother at all.
There's also a dark side to that mysterious rogue character you mentioned. Women have fantasies about them and make a grave mistake that underneath it all is that guy she pined for in her blossoming sexual maturation. Hell, even one of my ex-girlfriends loved the idea of Beauty and Beast and other seemly inane fairy tales. Yet, fairy tales can have a lot to teach us---including about those who are fixated with certain figures. Women who want to lose momentary control still think that their anti-hero, an inversion of the savior motif, will protect and rescue them.
A true dark master has allegiance to no one but himself, whether he is the modern version of the black magician, or beast masquerading as human---its contemporary manifestation is the psychopath who usurps women's personal power, even if it means torturing and killing her.
This is why I just shake my head at women (which is seems to be a domain of a lot of white women, especially) reveling in fantasies about being aggressed against.
Oh, for Pete's sake. You guys tell yourselves whatever you want. I want to be held down. And it has nothing to do with the media or being schizo or anything. (Although I'm not ready to claim sanity yet...) It's a biological fact. And what's more, I'm willing to bet it's the woman who initiates it more often than not.
Ever read a romance novel? Um....never mind. Probably not. I've only read maybe 10 in my life. The thing is, the guy in the romance novel who gets the girl isn't the one who's all solicitous to make sure she gets home unmolested. She appreciates him, of course. But it's the dark stranger, the wounded, solitary count, the viking warrior who gets the girl. And he doesn't hurt her. He is forceful, yes, but has control. Look at Dracula. Well, I guess technically Dracula does hurt them, but he has the whole eternal life, undead attraction thing going for him.
Romance novels are not written to influence women. They're written to appeal to women.
Well, friends, I couldn't help but respond. Since I have trouble with such claims, I'll tell you why, here---I'll add a few things as I go tomorrow:
Even aside from women initiating it more often than not, hell, many men haven't even met women ask them out on a fucking date once.
Men are told by women to "treat them like a lady." Well, after seeing how decidedly unladylike women can be, why should they?
The one pivotal thing you must remember is that there has to be an underlying mutual consent. The gender feminists who want men, assiduously, to keep tabs on everything. They have men merely ask like little servants begging for crumbs and don't like gray areas because they operate out of fear. The women who play dangerous games of "rapo" like shifting from wanton slut to battered victim because they are lashing out at men because they feel like they have to maintain dominance and punishment---no matter how malefic its manifestation. That one time they didn't feel like it was consensual on a whim, simply because the relationship isn't going the right way, is the day he's in deep shit.
By doing the above, it ensues there is no "equality" in the sexual dynamic. The gatekeepers can stifle the valves of libido, and despite being having more control, blame the other for misreading cues or breaking the ground rules established. How interesting---the one with more power has less responsibility, and guess who's the one with more sexual power. This is where the feminists are in denial or clearly full of shit. It is also an undertone that's evident here---women's sexuality and essence is more significant and of import than men's, vulnerabilities be damned.
Many men are not given a manual for women and the sociobiology of sexuality, and when they do get something akin to it, it's often comprised of a couple of things---it's still about benefiting women, advice from women, and a good amount of filler. It's usually up to nice guys to fill in the blanks, and since that is often from inexperience, they can trip up---and that's, of course, their fault, even if they are in the dark.
If everything was cut and dried, there would be far lesser problems. But women often tell men, "Figure me out, I'm a woman, but I won't give you all the clues, but I change when I want" to "I wish you hadn't figured me out, it's scary"---because it indicates a loss of control when men truly understand women and sexual desire. Keeping men off kilter and committing sins of omission, even with intercourse, allows women the upper hand. Even the street talk on women when men get together and start comparing notes looks quite different from the idiotic maze women use in order to filter out men that are undesirables---men aren't interested in the fodder, they are interested in what works and not getting in the doghouse with women---IF they bother at all.
There's also a dark side to that mysterious rogue character you mentioned. Women have fantasies about them and make a grave mistake that underneath it all is that guy she pined for in her blossoming sexual maturation. Hell, even one of my ex-girlfriends loved the idea of Beauty and Beast and other seemly inane fairy tales. Yet, fairy tales can have a lot to teach us---including about those who are fixated with certain figures. Women who want to lose momentary control still think that their anti-hero, an inversion of the savior motif, will protect and rescue them.
A true dark master has allegiance to no one but himself, whether he is the modern version of the black magician, or beast masquerading as human---its contemporary manifestation is the psychopath who usurps women's personal power, even if it means torturing and killing her.
This is why I just shake my head at women (which is seems to be a domain of a lot of white women, especially) reveling in fantasies about being aggressed against.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
