What's your opinions on Jordan Peterson?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Baffle2:

Gorfias:

We can look at the actions and sequence of events and make reasonable hypothesis.
She pursued him, got cash and prizes, dumped him. It isn't hard to understand what happened.

Actually, your sequence of events was:

a woman slept with our first shirt back in the USAF. He got her separate rations (off base housing and a food allowance). Almost immediate after getting her cash and prizes, she dumped him.

which, unless he didn't consent to the sex, fits my narrative exactly.

1) They slept together
2) He abused his position to get her stuff
3) She was uncomfortable with this abuse of the system and dumped him.

He's the bad guy in this scenario (and even the one you've cooked up)! He's the only one that abused his /actual/ power! Being sexy (no idea if she was) isn't power unless you're a weak-willed sap with no self-control.

I'd like to second this. Especially because if he's a weak-willed sap, he really shouldn't be a first shirt.

Dr. Thrax:
All these people saying "people can just make up pronouns".
I've only ever seen people use the Special Snowflake pronouns on tumblr, but have yet to actually meet anyone using them out in meatspace. So first y'all need to actually prove that's a thing that happens in a meaningful capacity to actually be concerned about, because the only pronouns I see people wanting to be used is he/she/they, and if you can't be assed to use they/them/their then that sounds like a personal problem.

Weirdly, I think they've become less common over time.

There was a trans activist called Leslie Feinberg, who sadly died in 2014. Ze was pretty clear that ze didn't mind which pronouns people used, but hir personal preference was generally towards ze/hir. I think a lot of people of that generation had problems with using they/them as gender neutral pronouns because there was a sense that it sounded quite impersonal, and at that stage there was such a limited acceptance of non-binary people that there wasn't really an established terminology.

I've never met any non-binary people under 40 who cared about pronouns and yet weren't comfortable with they/them. It's become the kind of established terminology. I can see why people might prefer other terms online, for the same reason I used ze/hir back there.. it's very easy online to get it right, but in actual everyday life insisting on unusual pronouns seems like a lot of work. People are just going to get it wrong. Heck, people will get they/them wrong, but it's considerably easier.

Generally though, the people who oppose anti-discrimination legislation against trans people or invoke Jordan Peterson on this issue fundamentally aren't interested in what pronouns people want to use because they're essentialists who believe that people are inherently male or female and this determines all kinds of bizarre shit about them. they are seldom willing to recognise any form of transitional gender. They may tolerate binary trans people, but if they do it will inevitably be patronising and insincere.

It's kind of like how gay rights have become the battleground for religious conservatives when it comes to sexual morality, because they know if they went after masturbation or adultery they'd sound like the fucking loons they are. Similarly, non binary people are an area in which the anti-trans lobby knows that they can score points. The general public can slot binary trans people into a (again, deeply patronizing) narrative of victimhood. The poor things they can't help what they are! They were born in the wrong body! Non-binary people don't have that immediate association of victimhood or that medicalized excuse, so they're softer targets.

But ultimately, the way these "moderate" conservatives treat non-binary people is the way they'd treat all trans people if they felt they could get away with it.

evilthecat:

Dr. Thrax:
All these people saying "people can just make up pronouns".
I've only ever seen people use the Special Snowflake pronouns on tumblr, but have yet to actually meet anyone using them out in meatspace. So first y'all need to actually prove that's a thing that happens in a meaningful capacity to actually be concerned about, because the only pronouns I see people wanting to be used is he/she/they, and if you can't be assed to use they/them/their then that sounds like a personal problem.

Weirdly, I think they've become less common over time.

There was a trans activist called Leslie Feinberg, who sadly died in 2014. Ze was pretty clear that ze didn't mind which pronouns people used, but hir personal preference was generally towards ze/hir. I think a lot of people of that generation had problems with using they/them as gender neutral pronouns because there was a sense that it sounded quite impersonal, and at that stage there was such a limited acceptance of non-binary people that there wasn't really an established terminology.

I've never met any non-binary people under 40 who cared about pronouns and yet weren't comfortable with they/them. It's become the kind of established terminology. I can see why people might prefer other terms online, for the same reason I used ze/hir back there.. it's very easy online to get it right, but in actual everyday life insisting on unusual pronouns seems like a lot of work. People are just going to get it wrong. Heck, people will get they/them wrong, but it's considerably easier.

Generally though, the people who oppose anti-discrimination legislation against trans people or invoke Jordan Peterson on this issue fundamentally aren't interested in what pronouns people want to use because they're essentialists who believe that people are inherently male or female and this determines all kinds of bizarre shit about them. they are seldom willing to recognise any form of transitional gender. They may tolerate binary trans people, but if they do it will inevitably be patronising and insincere.

It's kind of like how gay rights have become the battleground for religious conservatives when it comes to sexual morality, because they know if they went after masturbation or adultery they'd sound like the fucking loons they are. Similarly, non binary people are an area in which the anti-trans lobby knows that they can score points. The general public can slot binary trans people into a (again, deeply patronizing) narrative of victimhood. The poor things they can't help what they are! They were born in the wrong body! Non-binary people don't have that immediate association of victimhood or that medicalized excuse, so they're softer targets.

