|
Post by StyxD on Mar 14, 2015 19:49:06 GMT
Don't overlook the fact, that at least the PUA part of MRAs routinely sleep with people they overtly despise (ie. women). They do this, because all good women went extinct in the 60s, in the great feminazi genocide.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Mar 14, 2015 20:00:29 GMT
That is an interesting point, that these guys hate women but are obsessed with trying to sleep with them. You get examples on We Hunted the Mammoth where some of the PUA's start to reflect on themselves and have brief flashes of insight where they seem to become aware of how miserable and futile their existence is.
One of them was lamenting how he was trying to get with shallow women who just wanted one night stands and how he hated women like that... which had the weird implication that he efforts to use women had somehow backfired and now he found women were just using him, as they had no interest in him beyond casual sex. Who could have predicted that if you go around trying to find women who agree to casual sex, you will end up with women who just want casual sex?
The PUA's set themselves this totally artificial criteria "wanting a relationship makes you a beta and means you don't have game!" so they can't admit to wanting genuine companionship, even if the alternative that they keep attempting is bringing them no happiness at all.
If they weren't so rapey you could almost feel sorry for them.
|
|
|
Post by StyxD on Mar 14, 2015 20:57:07 GMT
I thought that their narrative was basically "we would like to be in committed relationships, but there are no good women anymore, only exploitative bitches. And we won't let them take advantage of us... and also, we must be having a lot of sex, since not having sex is so fucking beta."
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Mar 14, 2015 22:17:52 GMT
My impression was that they looked down on being with one woman because women are evil and will ruin your life and take your money and stuff. So you have to sleep around in order to be awesome. I could be wrong, and it might well vary from would shit head to another on exactly what nonsense they are are spouting.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 15, 2015 0:46:19 GMT
Also, keep in mind, PUAs and MRA people aren't all the same. In fact, there was a chuckle worthy piece on WHTM a bit back that involved MRA types saying how bullshit the PUAs are. It made me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by StyxD on Mar 15, 2015 8:09:47 GMT
I realize they're not the same. But the question was about men needing to have sex with people they don't trust, and it seems to be a mostly PUA-side issue.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 15, 2015 8:23:21 GMT
Oh, true.
A funny thing with these MRA types... there are three basic categories I can suss out at the moment.
1) MRA vanilla. Standard, basic package, they aren't selling anything beyond the usual rhetoric.
2) Pick Up Artists (PUAs). They tend to overlap with the MRA movement in general, and definitely seem to view women as objects that can be "tricked" into sleeping with them. Ironically, a lot of them then complain that women are only in it for the sex, despite them clearly only really interacting with women who are in it for sex because... those are the ones who "fall" for their "tricks."
3) Men Going Their Own Way; MGTOWers. These ones can't really be PUAs as they basically define themselves as taking their balls and going home. That is, they are removing themselves from the game because relationships with women aren't worth the hassle/danger/whatever. This seems to include sex with women in general, except sometimes prostitutes. Interestingly enough, if you invented a pill that could make straight men gay, these guys would probably be a huge market. Not that there would be anything wrong with a pill like that, of course.
MGTOWers can't be PUAs because PUAs are all about getting with women and MGTOWers are all about avoiding women like the black death. I suppose this means some MGTOWers see PUAs as insane and PUAs see MGTOWers as losers who can't "get" women.
Heh, and of course some MRA vanilla types also think the PUAs are scumbags, because even MRAs can be right sometimes.
Of course, categorizing can be difficult and dangerous.
Anyway, it not trusting the women you have sex with seems partially PUA related, sure, but it comes right back to what the MGTOWers say all that time.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Mar 15, 2015 8:34:18 GMT
Interestingly enough, if you invented a pill that could make straight men gay, these guys would probably be a huge market. Not that there would be anything wrong with a pill like that, of course. What if there was a pill that made gay men straight?
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 15, 2015 8:39:12 GMT
Good question. I don't think that there would be anything inherently wrong with that either.
Unless, of course, you force someone to take either pill. Though it wouldn't solve the problem of huge systemic mistreatment of people who are gay. In fact it could make it worse by giving some (backward) legitimacy to the idea of choice. But that isn't something wrong with the pill, rather something wrong with the society.
Same with a pill that made everyone bisexual, even if mandating such a pill would shut a lot of people the fuck up.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Mar 15, 2015 8:46:58 GMT
Interesting answer.
Personally I suppose I'm MGTOW. I wouldn't have any interest in a gay pill. Mostly because my male friendships are not muddled up with sexual tension and I wouldn't want them to be.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 15, 2015 8:54:10 GMT
Well, the reason I said MGTOW would be a good market for such a pill is because they're straight but find the attraction to women problematic because it is so dangerous to be in a relationship with a woman. In fact, in some cases it seems to mean just being around a woman at all.
Chances are an "asexual" pill would sell better than a "homosexual" pill amongst the MGTOW community, I suppose.
But hey, an "asexual" pill would have sold really well with monks a long time ago. And Paul would probably have made it mandatory for all the early Christians if he had the option. That would have solved some of Rome's problems, probably.
|
|
|
Post by StyxD on Mar 15, 2015 18:00:07 GMT
Note, that it doesn't just imply that you're not interested in relationships, but that the reason for it is that all women nowadays are just terrible and corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Mar 15, 2015 19:14:12 GMT
Maybe not all of them.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 15, 2015 21:27:50 GMT
Depends on your definition of "corrupt." The way I see it, in this society, men and women are equally "corrupt." Just generally.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Mar 15, 2015 21:41:53 GMT
Same goes for "terrible".
|
|