>From a discussion of feminist men on the perversely misnamed NiceGuy’s MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) forum. (Requires registration, so here’s a screencap.) There is so much wrongness packed into this brief comment; it’s really quite impressive.
Posted on November 16, 2010, in antifeminism, discussion of the day, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, western women suck. Bookmark the permalink. 77 Comments.
Misogyny. I mock it.
I find a lot of it in what's called the "manosphere," a loose collection of Men's Rights, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), and Pickup Artist (PUA) sites.
TRIGGER WARNING: I quote some pretty extreme stuff here; also, the comments section is pretty much unfiltered, so be prepared.
Contact me by clicking my head, above, or at futrelle [at] well.com
Enjoy!
David Futrelle
 | Cloudiah on Devastating new “fly… |
 | Quackers on Devastating new “fly… |
 | zhinxy on The Case for Chivalry (Note: I… |
 | Joanna on Devastating new “fly… |
 | BigMomma on Devastating new “fly… |
 | Rutee Katreya on Devastating new “fly… |
 | Kendra, the bionic m… on Devastating new “fly… |
 | Ami Angelwings on Devastating new “fly… |
| Ami Angelwings on Devastating new “fly… |
| Kendra, the bionic m… on Devastating new “fly… |
>And on the subject of absurd interpretations, because some may have misunderstood Yohan's meaning in his maybe/maybe not ambiguous statement and are reacting to that, Yohan has jumped to the conclusion that those who are questioning his statement, the statement that I tried to point out what was ambiguous about it, are telling him that men need permission/consent from a woman for them to say "NO" to her. This is what Yohan says in response to those who are questioning that issue of "implied consent":"Do you really think I need the consent from a woman, when I say NO to her?Are you crazy?Do you think, I am the fuck-machine for any woman crossing my way? Available on request by any psycho-girl?If you really insist consent must be given from the woman to allow a man to say NO to her, you are plainly stupid and any discussion with you is on the brink of idiotism."Talk about absurd!!!
>"You are an apologist for those accusing fingers, seeking to justify them (and thereby aligning yourself with them) even as you simultaneously feign righteous indignation because I have called you on it."Whatever flips your switch, John.
>This thread shows clearly the malicious intention of feminists. - Absurd interpretation by deliberating twisting my words around, cutting entire sentences out of context.It is very clear to me, that feminists must hate MRAs. They hate the advice from MRAs given to men.And what is the advice from MRAs? What am I telling to men since many years which makes feminists so angry?I say it again, to make it clear again:Men, go your own way. It's all about PREVENTION.Stay away from women offering you sex for one-night stands, stay away from bars and parties which are always with alcohol and drugs.Do not socialize with these people.You cannot trust them.Say NO!If you say NO to all these women around you, you need not to think about consent from them. Might be feminists will use shaming language against you (see this thread and comments against me) if you reject them, but why should you care?There is no law, which says you must ask for consent from a woman to say NO to her.MRAs recommend men to use their time and money for something else - don't waste your money for sex with girls, better buy a motorcycle or car, pay off your house loan or save your money for YOUR future. That's the safe way to go for all men.
> Pam said… **headDESK**If a man does not heed Yohan's advice and he invites a woman to his private rooms, are we to understand that it is implicit in his merely inviting her to his private rooms that he is also asking her to have sex (that being intercourse) with him? THAT is what is ambiguous in Yohan's statement.If men are not doing what MRAs (Yohan)are advising them, it's their risk. We cannot help these men.Feminists cannot blame the MRAs for that.I answered about this situation already in this thread, I clearly said, if a man is going ahead and brings a drunk woman who says YES into his private rooms, that such consent cannot be trusted.Such consent can be recalled, even days later.YES means sometimes NO, and how can a drunk man decide what is right and wrong while together with a drunk woman.I said many times, the best (and only!) way to avoid such troubles for a man, is PREVENTION.Say NO, even if she says YES.I said, don't bring bargirls etc. to your private rooms, don't visit such bars, parties…Do not socialize with these women.Of course feminists do not want to hear this.But to say to stay away from such women and to say NO makes me a rape apologist?—-Even UK judges disagree on this question and sometimes keep the drunk woman also responsible for her behavior.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444804/Its-rape-woman-drunk-says-judge.htmlWoman cannot claim rape just because she was drunk, a top judge declared yesterday.
>There is a big difference between two people equally drunk (and therefore equally guilty in regards to sex with an intoxicated person) and raping someone you know is too drunk to say no, or purposefully getting someone drunk because you do not think they would otherwise consent. It actually isn't too hard to figure these things out. Would you let this person who had been drinking drive your car, keep an eye on your wallet, etc.? If someone is too drunk to be trusted with a car, they are too drunk to give free consent. Also, unconscious people are not consenting, ever. "She said her next memory was waking up to find Mr Bree having sex with her." If someone is passed out, they are too drunk to consent. If someone is "'continually throwing up'", they are too drunk to consent. Honestly, I have Aspergers and I can tell when these people are drunk off their asses, but, if you are incapable of telling when someone else is drunk, it probably is a good idea for you not to have sex with people who have been drinking, but not because they are wicked or liars, but because you do not have the requisite social skills for such an interaction. Also, if you can't figure out that people can't consent when not awake or when unconscious, it is best for everyone that you not try to have sex with other people.
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444804/Its-rape-woman-drunk-says-judge.htmlText from this link: A woman who is very drunk may still be capable of agreeing to sex, they said.They quashed the conviction of software engineer Benjamin Bree, 25, jailed for five years in December after a drunken evening with a 19-year-old student.The girl drank between four and six vodka Red Bulls and two pints of cider and Mr Bree was also drinking heavily.In this case in UK, both were drunk. It's about both sides accepting responsibility for their actions.For these top judges (2 of them women) it seems it is difficult to accept it as a rule, why a woman heavily drinking cannot be held responsible for her actions. Why is only the man responsible, despite he was drunk too?There are clearly different opinions and different laws about this complicated matter, how consent is given and how not. Even by top judges.Sorry, but I am not one of the top Judges of UK.I am only one of many MRAs worldwide.My advice: Don't socialize with these bargirls and otherwise drunk women. Best for you, don't drink too much and reject them all, even not willing to try. Ordinary men cannot carry out a deep legal study and decide what is consent and what not if they meet accidentally a woman. -Conclusion: Too risky. Say NO to her!http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444805/Graduates-double-sentence.htmlDon't have sex with an unknown woman and this man learnt his lesson, hopefully.His picture is everywhere in the news and the woman who was accusing him enjoys lifelong anonymity.For sure he does not hate women however, as his girlfriend and his mother is still on his side, according to this report.
>DarkSideCat said… There is a big difference between two people equally drunk (and therefore equally guilty in regards to sex with an intoxicated person) and raping someone you know is too drunk to say no, or purposefully getting someone drunk because you do not think they would otherwise consent. Actually, this is not exactly true, because whatever is happen, drunk or sober, ONLY the man will face prosecution. Under any circumstances.Again, say NO, no unknown girls into your private rooms.http://www.thelocal.se/24244/20100107/Even in a bizarre case like that, these women were NOT charged for theft and false rape allegation. Charged was the man for buying sex.Feminism makes it possible.