But ultimately, the way these "moderate" conservatives treat non-binary people is the way they'd treat all trans people if they felt they could get away with it.

Too many use the defense of freedom of speech when really they just want to force the speech of trans people instead of their own.

They want to force us to use him/her (typically in the opposite way we would prefer) instead of 'forcing' them to use something else.

Gorfias:
snip

You know, there's something here I find incredibly sad.

Like, you seem to think that men find women so attractive that it literally hotwires their judgement and makes them do things against their will.. and yet, you can't seem to imagine a situation in which anyone would actually be attracted to a man. Have you actually gone through your whole life so far believing that noone has ever looked at you the same way you look at women, or that noone could ever look at any man in that way?

Now, I've expressed my problems with the term "toxic masculinity" on another thread, but if I did want to prove its existence and that it was a real problem that negatively impacted mens' lives.. that right there, my friends. That is pretty toxic.

evilthecat:

Gorfias:
snip

You know, there's something here I find incredibly sad.

Like, you seem to think that men find women so attractive that it literally hotwires their judgement and makes them do things against their will.. and yet, you can't seem to imagine a situation in which anyone would actually be attracted to a man. Have you actually gone through your whole life so far believing that noone has ever looked at you the same way you look at women, or that noone could ever look at any man in that way?

Now, I've expressed my problems with the term "toxic masculinity" on another thread, but if I did want to prove its existence and that it was a real problem that negatively impacted mens' lives.. that right there, my friends. That is pretty toxic.

Based on their arguments and actions, there is no group in the world that thinks less of men than self-proclaimed MRAs. Whereas even the dreaded "feminazi" will at worst say "men are shit and need to do better,"which implicitly acknowledges that men can do better, MRAs arguments inherently assume that men are irredeemable slaves to their most basic animal instincts and that society must be structured around catering to our every feeling lest we get upset and unavoidably do awful things in response.

  • MRAs are the group putting forth the idea that the entire male gender is so worthless that "feminists" have absolutely no qualms about rendering us all extinct and even have plans to do so.
  • MRAs are the group putting forth the idea that the entire male gender can't possibly control their sexual desires if women dare to have the sheer nerve of even putting on lipstick.
  • MRAs are the group putting forth the idea that the entire male gender naturally and inevitably turns violent against others including committing atrocities when their feelings are hurt and they don't get everything they want such as sex on demand.
  • MRAs are the group putting forth the idea that the entire male gender needs to be protected at all times from women because we are so naive and pathetic beasts that they can completely control us easily.
  • MRAs are the group putting forth the idea that the entire male gender is so mentally handicapped and emotionally flustered that we regularly lose our capacity for rational thought and responsibility for our own actions whenever we notice something or someone we are interested in walk by or be in our general vicinity.
  • MRAs are the group putting forth the idea that the entire male gender is completely incapable of retaining control in situations where anyone else is automatically expected to do so. Anything from having a couple of drinks to a sports competition to becoming horny means all bets are off concerning what we might do and we have no culpability for what happens. Others, though, are entirely at fault for the consequences of what might happen then they are in such situations.
  • etc, etc, etc

evilthecat:
Have you actually gone through your whole life so far believing that noone has ever looked at you the same way you look at women?

A thought that haunts me every night when I go to bed. Seriously, it's why I sympathize with some of the more eccentric guys in the forum, even if they are kinda "far out there" compared to me.

Anyway, the disenfranchisement of young men is a serious issue and I'm glad some dude from Toronto wants to combat it or whatever, but Peterson seems intentionally vague in a lot of his statements. Also it doesn't take that much to point out he's a bit of a bozo at times. So I'd say I don't have that big of an opinion about the guy - I'm only maybe 1% familiar with his material.

trunkage:
Just a quick question for anyone attracted to women. Is lipstick a turn on for you?

Also, if a beautiful person comes up to you, or works under you, do you kowtow to their every whim?

No and no, personally as well.

Lipstick is nice I guess, but it's not even CLOSE to any of the physical traits that I find even mildly attractive, let alone the personality traits that actually get me interested. That and prettyness doesn't impact whether or not I'll do something for someone. I care more about if I know and trust the person, and if their request makes sense.

Then again, maybe I'm the wrong person to ask, since I'm convinced I must have a lower than usual sex drive, because if an attractive woman with visible cleavage (or in my case, let's add Goth with blue hair and a gamer icon on their tote bag), I'm not going to instantly get rock hard and think "ermagerdermagerdermagerd I need to jack off to thoughts of her omg she so HOT!!!" like the majority of dudes online SEEM to act (EDIT: At least, the loud ones complaining about women having too much choice or power at any rate). My reaction is pretty much just "whoa, she cool". Hell, I was in a committed relationship for 3 years and never had sex with my partner because she was never "Ready" for it, and I was still happy with the relationship.

I pretty much only regard woman in a romantic/sexual way if I get to know them and their personality just rocks my socks off. And even then, I'm completely respectful of their wishes and boundaries. There's a reason why, when I was with a totally smashed-drunk friend in a position where she could be considered vulnerable, she told me "When you're around, I feel completely safe, even this completely drunk. Your moral core is so strong it's got it's own fucking gravitational pull."

evilthecat:

Gorfias:
snip

You know, there's something here I find incredibly sad.

Like, you seem to think that men find women so attractive that it literally hotwires their judgement and makes them do things against their will.. and yet, you can't seem to imagine a situation in which anyone would actually be attracted to a man. Have you actually gone through your whole life so far believing that noone has ever looked at you the same way you look at women, or that noone could ever look at any man in that way?

Now, I've expressed my problems with the term "toxic masculinity" on another thread, but if I did want to prove its existence and that it was a real problem that negatively impacted mens' lives.. that right there, my friends. That is pretty toxic.

I think a lot of people don't think that they have ever been given a second glance from members of the opposite sex. It would be further reinforced to them, especially if no one talks to them or display any interest in them. Now, this is not necessarily fair, of course- if people want to meet other people, they have to be willing to instigate communication, open themselves up a little, try new things, etc.

And of course women drool over men. But when you are not even able to start a conversation, or when you have received enough rejection to get the distinct impression that you are not attractive, at least superficially, if not in any other way you can see, then what does it matter? I mean, the same goes for women, right? It hurts.

I feel Gorfias has latched on to specific examples, but that these things aren't gender-specific.

As to Jordan Peterson, I haven't really an opinion on his work.

aegix drakan:
I'm convinced I must have a lower than usual sex drive -- I was in a committed relationship for 3 years and never had sex with my partner.

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't even trust a guy who says they are committed to a sexless relationship, let alone doing so for three years. So yeah, you are definitely "the wrong guy to ask" as you put it yourself.

McElroy:

aegix drakan:
I'm convinced I must have a lower than usual sex drive -- I was in a committed relationship for 3 years and never had sex with my partner.

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't even trust a guy who says they are committed to a sexless relationship, let alone doing so for three years. So yeah, you are definitely "the wrong guy to ask" as you put it yourself.

The fact that people always make such a big deal about that story is the thing that made me start wondering if I have a lower than normal sex drive, because literally everyone I've told the story to is shocked. Even the people who were like "Wow, you're like, the perfect gentleman!" still expressed it as a statement of shock.

And I'm there like "Why is it a big deal?" because it makes sense to me via:
a) If I was going to have sex with her, I wanted it to be because she was ready and really wanted it. What the point if you have to nudge and cajole or pressure it out of her? Then it's just gross and guilt-tripped and stuff.

b) If the relationship is satisfying on an emotional, affectionate, and fun level, why the hell would I ditch it because there's no sex? Especially if it means going back to NOT having an emotionally fulfilling relationship for potentially years?

And yet, even though because of those two things, it makes perfect sense to me, everyone who hears the story is STILL shocked and surprised. At that point I had to come to the conclusion that I'm either the one decent man in the history of the world who isn't ruled by his dick, or that something else was going on.

aegix drakan:

McElroy:

aegix drakan:
I'm convinced I must have a lower than usual sex drive -- I was in a committed relationship for 3 years and never had sex with my partner.

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't even trust a guy who says they are committed to a sexless relationship, let alone doing so for three years. So yeah, you are definitely "the wrong guy to ask" as you put it yourself.

The fact that people always make such a big deal about that story is the thing that made me start wondering if I have a lower than normal sex drive, because literally everyone I've told the story to is shocked. Even the people who were like "Wow, you're like, the perfect gentleman!" still expressed it as a statement of shock.

And I'm there like "Why is it a big deal?" because it makes sense to me via:
a) If I was going to have sex with her, I wanted it to be because she was ready and really wanted it. What the point if you have to nudge and cajole or pressure it out of her? Then it's just gross and guilt-tripped and stuff.

b) If the relationship is satisfying on an emotional, affectionate, and fun level, why the hell would I ditch it because there's no sex? Especially if it means going back to NOT having an emotionally fulfilling relationship for potentially years?

And yet, even though because of those two things, it makes perfect sense to me, everyone who hears the story is STILL shocked and surprised. At that point I had to come to the conclusion that I'm either the one decent man in the history of the world who isn't ruled by his dick, or that something else was going on.

Speaking as someone who has a fairly healthy sex drive but doesn't let it dominate every last fucking aspect of his life, I really don't think what you're saying is that weird. I just really think self control when it comes to sex is something that really isn't encouraged with a lot of men. Plus a lot of people only put stock into romantic relationships because it leads to sex. Pretty shallow if you ask me, but then again some people think so ass backwards about sex that they act like asexual people don't exist.

trunkage:
Just a quick question for anyone attracted to women. Is lipstick a turn on for you?

Also, if a beautiful person comes up to you, or works under you, do you kowtow to their every whim?

I might be the wrong person to ask/answer, because I find make-up unnecessary. I don't find beautiful women attractive. I'm attracted to cute and natural women. However, make-up together with clothes does accentuate the female body and it's sexual and/or (usually) attractive qualities, like lips, eyes, smooth skin, cleavage, midriff, legs, etc.
Men are much more visually stimulated than women.

I think that's where it started from, during the sexual liberation age. Before that women often wore more modest clothing due to actual sexist and patriarchal norms. Women too helped perpetuate the norms after being fully indoctrinated in them.
During the liberation age women splurged on more "shocking" (at the times) outfits and trends.
The greedy capitalists reinforced these trends to sell women needless consumer items and set the standard that women must "feel beautiful in themselves" and since then both visually stimulated men and indoctrinated women have helped maintain that state.
At least, that's my own musings.

TL:DR;
I don't find lipstick to be a turn on.

Since I'm a man and more visually excited, if an attractive woman comes up to me I would certainly be much more amenable to their whims and aim to please.

evilthecat:
Have you actually gone through your whole life so far believing that noone has ever looked at you the same way you look at women, or that noone could ever look at any man in that way?

Now, I've expressed my problems with the term "toxic masculinity" on another thread, but if I did want to prove its existence and that it was a real problem that negatively impacted mens' lives.. that right there, my friends. That is pretty toxic.

I have. And I'm not ugly by any means. Though not jaw-droppingly stunning either.
I don't think women in general can be as visually attracted to men as they are to us.
The only times I can bring to mind that same kind of fervor is for incredibly fit and/or famous and rich men.
If women are interested in men in the same way (visually), they certainly don't show it. At all.

Vendor-Lazarus:

If women are interested in men in the same way (visually), they certainly don't show it. At all.

I think that may have something to do with women being discouraged with being sexually active and forward the same way men are. I felt the same way, only to learn that a woman I had known for years had considered me attractive, she had just kept it to herself because I had mentioned to her that I wasn't comfortable with the idea of casual relationships.

aegix drakan:
"Why is it a big deal?" because it makes sense to me via:
a) If I was going to have sex with her, I wanted it to be because she was ready and really wanted it. What the point if you have to nudge and cajole or pressure it out of her? Then it's just gross and guilt-tripped and stuff.

b) If the relationship is satisfying on an emotional, affectionate, and fun level, why the hell would I ditch it because there's no sex? Especially if it means going back to NOT having an emotionally fulfilling relationship for potentially years?

And yet, even though because of those two things, it makes perfect sense to me, everyone who hears the story is STILL shocked and surprised. At that point I had to come to the conclusion that I'm either the one decent man in the history of the world who isn't ruled by his dick, or that something else was going on.

I'm willing to concede that it says more about me than about you. As things are right now for me, I'd see a sexless relationship as an utter waste of my time. I can't meaningfully express intimacy and romantic love - two things I value immensely in life - without sex. Like, sometimes I see opinion pieces that downplay this: "treat relationships like a hobby", "live your life for yourself", "romance sucks, relationship is a contract" etc. Gives me chills.

Moving on, I read again the post you originally replied to and you talked more about the "doing favors" -part than the lipstick. Seems to me that even if both were really into each other, you would take it cool instead of rushing things. I can't fault that. To answer that question: attraction does expose me a little. Personally I've been taken advantage of once due to my horniness (a minor thing a long time ago) and maybe once by a woman I was crushing on. A big maybe on the last one.

erttheking:
some people think so ass backwards about sex that they act like asexual people don't exist.

Haha, well, under normal circumstances... :-^)

OT: The interview with cognitive dissonance lady was pretty cool, I've heard.

erttheking:

Vendor-Lazarus:

If women are interested in men in the same way (visually), they certainly don't show it. At all.

I think that may have something to do with women being discouraged with being sexually active and forward the same way men are. I felt the same way, only to learn that a woman I had known for years had considered me attractive, she had just kept it to herself because I had mentioned to her that I wasn't comfortable with the idea of casual relationships.

I can see how women are less risk-taking as I've previously mentioned in another thread, but I don't think I've seen or heard a single comment that would shame a woman for being attracted to a man. In fact, many men would welcome it!
(In the west obviously, discounting trolls and extremists)

That's too bad to hear that a single mention would cause her to keep it to herself, though not surprising.
Did you have intentions towards her anyway (or changed your mind)? How did you finally find out?
My sympathies to both of you in either case. Missed opportunities are always the most sad and emotionally felt.

I'm a 33 year old virgin myself. My last relationship was in my teens.

Vendor-Lazarus:

erttheking:

Vendor-Lazarus:

If women are interested in men in the same way (visually), they certainly don't show it. At all.

I think that may have something to do with women being discouraged with being sexually active and forward the same way men are. I felt the same way, only to learn that a woman I had known for years had considered me attractive, she had just kept it to herself because I had mentioned to her that I wasn't comfortable with the idea of casual relationships.

I can see how women are less risk-taking as I've previously mentioned in another thread, but I don't think I've seen or heard a single comment that would shame a woman for being attracted to a man. In fact, many men would welcome it!
(In the west obviously, discounting trolls and extremists)

That's too bad to hear that a single mention would cause her to keep it to herself, though not surprising.
Did you have intentions towards her anyway (or changed your mind)? How did you finally find out?
My sympathies to both of you in either case. Missed opportunities are always the most sad and emotionally felt.

I'm a 33 year old virgin myself. My last relationship was in my teens.

Plenty of men? Certainly, but I feel like there's just as many who wouldn't like it. There's a reason this trope is a thing.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoGuyWantsToBeChased

Also slut shaming.

As for that relationship...well it's complicated. Long story short she's an excellent friend but wasn't looking for anything permanent (she describes herself as not very monogamous) and after I finally worked up the courage to mention something, she responded with something that was more or less "Do you have any idea how long I've been waiting for that?" (really skimming the details here, hope you understand) but it ended up going nowhere because she ended up in a more serious relationship and she's promised to be monogamous in this one, even though she'd rather not, and I'm not being a creepy possessive asshole about it and have let the issue drop baring unforeseen circumstances.

Though she and I now happily talk about more dirty subject matter now that we know we're on the same page about a lot of things. We were both mature enough to recognize anything that would?ve happened would?ve been purely physical on top of a strong friendship.

Vendor-Lazarus:

erttheking:

Vendor-Lazarus:

If women are interested in men in the same way (visually), they certainly don't show it. At all.

I think that may have something to do with women being discouraged with being sexually active and forward the same way men are. I felt the same way, only to learn that a woman I had known for years had considered me attractive, she had just kept it to herself because I had mentioned to her that I wasn't comfortable with the idea of casual relationships.

I can see how women are less risk-taking as I've previously mentioned in another thread, but I don't think I've seen or heard a single comment that would shame a woman for being attracted to a man. In fact, many men would welcome it!
(In the west obviously, discounting trolls and extremists)

Hoo, boy. You've never seen a woman called a slut because she shows her attraction towards dudes?

Charmed life.

Accidental post.

trunkage:
Just a quick question for anyone attracted to women. Is lipstick a turn on for you?

Also, if a beautiful person comes up to you, or works under you, do you kowtow to their every whim?

A) I'm really kind of bad at spotting details like that (it once took me, like, a day, to notice a friend had changed the colour of the highlights in their hair) so odds are if I'm noticing lipstick its on someone I'm already attracted to and am paying closer attention to than regular people

B) Pfft, no.

aegix drakan:

McElroy:

aegix drakan:
I'm convinced I must have a lower than usual sex drive -- I was in a committed relationship for 3 years and never had sex with my partner.

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't even trust a guy who says they are committed to a sexless relationship, let alone doing so for three years. So yeah, you are definitely "the wrong guy to ask" as you put it yourself.

The fact that people always make such a big deal about that story is the thing that made me start wondering if I have a lower than normal sex drive, because literally everyone I've told the story to is shocked. Even the people who were like "Wow, you're like, the perfect gentleman!" still expressed it as a statement of shock.

And I'm there like "Why is it a big deal?" because it makes sense to me via:
a) If I was going to have sex with her, I wanted it to be because she was ready and really wanted it. What the point if you have to nudge and cajole or pressure it out of her? Then it's just gross and guilt-tripped and stuff.

b) If the relationship is satisfying on an emotional, affectionate, and fun level, why the hell would I ditch it because there's no sex? Especially if it means going back to NOT having an emotionally fulfilling relationship for potentially years?

And yet, even though because of those two things, it makes perfect sense to me, everyone who hears the story is STILL shocked and surprised. At that point I had to come to the conclusion that I'm either the one decent man in the history of the world who isn't ruled by his dick, or that something else was going on.

Sounds normal to me. I was in a 2 year relationship with someone who had anxiety issues with physical intimacy, so we never did anything more than hugs and kisses. I had no problem with that, because I wanted her not merely the contents of her underwear. I didn't regard it as "oh you were such a gentlemen" I saw it as "this is simply how our relationship is and I'm fine with that".
Purely for anecdotal purposes, I have also dated an asexual but that relationship didn't last long. She tried it for a month but never developed any particularly strong feelings for me so called it quits. We're still friends, she's actually one of my housemates right now as it happens.

I feel like a lot of the problems men face stem from the fact that sex is treated as some great prize that they need to somehow earn or fight for. How many times in film has sex been treated as a reward for something the protagonist has done? So when real life people don't get it they feel like they're losing and thats when the trouble starts

Palindromemordnilap:

I feel like a lot of the problems men face stem from the fact that sex is treated as some great prize that they need to somehow earn or fight for. How many times in film has sex been treated as a reward for something the protagonist has done? So when real life people don't get it they feel like they're losing and thats when the trouble starts

But that seems an accurate reflection of reality. Sexual connection is a deep, core human drive for the majority, so yes, can be seen as a prize, a highly desirable state of life.
You don't get sex if you don't 'deserve' it; ie are able to demonstrate value in some way. You may have value, but unless it's on display, no-one will give you any sexual interest or validation just for existing. Unless you pay them.

In a story, by overcoming the conflict of the narrative the man/woman has demonstrated some traits that the woman/man has found desirable, and as far as the story goes it's two-for-one - everyone wants to be able to prevail as the protaganist against the trials of the world and everyone also wants love, so that gets put in their as well. It's not neccessarily good or complex story-telling but it's very basically appealing and hits the needs of the audience.

Palindromemordnilap:
I feel like a lot of the problems men face stem from the fact that sex is treated as some great prize that they need to somehow earn or fight for. How many times in film has sex been treated as a reward for something the protagonist has done? So when real life people don't get it they feel like they're losing and that's when the trouble starts.

This is completely true, but there seems to be no alternative. Only a rare case accepts celibacy voluntarily (and some other case might become... what was that again... an involuntary... cel-ebrity? :P). We can't all just get a psychoanalysis to get to the root of our person (because it's expensive as hell! not forgetting the time and commitment), and so we focus on simpler things. If we look at statistics, an increasing amount of men are seemingly destined for a life without a partner and I find that disheartening.

erttheking:

Vendor-Lazarus:

If women are interested in men in the same way (visually), they certainly don't show it. At all.

I think that may have something to do with women being discouraged with being sexually active and forward the same way men are.

Yeah, I picked up an article about the willingness of women and men to try match in online dating some years ago. Women were equally unwilling to date men that they rated "low" as the ones they'd rate "average". In the comment section of said article, commenters (presumably women) elaborated that they would do this because the average guy is clingy, likely to start stalking or insulting them if things don't work out - desperate, in other words. It's a bit of a "which was first" -situation. Would average men be less desperate if they had more dates? Would this level of selectiveness stay no matter how rare the bad experiences became (or are they common at all even now)? General pondering, no need to give an answer if you don't want to :-^)

Palindromemordnilap:

I feel like a lot of the problems men face stem from the fact that sex is treated as some great prize that they need to somehow earn or fight for. How many times in film has sex been treated as a reward for something the protagonist has done? So when real life people don't get it they feel like they're losing and thats when the trouble starts

One more reason to not to make "getting the girl" the hero's reward in fiction.

Dr. Thrax:
snip.

erttheking:
snip

Baffle2:
Being sexy (no idea if she was) isn't power unless you're a weak-willed sap with no self-control.

Oh my. You all seem so out of touch with reality. Never in the military service? If power is the ability to get people to do things for you, you are simply blotting out reality if you do not think a beautiful woman cannot get a man to eat a steaming pile of crap for her.
As to lipstick, JD says it creates a sexual allure, that the woman looks aroused.
Some warriors wore war paint to appear fearsome.
Clowns wear makeup to look funny and make people laugh.
I cannot imagine the purpose of lipstick other than it creates sexual allure and gives power to women.
And when you take it away,

example

And don't get me started on banning high heels.

Gorfias:

Dr. Thrax:
snip.

erttheking:
snip

Baffle2:
Being sexy (no idea if she was) isn't power unless you're a weak-willed sap with no self-control.

Oh my. You all seem so out of touch with reality.

Yeah, I've really got the time and patience to put up this brand of crap. I'm sorry that you think so poorly of men that you think we're all slaves to our dicks, but kindly don't implied I share in that imaginary weak will.

And you're still not an authority on lipstick

Gorfias:

Dr. Thrax:
snip.

erttheking:
snip

Baffle2:
Being sexy (no idea if she was) isn't power unless you're a weak-willed sap with no self-control.

Oh my. You all seem so out of touch with reality. Never in the military service? If power is the ability to get people to do things for you, you are simply blotting out reality if you do not think a beautiful woman cannot get a man to eat a steaming pile of crap for her.
As to lipstick, JD says it creates a sexual allure, that the woman looks aroused.
Some warriors wore war paint to appear fearsome.
Clowns wear makeup to look funny and make people laugh.
I cannot imagine the purpose of lipstick other than it creates sexual allure and gives power to women.
And when you take it away,

example

And don't get me started on banning high heels.

I'm sorry that you have such a low esteem of yourself and your ability to keep your dick in your pants. Could you kindly not project said failings onto the rest of us men? Feel free to insult the yourself all you want, but all other men don't have the issues you perceive yourself to have.

It's very telling how the set of Peterson's followers and like-minded believers very heavily overlaps with the set of lonely, frustrated, and generally nerdy young men who lack social skills. The MRA "philosophy" simply takes the inadequacies and self-hatred of that group and puts the blame on everyone but themselves; it also assumes that the rest of us men are as stuck in self-pity and low self-esteem as its proponents.

I said it above with several examples. There is no group that thinks less of men as a gender than self-proclaimed MRAs.

erttheking:

I?m sorry that you think so poorly of men that you think we?re all slaves to our dicks, but kindly don?t implied I share in that imaginary weak will.

And you?re still not an authority on lipstick

And you are? You have a plausible explanation for it, and high heels besides the alluring impact they have on men? I doubt you have a credible response.

More below.

Avnger:

I'm sorry that you have such a low esteem of yourself and your ability to keep your dick in your pants.

That is JD and my point: I do keep my dick in my pants. And I don't read Penthouse during my lunch breaks, even if it is behind a closed door. And I don't have desktop wallpaper that women find find offensive as it might celebrate female beauty that is not their own. And I police the words I use, particularly if a female coworker says she is triggered by the word, "tickle".

I live in an increasingly hostile environment where I cannot be myself. I have to fear a series of events that could lead to my death if I don't use the terms "zee" or "zur" when demanded. But I persevere. That is what men do.

This has all begged the question: If you want a sterile environment (and I do not but I count less and less)wearing lipstick is an affront to this goal. Yet people on this thread appear to be scandalized that if that is the goal, there are things women have to do as well. This is the sort of Gynocentric thinking the MRAs are against. Injustice. And the fight against not only the radical feminists but manginas, cucks and white nights makes that fight all the harder.

Gorfias:

As to lipstick, JD says it creates a sexual allure, that the woman looks aroused.
Some warriors wore war paint to appear fearsome.
Clowns wear makeup to look funny and make people laugh.
I cannot imagine the purpose of lipstick other than it creates sexual allure and gives power to women.

Lipstick's only fucking purpose is to change your goddamn lip color. You are effectively applying a specific intent to all women who wear makeup regardless of if that's their actual intent or not and you need to fucking stop, because you're dead wrong. Lipstick can be used to attract other people, but that's not its sole fucking purpose and it's outright disgusting that you're applying a predatory meaning to something so trivial as lipstick. Guess what?
Clowns wear makeup to get in character, warriors wear paint to intimidate, women wear lipstick because they bloody well want to and they think it looks good on them.

Gorfias:
This has all begged the question: If you want a sterile environment

Only people like Jordan Peterson and other MRAs are proposing things like "sterile" work environments.

wearing lipstick is an affront to this goal. Yet people on this thread appear to be scandalized that if that is the goal, there are things women have to do as well. This is the sort of Gynocentric thinking the MRAs are against. Injustice. And the fight against not only the radical feminists but manginas, cucks and white nights makes that fight all the harder.

The problem, of course, is that for such a "sterilization" of a work environment to happen the work must be done primarily by women. All men would have to do is stop wearing colognes and scented deodorants. For women it would be a complete wardrobe change, no makeup, no perfume, no scented shampoos/conditioners, a change in how she carries herself and her posture.

Nothing like this is ever presented in a way that's meant to be "equal", it's always presented as a way to control women. That's why people are pissed. Because it's just a thinly veiled excuse to control what women are allowed to do because some whiny pissbabies can't live with the fact that women are allowed to goddamn feel pretty.

Gorfias:
manginas, cucks and white knights makes that fight all the harder.

What do those three words even mean anymore?

Gorfias:

And you are? You have a plausible explanation for it, and high heels besides the alluring impact they have on men? I doubt you have a credible response.

More below.

No, I just said that your overwhelming, absolute claim was horseshit. Because it is. A professional look. Shock of all shocks, the entire female fashion industry doesn't exist to appease men, I know this must blow your mind.

And I notice that you ducked how I take issue with the idea that women can control men. Because I respect men too much for the implication that a pretty face can cause all common sense to leave a man.

Also, events that lead to your FUCKING DEATH!? You are officially not describing actual events anymore, you've moved into the realm of fantasy and you are talking about things that aren't going to happen, period.

And did you honestly just use the word cuck unironically? Oh goodie. That's where this discussion is going. And Manginas, dude, what the fuck are you trying to accomplish here? Because it looks like you're spitting on anyone who doesn't meet your definition of masculinity. So question. Is anyone here one of those pathetic words? I'm curious.

Smithnikov:

Gorfias:
manginas, cucks and white knights makes that fight all the harder.

What do those three words even mean anymore?

Person who I don't like and isn't a "real man." Basically, anyone who tries to avoid the male disease that George Carlin talked about.

Gorfias:

Dr. Thrax:
snip.

erttheking:
snip

Baffle2:
Being sexy (no idea if she was) isn't power unless you're a weak-willed sap with no self-control.

Oh my. You all seem so out of touch with reality. Never in the military service? If power is the ability to get people to do things for you, you are simply blotting out reality if you do not think a beautiful woman cannot get a man to eat a steaming pile of crap for her.
As to lipstick, JD says it creates a sexual allure, that the woman looks aroused.
Some warriors wore war paint to appear fearsome.
Clowns wear makeup to look funny and make people laugh.
I cannot imagine the purpose of lipstick other than it creates sexual allure and gives power to women.
And when you take it away,

example

And don't get me started on banning high heels.

looking at the thumbnail, I don't see how the lipstick or makeup makes any difference. She doesn't look any better.

But you've missed the point. Even if she does look better, that doesn't mean you should listen to her blindly. Also, "gives power to women." I didn't know them having power was a bad thing

Vendor-Lazarus:

trunkage:
Just a quick question for anyone attracted to women. Is lipstick a turn on for you?

Also, if a beautiful person comes up to you, or works under you, do you kowtow to their every whim?

I might be the wrong person to ask/answer, because I find make-up unnecessary. I don't find beautiful women attractive. I'm attracted to cute and natural women. However, make-up together with clothes does accentuate the female body and it's sexual and/or (usually) attractive qualities, like lips, eyes, smooth skin, cleavage, midriff, legs, etc.
Men are much more visually stimulated than women.

I think that's where it started from, during the sexual liberation age. Before that women often wore more modest clothing due to actual sexist and patriarchal norms. Women too helped perpetuate the norms after being fully indoctrinated in them.
During the liberation age women splurged on more "shocking" (at the times) outfits and trends.
The greedy capitalists reinforced these trends to sell women needless consumer items and set the standard that women must "feel beautiful in themselves" and since then both visually stimulated men and indoctrinated women have helped maintain that state.
At least, that's my own musings.

TL:DR;
I don't find lipstick to be a turn on.

Since I'm a man and more visually excited, if an attractive woman comes up to me I would certainly be much more amenable to their whims and aim to please.

evilthecat:
Have you actually gone through your whole life so far believing that noone has ever looked at you the same way you look at women, or that noone could ever look at any man in that way?

Now, I've expressed my problems with the term "toxic masculinity" on another thread, but if I did want to prove its existence and that it was a real problem that negatively impacted mens' lives.. that right there, my friends. That is pretty toxic.

I have. And I'm not ugly by any means. Though not jaw-droppingly stunning either.
I don't think women in general can be as visually attracted to men as they are to us.
The only times I can bring to mind that same kind of fervor is for incredibly fit and/or famous and rich men.
If women are interested in men in the same way (visually), they certainly don't show it. At all.

Yeah, even when my partner wears make up, it's not something that really attracts me more. But then I might be at maximum attraction so... As to women saying men are attractive, I've actually had a lot of that. But even during school I had a lot of friends who happened to be female. I was also lucky that most of my partners were the ones who initiated conversation/ relationships. I find talking to females no different than males, so perhaps that makes it easy for them to talk to me. I've also tried my best not to just make things about physical stuff as well. But then I'm attracted to intellect as well as physical.

I would disagree with the "visually attracted to me." When I was younger, I used to sit with a woman, who I was not interested in, at the shopping centre. We'd peer over a balcony, pointing out what person we thought was hot and why. I would say that some men have the urge to say it (I.e. Wolf whistle etc.) and this is seen as a negative by women so they wouldn't see that approach as viable. There are context when talking about someone's beauty is appropriate. Wolf whistling is probably not one of those

Avnger:
Based on their arguments and actions, there is no group in the world that thinks less of men than self-proclaimed MRAs.

He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man, I guess.

If you treat men like they're disgusting animals or abject losers, then there is no responsibility inherent on men to be anything better, and the MRA definition of "rights" revolves around the ability to avoid responsibility.

If a radical feminist came out and described men as "by nature oppressive, possessive, flesh-obsessed pigs", it would be taken as the height of misandry. When conservative evolutionary psychologist Robert Wright describes men in exactly those terms, MRAs applaud him for recognising the authentic truth about male nature. The difference is that Wright is claiming men can't help being pigs, and that we need to tolerate their oppressive, possessive behaviour because, at the end of the day, they're just men and they can't control themselves.

Gorfias:
Oh my. You all seem so out of touch with reality. Never in the military service? If power is the ability to get people to do things for you, you are simply blotting out reality if you do not think a beautiful woman cannot get a man to eat a steaming pile of crap for her.

I think the subtext here continues to be way more interesting than the text.

If power is the ability to get people to do things for you, then how are men able to be in a position where they can do things for women? Like, did men all have to go put on lipstick and suck off a bunch of other dudes to get that power?

Because if so, why haven't I ascended to the top of the lobster hierarchy yet? I bet I've sucked way more dicks than most billionaires and certainly more than most lobsters.

Gorfias:
As to lipstick, JD says it creates a sexual allure, that the woman looks aroused.
Some warriors wore war paint to appear fearsome.
Clowns wear makeup to look funny and make people laugh.
I cannot imagine the purpose of lipstick other than it creates sexual allure and gives power to women.

I'm going to point out something that's going to blow your little heterosexual mind.

Men can wear lipstick

Women will not stop you from wearing lipstick. In fact, my experience is that a lot of women are actually kind of into it. Try it, it's fun.

We live in a culture which has historically frowned upon male adornment, but that's because we live in a culture in which adornment itself, having to style and present yourself as a sexually desirable object, is seen as a shameful, emasculating and weak position. This isn't because women hoarded and monopolised the lipstick to hang onto their power. If you go out wearing lipstick, then I will make a bet with you that if someone gets in your face about it, that person will be a straight man. Men do this because they feel superior to people who have to adorn themselves. They way they will treat you as a man in lipstick expresses the way they actually feel about women.

Now of course, wearing lipstick is quite feminine in our society, and maybe you don't want to look that feminine because it might look like you're trying to be attractive to men (as mentioned, I think that's overstated, for me looking femme has always been a guaranteed source of attention from women). But there are plenty of ways to enhance masculine beauty. Of course, to make use of those you first have to admit to yourself that masculine beauty exists..

This thread is on the verge of becoming too toxic. Please remember to treat each other with respect. The discussion is good, the tone is not.

Gorfias:

I live in an increasingly hostile environment where I cannot be myself. I have to fear a series of events that could lead to my death if I don't use the terms "zee" or "zur" when demanded. But I persevere. That is what men do.

No, you don't. You really really don't.

You are being blatantly hyperbolic here. Number of people killed cause they do not use 'zee or zur', I am going to say hm, 0.

Now want to talk about people killed for being trans?

Here is just wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people

Found nothing about stats for people killed for not saying zee though.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked