Sabotaging Slutwalk, Like A Man

After the strong interest shown in my “The Nobility of Slut Shaming” article, which was literally getting more than a 1,000 views per day at one point, I felt it was only right to do a follow up article on the question of ‘what is rape’ and ‘what is the principal (immature) female’s strategy for romantic relationships?’   The reason why I’m doing this is because next week is Melbourne Slutwalk 2012 and I bet it’s going to be a fizzer.  If you haven’t heard, feminism is dead and the Men’s Right’s Movement is the future, thus this article is one for the boys to educate them about women and about their own weaknesses.  Also, a quick disclaimer, the female behaviour I am describing here is not found in all women, just the women who are ruled by their most primitive instincts.  Well educated and intelligent women of course behave far better than this, it’s a pity we don’t educate women these days like we used to.

Rape is not a crime of power.  Nor is it simply a case of assault.  Rape is a crime of theft.

Relationships are often viewed in terms of feelings; him liking her and her liking him.  This is a very male-centric view of relationships.  It’s sentimental, over-emotional and frankly, quite delusional: in other words, typical of the adolescent male mentality.  Yes, teenage boys are pretty witless.  Meanwhile the teenage girls have a view that is actually quite superior in terms of sobriety.  When it comes to relationships women are the practical ones, while the men are the hopeless romantics.  What men tend to fail to grasp, and what women don’t want men to grasp, is that relationships are all about economics, not about romance.   Male ignorance about relationships strengthens woman’s power over men.

Understanding this requires that one starts to take an honest and objective viewpoint on their relationships.  Different people have different goods and services that they can trade with each other.  Some people are good at building things, others are good at healing, cooking, gathering, child-rearing, counselling, decision-making, fucking and baby-making.  These days we have money that we use in exchange for goods and services with people that we’re not friends or related to directly.  However, we still use a barter system when it comes to romance, except in the case of prostitution paid with money.  For example, a friendship isn’t just two people who like each other.  Rather friendship is an insurance policy made between two people to look out for each other both physically and emotionally in the case that the grass isn’t greener over the next hill.  Essentially, for a friendship we trade some of our goods and services with another person in exchange for security both emotionally and physically.  It’s an economic transaction once we move past the sentimentality.

When it comes to romantic relationships things get more complicated.  Men and women are essentially different.  Men are better equipped for working than women are, while women are better equipped for reproduction than men are.  I think of it as “men dominate the means of production, while women dominate the means of reproduction.”  This specialisation of the sexes into different roles is a brilliant strategy of nature to make humans the most successful species on this planet.  Consider how much more productive a specialist is than a generalist in any occupation.  Specialists are priceless essentially while generalists can be easily replaced.  If you want to have a good market value for your skills and abilities, you want to be a specialist in a field people have a demand for.

When a man and woman decide that they want to start a family the man realises that he can only contribute a small amount to making the children: his sperm.  So he often accepts that he has to provide additional materials and security services to the relationship than the woman has to.  The typical man realises the best things he can offer are productivity, wisdom, protection and strength of character.  The typical woman quickly realises that her body is far more valuable than anything she can do with her hands.  She can offer sex (which the man craves to an irrational degree, there’s a big demand for this from men), the incubation of children and milk to nurse those children with.

So the woman sets down to marketing her body as best she can.  She decorates her body and advertises it in public for the buyers (the men) to see.  She then very cleverly hides her willingness to sell her body by either feeling (by evolutionary design) or pretending to feel disdain and displeasure at the attention she attracts from men.  Have you ever noticed the scowl attractive women often have?  Like all good sellers, a woman knows that if the buyer thinks the seller doesn’t want to sell their goods then the buyer will offer more for it, thus increasing the seller’s profit.  Consider just how much time and money women spend on their appearance.  These are the actions of a person who knows their market and the goods they are trying to sell.   Also, if a woman gives you hard time about how much time you spend playing computer games, remind her how much time she spends looking in the mirror and putting on clothes!

Women essentially want to get as many men as possible interested in their sexual wares, then choose the best offer from amongst the men to sell her sexual assets to.  If she’s diabolically clever she’ll insist on secrecy in the transaction so she can continue marketing her body in the hopes of getting an even better offer from another man, or in the case of polyamory, she can sell her sexual assets to several men at once and collect materials and services from several men at once.  All of these dishonest selling techniques greatly increase her chances of reproducing in the wild, but not in the age of birth control.  In the age of birth control she’ll live a very comfortable life, but she won’t be nearly as successful as her ancestors were at reproducing.  But that’s a whole other topic.

This is where rape comes in.  What if a buyer decides to just steal the goods and services?  In this case, what if a man just forces himself onto a woman and fucks her?  That would be taking services without paying and we call this ‘theft’, except when it’s done to women then we give it a special name: rape.  Which is essentially theft plus assault.  Now I’m totally against rape, for the same reason that I’m against theft and assault: it’s unjust, destructive and dishonourable.  Personally, I think rape against men is also theft and assault, but because men can’t have babies, I suspect many people only see the assault part, if it’s violent, and not the theft part when it’s not so obviously violent.  Hence men’s rape is not as serious a crime to most people.

Men generally think of rape as being violent assault, but women don’t see it as being that simple.  For a woman, she can consent to have sex with a man, but if he doesn’t call her back the following day she could change her mind and call it rape.  She withdraws consent after the event.  What’s her rationale for this position?  Well in the woman’s mind she sold her body to this man, but when he didn’t stay around to nurture and pamper her, then in her mind he effectively ran out of the shop without paying.  That’s theft to her, and as we established that’s what rape really comes down to.  However, if women don’t openly state that sex with them is part of a business transaction, is this a fair demand?

Clearly, there’s a massive divide in understanding between men and women on this topic.  However, far from introducing reason, logic and understanding into this topic, the feminists have ranted and whinged about men being congenital arseholes incoherently.  Now the Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) are getting involved that’s starting to change.  For starters, this dynamic in sexual relationships was first explained to me by a man, Warren Farrell in his book “The Myth of Male Power”, secondly the only advice I’ve received on what to do to avoid this situation is from MRAs and that is to make it clear before having sex with a woman that you’re only thinking ahead to having a one-night stand.  Unless she’s prepared to offer me something to make it worthwhile coming back again.  Things like: affection, understanding, care, love and honour.  If she wants me to provide her with money and security, then she’s going to have to either give me a baby or provide an equal amount of money and security as I contribute to her.

All of this is obvious to most women.  However, men don’t get it.  Men are easily distracted by delusions of romance and love ever after.  They don’t understand that as soon as they stop providing goods and services to the woman, she’s going to cut him loose because he is no longer supplying his end of the bargain ‘they’ made.  Sadly, men are usually so dense on this topic they don’t even realise they made a bargain with their woman “friend” in the first place.  In fact, they don’t understand why women will often gladly throw them out onto the street for a man who is better at providing goods and services to her.  The typical woman is not a romantic, she’s a businesswoman trying to get the best deal for her natural resources as she can.  If she wants sex she can fuck any man she wants to because young men can’t stop themselves and they sell themselves short.  A man’s desperate desire to have sex with women is what enslaves him like a puppy-dog to them.  A man is woman’s best friend in the same way a dog is to a man.  No offence towards dogs intended.

Interestingly, if men are able to free themselves from their irrational and hormone driven attachment to romanticism in sexual relationships, they soon realise that they can take steps to swing the odds back in their favour.  Because women are seller’s in this market, they face stiff competition from other women, especially more attractive women whom they see as rivals and co-conspirators.   Women have this uneasy relationship with each other, as a class of people, they are all sellers, so they share some common interests with each other: they’re anti-theft and consequently pro rule of law.  So they mostly support men who are anti-theft and lawful, thus most men today are anti-theft and lawful.  This means most men aren’t rapists by nature because women don’t want to allow rapists to reproduce.  This also means if any other woman is getting a raw deal, all the other women have a vested interest in coming to her aid and ganging up on this pushy buyer.   It’s about protecting their market cartel-style.

However, women are essentially business rivals with each other, making female-female friendships tense during their most fertile years.  If some women decide to sell their goods and services cheaply, whores for example, then the profits of the other women are being reduced.  Therefore, to protect their markets women have a strong interest in vilifying whores and thus maintaining the high value of their prudish wares.  However, slut feminism, by promoting slutty behaviour amongst women, has drastically reduced the price of pussy.  This was only possible in a post-contraception era, because the women would have gone hysterical at the women giving away babies so cheaply in the past, but now we have contraception they can still sell baby production at a reasonably high price.

How does this help men?  Firstly, it’s very easy to get laid these days.  Remind women of this fact often, refuse to buy quickly and the price of even beautiful women will come down.  Also, women do want to have sex too, some of them want it really badly, but unlike men, women have to be smart in how they market it so they put more thought in before they sell access to their bodies to men.  If men simply stop, think about relationships in economic terms instead of lovey-dovey romantic terms, they’ll be more inclined to close their legs and negotiate the price down in their favour just as smart women have done too.  Also, women want men to compete with each other, the more men compete for them, the higher the price they can demand for their goods and services.  For this reason women love to make men feel jealous, jealousy makes women feel more valuable because it makes their sex more expensive to purchase.   If you realise this, stop yourself from succumbing to jealousy, and this woman suddenly finds herself in an unfamiliar position: buyer of your goods and services as a man instead of a seller of hers.   Don’t compete with other men, and she’ll be forced to lower her asking price.

Finally, under no circumstances have sex with a woman without first making it clear that you’re not making a commitment with her.  Women do business by the unwritten and unspoken contract, again because it gives them a stronger position to rewrite the terms of the agreement (the relationship) without notice, it’s deceptive and underhanded and needs to be called out as bullshit.   If you don’t do this, you’re in danger of being accused of rape.   I don’t care if she says it isn’t romantic, she’s not a romantic, she’s a businesswoman and the more honourable she is, the more readily she will admit this.

Keep in mind that women are also very savvy advertisers of their goods.  They will insist that men change the way they talk about sex in case it allegedly hurts their feelings.  Changing words used to describe sexual intercourse from the perfectly appropriate English word, “fucking” to “love-making” for example is simply advertising speak used to trick a naïve buyer into thinking they’re purchasing a better quality product than a generic brand.  A word of advice men, the generic brands are just as good (or bad) as the high-end ones.  Consider that the emphasis is on men to pleasure women, not on women to pleasure men, you’re probably better off with a prostitute than with a model if you just want sexual gratification.

Another curious term of derision is that there doesn’t seem to be a polite word for a prostitute in the female vocabulary.  The word ‘prostitute’ is value neutral to my ears, but I’ve since learned that many women react almost violently when I make the observation that women’s survival strategy has been essentially one of prostitution, even though science is uncovering more examples of female prostitution in the animal kingdom all the time.  Prostitution is simply doing what most women have done since the dawn of time and we know this because when currency and barter are introduced to chimpanzees the first thing the male chimps do is buy sexual favours off the female chimps.  Prostitution is the oldest profession and one almost every woman is familiar with instinctively.  So why do women rubbish any words used to describe a prostitute?  I suspect it’s because such information might inform the buyers (the men) that they’re being screwed over by the sellers (the women).  So it’s in the best interests of women to keep men ignorant and full of sentimental delusions about romance lest they realise how much women are actually profiting from selling their sexuality to them at an extortionately marked-up price.  A society that casually refers to women as prostitutes is a society where men are at least equal to women in dating education.

Having children is not necessarily a smart move for a woman, she might think that giving men children will insure her protection and care from a man, an anchor baby so to speak. But it also means she’s a used car and cannot sell herself as well as she could before she had children.  So it’s not in a woman’s best interests when she’s young to have children.  However, a counter weight to this pressure to not have children is that a woman’s body is most valuable when she’s at her most fertile period of her life: between 18 and 25.  Not surprisingly when she’s also most likely to be raped.  By the time she’s 30 her market value has dropped considerably.  By the time she’s 40 she’s not worth a glance from most men.  Basically, if a woman hasn’t sold her sexual assets wisely before the age of 30, she’s in serious trouble.  When feminists tell women to go out and get a job and put kids off until later, they’re sabotaging women from getting to best deal they could possibly get.  A deal they can only fairly bargain for when in their sexual prime.  Right now we have an entire generation of women in their 30s who will not have children because the men have accepted better offers from younger women.  It sucks to be a feminist woman in your 30s or older right now.

Meanwhile for the men the situation is in reverse.  18-25 year old men aren’t very impressive.  However, 30-35 year old men are at the peek of their sexual power.  They’ve typically established themselves in a career, they’ve strengthened themselves against the reality of the world, they’re wiser than most 18-25 year old women and the women are more likely to have the humility to admit that yes, a man 5-10 years older than them knows far more about life than they do.  See women don’t care so much for attractive men, they want a man who can protect and look after her, not a clingy, dependent but good-looking type that men often seek out.   If women dealt with men 5-10 years older than them in relationships, they would be dealing with a man far more equal to them in negotiating power.  A contest between two 20 year olds will leave the woman in the dominate position almost every time, between two 30 year olds and the man will have far more cards in his favour: independence, wealth, confidence and life-experience.

Also, the best thing about having a family at 18-25 is that a woman can complete higher education from home while looking after the kids and at age 35-40 still have 30 years to direct towards a career with the benefit of being guided by a wiser and more reliable man until that time.  Monogamy, early marriage with an older wiser man is really the best compromise and deal for men and women.  When feminists turned this down to demand for a better offer, they unwittingly ended up destroying the very market regulators that was giving most women the most benefits possible for the least amount of work.  Now women have to work like slaves for men who have no clue who they are and what they want (because men have to think like women instead of men now and worry about all their ‘fweelings’) and the women wonder why they’re so miserable.

Women also have a need to be the centre of attention (to advertise themselves) but also a desperate desire not to be seen to do so directly (to avoid the whore label which will bring in other women against them who don’t want their selling price undercut by an inferior product).  This need for attention is an unrealistic demand to put on a man but will lead women to excessively pout, whinge, complain, belly ache, cheat, develop an eating disorder and act helpless:  all for attention.  In my point of view, women are the ultimate objectifiers of themselves.  They don’t care how they get the attention, so long as they get it because if the men are looking at their body that might convince them to want to buy it and take responsibility for it.  Hence women will refuse to own their actions.  They’ll claim men force them to behave this way and that without men they wouldn’t do these things.  Which is almost true, women do these attention seeking things to attract the chivalrous attention of men, but also without men, women couldn’t sell their sex, they would have to earn their keep through labouring like men do.   Like women used to do and like mature (non-feminist) women do today.  See, mature, independent women don’t engage in this race to be the best prostitute, they make and shape their own destiny on their own terms, they own their lives and their decisions.

Another point a female reviewer of the draft of this article brought up (and yes, I do have female friends) is that she’s always been despised by most women because she refuses to sell her body to men in exchange for their goods and services and instead strives to have a balanced contribution of work in the relationship.  She suspects now that she’s alienated most women because she’s threatening their profits by striking such a deal and they’ve reacted instinctively to distance her from their markets.  After all, they don’t want her telling their customers that they could do better!  Does this sound familiar to many women?

Concluding, by now you should be aware that we have two types of rape here:  Rape through violence which is essentially theft and assault, and rape by not giving a woman enough in exchange for the “honour” of her company and sexual wares.  The first type of rape should be handled as a crime of both theft and violent assault, while the second one should be punished with a slap on the wrist and a stern talking to from a man who understands all this and respects women.  She also needs a stern talking to from a woman who respects and understands men.  This second version of rape is as much the fault of the woman who didn’t negotiate honestly and openly with the man in question about the conditions of their sleeping together.

I understand this kind of dry economic view of relationships is going to jolt a lot of men and women for different reasons, but if you observe the behaviour of women around you will notice their behaviour often suggests they are aware of these dynamics in relationships.  However, I rarely see a man who gets this economic perspective on relationships, rather, I see men deliberately deluding themselves or in denial of this simple reality of life: relationships of all types are economic transactions, not simply about mutual feelings of affection.  I’m not saying that women could articulate clearly why they behave this way in an economic perspective, but they know it instinctively enough to manipulate and control men without men realising that women have most of the power in romantic relationships.

So men, smarten up, open up your eyes, remove the Disney glasses and take a sober and rational look at relationships with women.  It might seem less magical, but it will be far less painful and more rewarding if you guide yourself through a relationship with your head rather than with your penis.  If you invest wisely in your career, your skills and your values you will get the most out of your relationships with women, but if you sell yourself short all the time, don’t complain to me that you married a demanding, controlling and insatiable entitlement princess.  Don’t listen to the feminists, listen to your head, value yourself and earn for yourself the future you deserve.  By thinking and acting smart we can close this shameful chapter of our recent history: slutwalk.  Remember, if you’re stupid enough to pay for sex, you don’t deserve your money in the first place.  Also, if you disagree with anything here, and you have a logical and intelligent point, I’ll listen to you, but if you’re just going to cry and whinge, I’ll ignore you at best and mock you at worst.  You have been warned.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Beliefs, Morals, Business, Events, Gender issues

Author:Jason Sutherland

Resist the temptation to assume that you're always right or wrong. Never succumb to thinking you're so insignificant to trust your own thoughts and feelings. Always be responsible and listen carefully to others before passing judgement. Don't trust governments bearing stolen goods.

Subscribe to Intentious

Be notified by email whenever new pieces are posted by the blogging team tackling controversial current events or issues.

95 Comments on “Sabotaging Slutwalk, Like A Man”

  1. August 27, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

    she’s not a romantic, she’s a businesswoman.

    I think the problem of this article is that, while rational, it does not examine the emotional reasons why people get together, and turns everything we do into a transaction. It’s true that there is a “transaction consideration” for many friendships and relationships to decide their stability and value, but that’s at a lower level than the emotional- and even spiritual- connection, a euphoria that transcends reducing everyone to a walking calculator. Because many transactions that are “good on paper” are terrible in real life, the initial transaction is a prerequisite to something deeper.

    Women aren’t enemies, contrary to the tone of this article- they are human beings, just like men. The feminists are myopic, but so is the “men’s right movement” in its rush to hate the feminists and even hate women. The best I could hope for is to break the gender restraints and expectations of men and women so that people are free to be who they are and we are free to choose based on that , rather than the roles they feel they are typecast to play.

    For instance, the notion that women lose value when they have sex with more partners is a quaint and antiquated notion: instead it should be replaced with, “can you keep your word”, which is a gender-neutral construct based on honesty- the trait, which you said, that every human being values.

    Another antiquated notion is a woman’s total value is determined by the man she marries- hence the “contract”. I think women are more valuable than that as individuals and, as soon as you free them from “the contract”, they become better people.

    Nevertheless, I wonder if your bitterness and cynicism towards women affords you the relationships you believe you deserve.

    It’s about protecting their market cartel-style.

    There is no “cartel”, you have invented this in your own mind. Women do practice mate guarding but this is far from an organised confederacy… more “copying” behaviour handed down to them. In the open-minded, this is easy to undo.

    For this reason women love to make men feel jealous, jealousy makes women feel more valuable because it makes their sex more expensive to purchase

    Isn’t it funny that the remedy to “I date lots of girls but none of them stay around” is often to stop “fucking” women (i.e. seeing them as an oriface) and start “making love” to women (i.e. connecting with them as a person). That’s the dimension this article is missing; the emotional connection. In fact, that’s the part a woman desires the most from the person she loves, and is missing from the calculation.

    PS: I do not support slutwalk and think it is foolish.

    • August 27, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

      “I think the problem of this article is that, while rational, it does not examine the emotional reasons why people get together, and turns everything we do into a transaction.”

      I’m puzzled… did you read what I wrote? I clearly stated that this was my intention. But thank you for acknowledging that I succeeded.

      “Women aren’t enemies, contrary to the tone of this article-”

      I never said women were enemies, you’re letting your imagination run away with you here. My tone? Seriously. Stick to facts not feelings please.

      “For instance, the notion that women lose value when they have sex with more partners is a quaint and antiquated notion”

      lol. Yeah, because men really respect sluts don’t they? No. Men don’t respect sluts, they fuck them and dump them. Feminists are demanding that men treat sluts like ladies, but they don’t deserve it and it would be an insult to ladies to treat them the same as a common slut. Don’t treat unequal things equally.

      “Another antiquated notion is a woman’s total value is determined by the man she marries- hence the “contract””

      I did express this point explicity, several times, but since you didn’t catch it I’ll say it again: the less slutty and more independent a woman behaves, the more precious and admirable she becomes in the eyes of men.

      “There is no “cartel”, you have invented this in your own mind.”

      See, I wrote “cartel-style” and not only that, but you quoted me saying that. Clearly I’m not going for the literal definition of the term, I’m bored that I have to explain this.

      “the emotional connection. In fact, that’s the part a woman desires the most from the person she loves”

      I would agree… except for the piles of evidence that says women love expensive things and men with money. In fact, women married to richer men report more orgasms and better sex lives. I suspect the problem here is that you’re trying to think of women as being simply a man’s brain in a female body. No. Women think differently to men. It’s true. You will never understand a woman if you keep assuming she thinks just like you do.

      • August 27, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

        But thank you for acknowledging that I succeeded.

        You failed.

        It’s like leaving out the astronaut capsule when discussing putting a man on the moon- without the emotional element having a relationship with a person is somewhat pointless. Unless you’re both accountants only interested in how much each person has to offer- not every transaction is a business transaction.

        Stick to facts not feelings please.

        Yet you cannot avoid your own feelings. Perhaps you cannot see it, but I read bitterness in the words “slutty, businesswoman…pout, whinge, complain, belly ache, cheat, develop an eating disorder and act helpless “. I will leave other readers to agree with me, or with you. I wonder when, in expousing such bitterness, if there is a smile on your face.

        Nevertheless, seeing a man’s compass to the woman as adversarial has coloured your article accordingly.

        Yeah, because men really respects sluts don’t they? No. Men don’t respect sluts, they fuck them and dump them.

        So, in the age of contraception, only men are allowed to enjoy sex? Women should bow their heads and submit to men? What if, the more sex you have, the better you get at it? Feminists are crazy because they are so busy putting down men to make themselves superior. The MRM is the pendulum swinging to the other extreme. In truth, the sexes are equal not in capability, but in value.

        If you love women, the middle ground is best: offer, accept and be the last one to judge. There are plenty of options! Sexual encounters are better when one party doesn’t believe they are sitting an exam. I personally don’t think a woman loses value by having sex.

        In fact by believing that she does, one gives into the “cartel” mentality above.

        In truth for someone to win, nobody has to lose.

        the less slutty and more independent a woman behaves, the more precious and admirable she becomes in the eyes of men.

        Your definition of “slutty” and “independent” need clarifying. For me the first word doesn’t exist. We see the same problem, but I think the remedy is quite different, as I have stated above.

        Clearly I’m not going for the literal definition of the term,

        You are trying to deflect over symantics. If you do not want the idea of a “cartel” in your argument, refrain from mentioning the word.

        piles of evidence that says women love expensive things and men with money.

        I don’t hang out with women like that, so it’s not a problem; no friendship should be based on buying another person’s loyalty, so this is easy to implictly screen for. I agree with you that is silly. It would seem an emotional connection is more important than money, however,- you need just enough money to avoid arguments over resources (that is tinder for a fire). And yes, it is easier to get an orgasm with more dosh in the bank, but I think it is a function of female anxiety rather than female greed.

        The balance is this: you can make a shit-tonne of money, and a woman will still leave you. Why? Because you’re not around… that’s why trying to “buy back in” to a relationship often fails. Better to be at 60% output and be around more often to spend time with the woman and work on the emotional connection. That’s why your reasoning on the matter is flawed: women aren’t just after money. They want a man of means and ambition, yes, but he has to be around to cash in.

        Women think differently to men. It’s true. You will never understand a woman if you keep assuming she thinks just like you do.

        I never made that assumption; you are projecting. What I am saying is that , rather than treating “them” as “women with motivations”, rather treat “everyone” as “having their own motivations.” In that way, everyone is a buyer, especially the women I deal with tell me there are no men left who are worth dating.

        • August 27, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

          Seriously, if feelings are as important as you keep blathering about, write an article about feelings and relationships. Trust me, it will help no one. Feelings are not important. I know it sounds like heresy to say this, but that’s just how bad feminist indoctrination is, they’ve convinced you that emotional thinking isn’t an oxymoron. Feelings are a sense, like hearing and sight, different emotions are like different frequencies and colours. Do you let the colour red rule your life? Or the note C# define your identity? That’s how insane you sound to me when you talk about feelings. Sure, love has a nice sound to it, like any good musical note, but that’s all it is. I value my feelings like I value my sight and hearing, but I don’t let my eyes and ears tell me how to live my life.

          EDIT: I reread what you wrote and you’ve jumped to so many unsupported conclusions about what I was getting at in this article I cannot be bothered going through them all because I know you’re not going to acknowledge you’ve misunderstood me and you’ll start engaging me in an endless cycle of splitting hairs. If you’re not going to make the effort as a reader to ponder a novel idea then all my efforts at forcing it into your head now would be a waste of my time.

          • August 28, 2012 at 6:21 am #

            All I read is, “I have not seen is, therefore it does not exist.”

            Having an emotional rapport with someone is the point of having a personal relationship with them. It’s not mystical at all, and quite easily quantifiable, and is not gender specific (women have similar problems relating to men). What you are discussing here extensively is the price of admission, and you are discussing it in vacuum, as if the price of admission was the entirity of the subject. You look at a glass pane and ignore the vista beyond, trying to dehumanise friendship as a calculation on the thickness of the glass.

            Feelings are very important, because they are part of the view… I’ve used that appreciation to great effect in my own life, and to relate to (and have meaningful relationships) with others. I agree with you, however, that a man shouldn’t cut off his balls as part of the price of admission, so that part of the calculation (which you are discussing) is important.

            The colour red can rule your life, if you really like it. If it’s worth it, you’ll find a way to barter the price of admission for it. Even better if you can share the colour blue for someone who has the colour red so that everybody wins.

            Your idea is not that novel and, having seen the same phenomena in life and pondered it, I have come to very different conclusions. I say we have to agree to disagree here.

            • August 28, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

              “Having an emotional rapport with someone is the point of having a personal relationship with them. ”

              Really? That’s it? “the point” I think I also read the in Oprah magazine as well.

              It certainly plays a big part and Jason does not demean or deny this, you are well aware of this fact.

              He is simply pointing out the economics of the mating cycle and the way stupid feminists have politicized it. ie the slut march.

              Go read the article a third time Richard.

              Just because Jason fails to mention a point or angle you think is valid does not equate to him not considering it important.

            • Lizicha
              September 30, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

              Richard Lee you are in touch with reality and have a good heart. I think you understand men and women. Thank you for being so awesome!

              • October 1, 2012 at 12:04 am #

                I’m flattered.

                There are some very bitter and very angry people on this thread who rate anyone who disagrees with them poorly. I’d spend more time answering questions if I didn’t have to wade through so many nasty comments and name calling. It’s not good for the soul to deal with too much of it, especially for people who will not change their minds and at the cost of my own happiness, in attempting to empathize with their bitterness so that I can communicate in a way that they would understand. It saddens me that such people exist and that it is impossible to relate what I think are better ideas because their minds are closed. Were it if all people could know and share happiness.

                I hope you are a happy person, Lizicha, and that life is kind to you.

                • November 14, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

                  One might have taken ‘good for the soul’ as merely a metaphor for keeping a good mood if not for one of your earlier comments Richard:

                  “that’s at a lower level than the emotional- and even spiritual- connection, a euphoria that transcends reducing everyone to a walking calculator”

                  Euphoria is an emotional feeling. Why do you engage in this mind versus emotion versus soul/spirit distinction? These are all mental components, and the mind is a physical component of the body (the brain).

                  The context of conversation many use treats these as discrete areas that don’t overlap, like what we call some things (high spirits, emotions, the mind) aren’t smaller aspects of larger entities.

          • August 28, 2012 at 6:27 am #

            You will never understand a woman if you keep assuming she thinks just like you do.

            As a final note, you are making the very mistake you describe here above: assuming women think like you do, as cold and calculating.

            The truth is, on the balance of probability, the decision to buy is an emotional decision. The reason you run into “buyer’s remorse” scenarios is because, as a salesman who just sold sex to a woman, her emotional needs were not screened before the encounter (which you wisely suggested), and not satisfied after the fact.

            Your advice on it (give the woman a choice, clarify your position) is right, but your motivations for giving it fall short because of a failure to appreciate the importance of those emotions and how to use that importance to manage expectations. Even if you think the idea of an emotional connection quaint or unimportant, it is very significant and very real to the other person, and a good salesman gives a person what they want in mutual exchange.

            Satisfied customers do not accuse you of rape lol.

            • August 28, 2012 at 9:44 am #

              Richard, I really wish you could comprehend the irony that your interpretation of my article is exactly as I predicted in the article itself. You’re a common guy. You’re not simply ignorant about women, you’re delusional about them and relationships. You are not writing anything contentious in your replies at all, you are merely reiterating the prevailing ideology.

              In case you’ve not noticed the name of this website is “intentious” not “status.quo”, I’m not here to talk about feelings like everyone else, I’m here to present ideas that challenge people and make them feel uncomfortable like this article has clearly made you. If it upsets you so much, write an article about it, but this whinging makes me think you’re a troll.

              Economics is really simple, but very important. It explains a great deal about why people interact with each other. When having a discussion with someone there are three main types of currencies I recognise:

              Emotional arguments: reactive, insulting, logically fallacious, whiny and repetitive. Usually expressed as, “the tone of this offends me, I feel that you’re trying to…(insert wild accusation of misogny, child molestation, Nazism, warmongering etc…), you’re a bad person.”

              Belief based arguments: thoughtful, logical, necessary truths, usually expressed as: “I believe this because of x, y, and z.”

              Reality based arguments: Evidence, empirical truths, citing observations and data. Usually expressed as, “The physical evidence says this is real, so therefore your feelings are total bullshit.”

              I do not accept emotional arguments as valid in my information economy. But I’m sure there are some third world information economies that do.

              • August 28, 2012 at 11:20 am #

                Claiming to be a clairvoyant is a poor argument. “I predicted this.” Okay lol, spooky. Moving on….

                you’re delusional about them and relationships

                Have your cynical assertions afforded you the relationships you want? My approach has; I’m really happy at the moment because I get what I want from the people I meet and they get what they want from . So, I would say yours is delusional, because it is based on a bitter and adverserial theory, there are truths in it that I agree with, but many are walls and traps are concealed within your own prejudice. Those walls prevent connection with other people, no matter how good the economics are.

                Who is delusional about relationships- The man who is happy and gets what he wants, or the one who spouts bitter invective about the capriciousness of human nature? I will ask again politely, have these theories afforded you the female company you want?

                you are merely reiterating the prevailing ideology.

                Whether it’s “mainstream”, “prevailing”, “common” or “revolutionary”, “challenging” is irrelevant lol. The core question is does this get me the relationships I want? Does it work? You are free to expouse a controversial opinion but in the forum of free speech, others may comment, especially if their experience on the subject is different. I can crowd this thread with numerous anecdotal examples both supporting and refuting your claims. Would you like me to?

                This is not a function of belief, this a function of careful field testing.

                I’m having a civil discussion. For you in your belligerance, anyone who holds a contrary opinion is a “whinge” or a “troll” who is part of a “third world information economy”. Are you so afraid of having your idea challenged? Is it so fragile, that you have to resort to name-calling ad hominem and being dismissive? 🙂 I’m not offended at all, I’m just pointing out, clinically, where your theory needs more work.

                If my comments are unwelcome because you find them vexatious, say so. I would say they are more troublesome because you find them difficult to counter without resorting to cruel jibes and hand-waving.

                Economics is really simple, but very important.

                Economics is important, yes. The problem with economics is that it cannot explain the irrational part of why a consumer likes a product, or even likes another person. That’s because, as I said, buying a product is a largely emotional decision.

                I’m not saying you don’t need economics. Yet I’m not agreeing with you in saying that you don’t need emotion, no. I’m saying you need both the emotional to sight the product, then the economics to temper the buying decision. You even need tests to check that the product works as promised.

                The problem with your “Reality based arguments” is that, often, things don’t work out in real life as they do “on paper”; everything can be right and it still goes belly up into an exception case because of an unknown, irrational, unquantifiable factor. “Reality” itself is subjective to the human experience. Many decisions are made on an arbritrary expression of human gut instinct that is neither measurable nor quantifiable and based on a personal reality, and can only be discerned by emotional calibration to a subject. That is when your economics will fail: your model is incomplete.

                I’m not saying that economics is unimportant no. It is very important to screen quarry and to manage expectations. Failing to manage expectations = buyer’s remorse = accusation of rape after the fact

                At the same time, economics is not the point. Love is the point. When you’re in rapport with a woman who is worth being with, this is very clear.

                Let’s throw one more curve ball: you can be both selfish and altruistic at the same time. You can give out samples to many people generously and expect nothing in return, then be surprised how often your investment is returned through reciprocation. In fact, you often have to “ping” value out intelligently to get any in return.

                The world is cruel yes, but not as dark as you make it out to be.

                But yes, nice job on being controversial.

                PS: the word “reality” is subjective, because you’ve created a cold one for yourself, where everything is number value, including the women you date. It needn’t be so.

                • August 28, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

                  “Who is delusional about relationships- The man who is happy and gets what he wants, or the one who spouts bitter invective about the capriciousness of human nature?”

                  Why such a black and white view of relationships Richard?

                  See if you feel the same in 20 + years time aye son, when you have lived abit more, the good bad and ugly….

                • August 28, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

                  “At the same time, economics is not the point. Love is the point. When you’re in rapport with a woman who is worth being with, this is very clear.”

                  Really? Can you define this love? Can you define a “woman who is worth being with” no looking at Oprah magazine.

                  While you are at it, can also define a women that is not worth it.

                  Anyhow have to go back to Monash UNI for a AVfM poster run.

                  Cheers
                  KARMA MRA MGTOW

                  • August 29, 2012 at 6:49 am #

                    Fair questions. The definition of love?

                    Economically some things don’t make sense that I have experienced, such as:

                    HER: Hey I knew you were coming home late after having drinks with your mates… but you left your house keys in the house this morning. I stayed up and waited for you to come home.

                    HER: You’re on your way home? I’ll cook dinner for both of us… I’m cooking your favourite, and baking dessert

                    HER: Thanks for being here. I don’t think I would have gotten the job without your support.

                    HIM: You’re not well? I’ll leave work early and fetch you from your office so you can see the doctor

                    It’s being altruistic not because you have anything to gain, but because you’re on the same team and you genuinely care about the other person, while being attracted to them. It’s irrational, unexplainable warmth that has to be carefully cultivated. You can try to explain it economically (I can) but it’s like trying to explain a magician’s trick… by demystifying it, you devalue it and take it for granted.

                    It is better simply to appreciate beauty for what it is. It is better to leave the goose alive so it can lay its golden eggs.

                    if you feel the same in 20 + years

                    I don’t know if it’ll be the same after 20 years, but if my parents are still together after 25 years despite having to work through their differences, it’s definitely doable. No-one is perfect- life is a work in progress and there will be misunderstandings.

                    Anyway, part of it is cultivating a skillset and an idea that both parties in a relationship can always do better, especially if you are getting a shitty deal. So, if relationships end, I know there is a better one around the corner that will benefit from my previous experience. That’s very empowering and allows me to put full commitment to whoever I’m with.

                    I can’t predict the future, but I know what I can do today and feel empowered to determine my own destiny.

                    define a women that is not worth it.

                    Woman who is not worth it: 1) are you attracted to her? 2) can you trust her to keep her word? 3) Is she on your team? Those are the three questions one asks to determine this.

                    There are strategies to screen women, to test surripitously to see if they are gold diggers, rinsers, misandrists, emo, validation vacuums, compulsive liars etc. No woman is perfect even after screening for all these things, but many things are forgivable if she is attractive and also willing to forgive you for your own shortcomings.

                    why don’t you man up and write the follow up article

                    I could, or I could engage those who have a counter view point here where discussion would be more visible. This is my contribution to Jason’s writing. Instead I’ll add my musings to a book I’ve been writing- it’s all about connecting with the write audience.

                    or are you just full of histrionics shaming language and bulling tactics ie hot air.

                    Are your views so fragile that you must dismiss others who do not share it? Are you so threatened by someone who disagrees politely? Would you instead like a chorus of syncophants that furiously agree with you on everything? 🙂

                • November 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

                  ” I will ask again politely, have these theories afforded you the female company you want?”

                  Richard this personalization is erroneous logic. People can succeed in life in spite of having wrong ideas about how the world works, just as people can fail in life in spite of understanding rare truths.

                  Let’s say hypothetically Jason is right, but that he has such a high standard for woman that his ideal is beyond his means to impress, because maybe it’s a PhD who invents rockets and there aren’t many of them and they are highly competed for.

                  Not having attained a goal doesn’t mean one is incorrect about the mechanics that dictate if it’s realized. Not finding a publisher for your book or the time to write it doesn’t make someone a bad writer.

                  There are men in the world who find happiness who might think “women don’t give a shit about money, only love!” all the while being married to a golddigger who might cheat on him and drop him instantly if he lost his wealth.

                  Your arguments about happiness are really quite silly. Men can gain happiness through means many of us don’t want. For example: let’s all get lobotomies! Let’s just focus on having sex, objectification, and ignore genuineness or mental connections!

                  Those who find happiness often have different standards, and they aren’t always ‘better’ ones as you seem to be pushing yours as (omg feelings most important yayz)

                  For those who do primarily care about bodies, sex, and treat women as commodities, they find that happiness, are their strategies right due to that?

                  If not, then yours aren’t right due to your finding happiness, nor would MRA proponents of different viewpoints be wrong for merit of not having attained a desired happiness level.

                  People are right and wrong for other reasons. The merits of argument. Please stick to that and not petty personalization.

                  • November 21, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

                    Well said Tyciol, but for the record, my girlfriend is brilliantly intelligent and drop dead gorgeous. 😉

              • November 14, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

                “this whinging makes me think you’re a troll.”

                Really Jason? Don’t sink to that level. Troll-calling or troll-suspecting is the disintegration of good argument. Words, not motives.

                • November 21, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

                  I used to have so much patience… I’m working on it again. But it’s hard when your opponents won’t fight fair.

    • August 28, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

      “I think the problem of this article is that, while rational, it does not examine the emotional reasons why people get together, and turns everything we do into a transaction.”

      Well son since you are an expert the “emotional reasons why people get together” why don’t you man up and write the follow up article – or are you just full of histrionics shaming language and bulling tactics ie hot air.

    • Al
      September 15, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

      Reason and emotion and two separate spheres that do not intersect. There is no such thing as “emotional reasons” nor is there such a thing as spirituality. Spirituality is a vacuous term used as a farce defense for otherwise indefensible assertions. I challenge anyone to provide a definition of “spiritual” which is specific, concise, unambiguous and easily discerned in conversations involving “spirituality”. The same is true for “emotional reasoning”, if anyone disagrees then please provide a logical argument which employs (not simply references) emotion. You will find these tasks insurmountable, because these terms are simply insipid buzzwords, used by people who don’t have an argument.

      • September 17, 2012 at 8:26 am #

        Spirituality is a vacuous term used as a farce defense for otherwise indefensible assertions.

        Spoken like a computer. How good are you at connecting with and persuading people, would you say? How good are you at connecting with women?

        There are times that you fall back on your intuition and you have unexpectedly fantastic results. From there it’s own form of “emotional reasoning” grows. You could try to calculate it mathematically and explain and quantify everything, but in doing so you slay the goose that lays the golden eggs. Better to simply enjoy and wonder. 🙂

        Ultimately, as I’ve said here, the impulse to buy is an emotional decision. Perhaps it’s purely related to dopamine receptors, but I somehow think it is deeper and infinitely more complex than that. Also, we don’t have ten lifetimes to discuss it.

        You will find these tasks insurmountable, because these terms are simply insipid buzzwords, used by people who don’t have an argument.

        You feel very smug in your superiority yes?

        You stare at a pointing finger, rather than at the beautiful vista of the moon behind it. Thus, you miss the point entirely.

        I’ll be frank and conclude that whatever I say to you will be, to you, fallacious. Sometimes, however, knowing it works is enough. I have my own reasons on why I believe what I do works, but I think those reasons would be unacceptable to you. There are many areas that science is yet to explain, such as the origin of a human thought and imagination. As such, I’ll keep my musings to myself and allow you to contemplate whether being belligerent or superior has really helped you achieve what you want in your own life.

        • al
          September 17, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

          “Spoken like a computer. How good are you at connecting with and persuading people, would you say? How good are you at connecting with women?”

          Spoken like a person who doesn’t understand my point or reason in general. What does my ability to connect with and persuade people have to do with my point? How does my ability or inability to “connect” with women have anything to do with my point? What if my posts really are computer generated? We aren’t discussing my personal life here were discussing the dynamics of intimate relationships. So your questions are not of relevance.

          “There are times that you fall back on your intuition and you have unexpectedly fantastic results.”

          Yeah and there are many more times when it doesn’t, 50% divorce rate ring a bell. Geese shit a lot more then they lay golden eggs. What exactly is one’s “intuition”? How does it work? How does it effect one’s decisions to form or not to from an intimate relationship? How does it effect one’s behavior within an intimate relationship? If you find these questions hard to answer its probably because you have invoked intuition as a buzzword, just like “emotional reasons”, which you can point to as the explanation of relationship dynamics without ever explaining what it is and how it works. Its just another vacuous term used to store our ignorance of a subject and be pointed to as that subject’s explanation.

          “You feel very smug in your superiority yes?”

          No, I don’t feel smug or superior because I try not to pretend to know things that I don’t know. I don’t know, nor do I claim to know, how the relationship dynamics work. I am also open to other people’s assessments and criticisms provide they have a rational basis and can be demonstrated to some degree.

          “You stare at a pointing finger, rather than at the beautiful vista of the moon behind it. Thus, you miss the point entirely.”

          I am glad to know that you got it all figured out. I see, relationship are based on “intuition”, “emotional reasons” and “spirituality”. Thanks Dr. Phil, do you have any other insightful wisdom you wish to impart to us? Any other terms as well-defined and useful as “spirituality” to employ? Any other shitty metaphors you like to use to obfuscate my criticism?

          “I’ll be frank and conclude that whatever I say to you will be, to you, fallacious.”

          I will likely conclude that everything you say will be fallacious because everything you have said has been fallacious. I challenged your use of the terms “spiritual” and “emotional reasons” and you responded with invective and irrelevant arguments and questions.

          “Sometimes, however, knowing it works is enough. I have my own reasons on why I believe what I do works, but I think those reasons would be unacceptable to you. There are many areas that science is yet to explain, such as the origin of a human thought and imagination.”

          Yes, there are many fields of inquiry that science has yet to explain. This, however, doesn’t entail that anyone else has a valid explanation of those fields. In fact, it generally indicates that they don’t. Science is a time-tested enterprise that operates on reasons. The funny thing about reasons is: they are like facts, you don’t get to have your own. Either you have good reasons to believe something or you do not. The fact that something has worked for is not a sound basis for declaring how something works for the rest of humanity or really knowledge of any kind. You don’t know, and neither do I or anyone else it seems. So, I’ll let you contemplate on how pretending to know things you don’t know and offering completely empty criticisms of other’s ideas serves anyone else in the process of discovery.

          • September 17, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

            What does my ability to connect with and persuade people have to do with my point?

            You speak of a journey without a destination. There is no point analysing these dynamics when you remove the “intimate” (i.e. the emotions) from these relationship models. The emotions are the point

            We aren’t discussing my personal life here were discussing the dynamics of intimate relationships.

            I would contend that an inability to form “intimate relationships” precludes you from contributing to the discussion because you lack the credentials. All you need to say is, “yes I’m really happy at the moment because I connect with numerous people every day and they smile because I brigthten their day.” Would you like to copy and paste that statement? It had no details of your personal life at all. Yet your words betray you, for anger and contempt cannot be concealed even by the twitch of the eye or the stroke of a pen.

            Anyway, those credentials are important: would you expect a man who has never parachuted before to teach a parachuting instructor?

            Geese shit a lot more then they lay golden eggs.

            Perhaps we as a society don’t equip our young people well enough to understand what they need to go through in life. We expect them to stumble and crawl and scrape until they find the answers that they need. Part of it is that they have to make some destructive decisions by themselves to understand the consequences of such decisions.

            By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.
            – Confucius

            So it would appear that we are not born with these instincts innately, they must be learned and subsumed from the society at large. Failure to do so… well the one trait a person cannot pass on is sterility.

            How does it effect one’s behavior within an intimate relationship?

            A highly developed sense of intuition allows you to calibrate your responses to the other party’s motivations in a relationship. Many of those motivations are innate and irrational. Example being, you’re having an argument with your partner, she’s giving you the silent treatment. You decide that this is a bad time not to press an issue because you need to fix the silent treatment first before she even begins listening to you.

            Have you ever heard the saying, “you don’t need to be (logically) wrong with a woman, you just need to sound wrong?” I’ve got it worked out.

            I can give you many examples of it (and am writing a book on the subject) but if you have specific cases I can answer them for you; give me a buzzword and I’ll explain or dispel it. Pro tip: emotional rapport is an essential part of the connection process. That’s why many men express frustration at being unable to understand how women think on issues.

            No, I don’t feel smug or superior because I try not to pretend to know things that I don’t know. .. do you have any other insightful wisdom you wish to impart to us?

            Then ask me while I still know everything? 😉 lol

            have a rational basis and can be demonstrated to some degree.

            My one caveat of explanation is: many emotional arguments have irrational or circular logic. Some have to be taken “as is”.

            I could dig to the very depth and very point at which the argument disembarks from the rational and scientific to the irrational if you like.

            Any other shitty metaphors

            tsk tsk too much wrath is very unattractive.

            Either you have good reasons to believe something or you do not. The fact that something has worked for is not a sound basis for declaring how something works for the rest of humanity or really knowledge of any kind.

            That’s a fair comment. Somehow, however, I doubt you want to hear my reasons, nor will you ever find them sufficient for you.

            You don’t know, and neither do I or anyone else it seems.

            You haven’t asked me yet. Give me a specific instance of an “intimate relationship” and I’ll decode what it meant.

            • September 17, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

              > There is no point analysing these dynamics when you remove the “intimate” (i.e. the emotions) from these relationship models.

              I don’t propose to remove the emotional states from intimate relationship dynamics. I propose that they be explained in rational terms. Telling me that she feels jealous or that he feels happy, does nothing to explain why a person feels the way they do and how those feeling contribute to the dynamics of a relationship. Simply saying that intimate relationships involve emotions does no explanatory work. If you want to explain the emotional components of intimate relationships you will first have to lay down rigorous definitions of emotions, how they may be measured and then a logical framework by which they operate.

              > The emotions are the point
              Yeah says you. I say they are components of an intimate relationship. In order for emotions to operate in relationship dynamics they must function in accordance with some logical system, hence the whole idea of dynamics. This doesn’t mean emotions are in and of themselves logical, they aren’t.

              > I would contend that an inability to form “intimate relationships” precludes you from contributing to the discussion because you lack the credentials.

              I would contend that this is a ridiculous position to hold and is a textbook example of the tu quoque fallacy. I guess I can’t contribute anything to a discussion of aerodynamics because I can’t fly.

              > Yet your words betray you, for anger and contempt cannot be concealed even by the twitch of the eye or the stroke of a pen.
              You know what’s almost a good as having a valid point: having the ability to make bullshit look pithy. It’s too bad you don’t have either.

              > Anyway, those credentials are important: would you expect a man who has never parachuted before to teach a parachuting instructor?
              No they aren’t because people don’t become expert relationship-havers. Having had intimate relationships doesn’t qualify one for any position except for super-duper internet-certified relationship expert, apparently. Damn, my burning contempt hath betrayed me once more! Not even the stroke of my keyboard can conceal the burning anger within my breast.

              > By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.
              – Confucius

              > So it would appear that we are not born with these instincts innately, they must be learned and subsumed from the society at large. Failure to do so… well the one trait a person cannot pass on is sterility.

              Yes, because the way the universe is logically follows from the often unintelligible scribblings of some ancient Chinese thinker. Furthermore, it would appear that you do not know what the words “innate” or “instinct” mean.
              Allow me to help, here are the definitions from the OED:
              Instinct; an innate, fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.
              Innate; inborn; natural
              So yeah its kind of difficult for someone to be born without innate instincts, since they kinda have to be by definition. Also, what exactly does sterility have to do with these “instincts” if they are “learned and subsumed from society” rather than genetically inherited?

              If you would like to answer my questions with more ramblings from irrelevant Asian men, I recommend Mr. Miyagi, at least he knows karate.

              > A highly developed sense of intuition allows you to calibrate your responses to the other party’s motivations in a relationship.

              Oh yes, a highly developed sense of intuition, how very informative and useful this must be in explaining anything. Intuition wasn’t vague enough huh? Nope we need a sense of intuition, and a highly developed one at that. Some people are better at dealing with people than others, saying that some have a better intuition as to how to deal with others does nothing to explain relationship dynamics, it simply restates the same question in different terms. Why do some people have “more developed” intuitions than others? How does one develop their intuition? What exactly is intuition? How does it work? How does it contribute to relationship dynamics?

              > give me a buzzword and I’ll explain or dispel it.
              Ok, how about “intuition”, “spirituality” or “emotional reason”?

              > Pro tip: emotional rapport is an essential part of the connection process.
              Pro tip: I already knew that.

              > Then ask me while I still know everything? lol
              It’s called sarcasm, its a very difficult concept. My one caveat of explanation is: many emotional arguments have irrational or circular logic. Some have to be taken “as is”. I could dig to the very depth and very point at which the argument disembarks from the rational and scientific to the irrational if you like.

              Please do, I’de be interested to hear it.

              > tsk tsk too much wrath is very unattractive.
              We can’t all have the inner-peace that you have attained, my modern-day Confucius. <– that's also sarcasm

              • September 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

                Sorry for my tardiness- work has been very busy and what puts money on the table comes first. Let’s keep it brief. I’ll ignore any invective and try to comment as rationally as I can, for your benefit.

                does nothing to explain why a person feels the way they do and how those feeling contribute to the dynamics of a relationship

                Fair call, I wish it was this way too. Problem is, you’re going to run into “heisenberg’s uncertainty principle” with female emotions and, since it is based on a person’s state of mind at the time (which is an emotional, fickle and irrational thing), the best we can do is guess. You could ask the subject but they may give you an answer that changes based on their state of mind, or give you a false answer to avoid self-incrimination. The very act of measuring it moves it from the rational to the irrational.
                The best you can do is guess, using calibration to obtain a high probability of accuracy. The best way, I find, is to discern a person’s motivation, e.g. not to look like a slut, to get money, to imply social abundance etc and, cross-referencing against many known behaviours and motivations.

                lay down rigorous definitions of emotions, how they may be measured and then a logical framework by which they operate.

                Agreeing on definitions before study is smart, the issue being what happens when exceptions occur that do not fit your criteria definitions. In the case of human behaviour, most can be explained in broad strokes and referenced back to evolutionary behaviour; it needn’t be micro-examined “rigourously” as you are suggesting. Operationally, three or four big ideas are best rather than the minute details. Once you have the big idea, the small detail takes care of itself.

                In order for emotions to operate in relationship dynamics they must function in accordance with some logical system, hence the whole idea of dynamics. This doesn’t mean emotions are in and of themselves logical, they aren’t.

                Your case is torpedoed by two statements.

                1- are you in love with your middle aged accountant?

                2- how come so many relationships that are “good on paper” fail? Why aren’t we often attracted to someone who is “good on paper”?
                I think there are an infinite level of communication that cannot be captured in entirity by any logical model- body language, implications, pheromones, hormones… all of these things invisible and impossible to quantify in entirity without being a god. At the end, I use intuition to know whether a girl is into me or not. I have many big clues, but know that I cannot logically encompass all of it in a model.

                Finally whether I want to sleep with her or not is an irrational decision. There are some women that “every man says is hot” that I don’t want to sleep with. There are women that “many men find unattractive” that I do want to sleep with. Those infinite variables (of which we only have visibility of a few) condense down to an irrational thought: am I attracted to her or not? Her attraction is mutual.

                I guess I can’t contribute anything to a discussion of aerodynamics because I can’t fly.

                Have you designed an aeroplane? Have you field tested / test flown it? That is the heart of the scientific method- experimentation. The experiment itself may not explain “why” it is the way it is, but it can easily explain “how”. You remind me of Aristotle and his five elements- you can dream up aerodynamic principles in a class room or a blackboard, but those dreams are just dreams until you field test it. From there the credentials of being able to form an intimate relationship count.

                You can’t learn how to drive a car just by reading a manual on an intellectual level. Some lessons have to be experienced to be appreciated.

                people don’t become expert relationship-havers.

                We are only afforded one lifetime and one life. All we can do is pool our knowledge and experiments in a community and understand what works and what doesn’t. I collaborate on experiments with other people and we share our success and failures. It allows us to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, the reaction and motivations of the other person. We are always learning- we don’t always get it right, but get it right often enough to love women and be in happy fulfilling relationships.

                So no, you do not speak to an individual. You speak to an island.

                often unintelligible scribblings of some ancient Chinese thinker.

                It’s funny that those without the humility to understand the deeper meaning of a profound statement or idea believe themselves smarter than the whole world. The word for that is hubris. That quote was appropriate because it describes entirely the human situation in learning, especially the experimental method which people must apply to become socialised

                what exactly does sterility have to do with these “instincts” if they are “learned and subsumed from society” rather than genetically inherited?

                The capacity to learn reproductive behaviour is partly inherited. If you learn the wrong reproductive behaviour (or are genetically disposed to learning it that way) then you are less likely to reproduce.

                Why do some people have “more developed” intuitions than others? How does one develop their intuition? What exactly is intuition? How does it work? How does it contribute to relationship dynamics?

                Oh joy! Finally questions I can give you discrete answers to.
                1. Developing this intuition is based on “socialising” and learning how to interpret the subcommunicated signals by other people, whether it be body language, pheromones, choice of words, personal history… and an infinite number of variables that can only be processed into a clear signal by distorting and summarising by intuition. Part of that intuition is a “guess” that is used to record personal history for future interactions.
                2. Intuition is a summation of the infinite number of signals from another person.
                3. Intuition contributes to relationship dynamics by allowing you to calibrate and discern, with a high degree of accuracy, the motivations of the other party. In doing so, you can use psychology to predict the response of the other person and hence offer them attractive choices.

                Please do, I’de be interested to hear it.

                I’ll give you one funny piece of circular logic to consider- body language and emotions are linked in a positive feedback loop. Closed body language results in closed thinking and closed thinking results in closed bodylanguage. By knowing when a person is “open” you can realise if it’s the right timing to pitch an idea or not. 🙂 Pop-psychology 101 which you probably already knew, but I use to great effect in my interactions at the office, and with women.

                I recommend Mr. Miyagi, at least he knows karate.

                Do actors know karate? 🙂 lol
                Yet there are some , whose ideas resonate and can sway the minds of thousands. “Be like water my friend.”

                We can’t all have the inner-peace that you have attained, my modern-day Confucius. <– that's also sarcasm

                You should develop it. Happiness is a choice, a gift we give to ourselves. 🙂 As you can tell I am very happy at the moment, and happy to share with you.

                Be at peace.

                • Al
                  September 21, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

                  “It’s funny that those without the humility to understand the deeper meaning of a profound statement or idea believe themselves smarter than the whole world. The word for that is hubris. That quote was appropriate because it describes entirely the human situation in learning, especially the experimental method which people must apply to become socialized.”

                  I’ll start with this since it will inform the rest of my post. I sometimes have exchanges with people who think that I am dense or that I “don’t get it”, they generally beleive that they are speaking on some higher level or that they have employed some metaphor or analogy and that I am just failing to understand. Rarely do these people realize that I am not at all dense but rather that I have actually understood the “point” of what they are saying and I just happen to reject it. My asking of what appear to be simple questions about a person’s use of metaphor, terminology or the logical implications of their arguments might at times seem naive but I can assure you it isn’t. Generally, my responses are specifically constructed as to lead my interlocutor into refining their arguments in such a way that they lead to an absurdity.

                  Let us examine this dynamic in regards to your quotation of Confucius.
                  Here is the quote:
                  “By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest. ”

                  It isn’t that I was “without the humility to understand the deeper meaning of a profound statement”, I understood the point of the quote the first time I read it. I understood it, then reasoned that it isn’t profound, rather it’s a bunch of bullshit. Confucius states that there are three methods by which one may learn wisdom: introspection which Confucius thinks introspection is noblest likely because it involves only the “purity” of thought and the nobility of principle and the exercise of one’s faculties. He declares imitation to be the easiest because imitation merely involves the aping of another’s behavior rather than the comprehension of the principles behind that behavior, something which he apparently thinks is harder. He describes experience to be the most bitter, because experience is largely trial and error and thus involves a lot of failure which is often perceived as unpleasant or hurtful (i.e. bitter). Some of Confucius’ explanation of wisdom is true but trivially so. Yes people can become wise through experience, thought and imitation. This is not news, it isn’t profound, it an obvious point that everyone knows. If we look up the definition of wisdom it’s not hard to see why. From the OED: wisdom; the quality of having experience, knowledge and good judgement. It’s pretty hard to see how someone could become wise without experience or thought or good judgement (intuition in a sense) that imitation can bring. The rest of Confucius’ explanation is at worst false and so vague as to be meaningless. Firstly, there are more than three methods by which we may learn wisdom, such as you know, learning. Yes, the ancient Chinese kook is trying to impart his wisdom of how we may attain wisdom through verbal instruction, but forgets to include the very thing which he supposes is useful in sharing his “wisdom”. Only a exceedingly vague interpretation of reflection, imitation and experience can account for instruction, let alone other wisdom accruing tools like informed consensus, experimentation, the testing of hypothesises and others. Secondly, why should we consider reflection to be the noblest and imitation to be the easiest, this is merely unwarranted assertion. Its much easier to understand principles of harmonics of a guitar and the positioning of ones hands in order to play certain chords, than it is to imitate the musical ability of Eric Clapton. It also isn’t clear how the wisdom attained by thinking about what are the most effective ways to feed the starving, is nobler than the wisdom attained by actually going out and feeding the starving, and discovering the most effective ways of doing that. Thirdly, it appears that wisdom is not learned solely by any of these three methods but rather is learned through some combination of these methods as well as others, and to exclude all but one is also to exclude the myriad ways in which these methods may interact with each other. Confucius quote is a great example of what Harry Frankfurt call ‘bullshit’, it’s a style of speech that is unconcerned with the truth (not lying necessarily because lying is the intentional misrepresentation of the truth). It’s a hollow sentence designed to sound profound and informative, yet is utterly lacking in content, precision or a concern for the truth.

                  I take pains to illustrate this point because your posts to me are chalk full of this style of rhetoric. Your initial criticisms of this article based on the “spirituality” and “emotional reasons” involved are vapid because they are vacuous terms. You have demonstrated this to be so because rather than simply defend them by giving a precise and coherent definition to each, you have opted to criticize me, my reading comprehension skills, my social skills and my character, as well as to shift the goal post towards irrelevant material and to invoke very ambiguous language, and “sophisticated” metaphors, analogies and quotes. For example, rather than merely stating that emotional states of mind are fickle and prone to changing when probed for, you elect to explain this obvious fact in an unnecessarily elaborate way.

                  “Problem is, you’re going to run into “heisenberg’s uncertainty principle” with female emotions and, since it is based on a person’s state of mind at the time (which is an emotional, fickle and irrational thing), the best we can do is guess. You could ask the subject but they may give you an answer that changes based on their state of mind, or give you a false answer to avoid self-incrimination. The very act of measuring it moves it from the rational to the irrational.”

                  Apparently you run into some obscure theoretical framework of quantum physics, when trying to discern the emotional states of females. I’de imagine you have employed this analogy as a means of getting to the notion that attempting to measure emotion effects one’s measurement, as in when you write”The very act of measuring it moves it from the rational to the irrational.” The trouble here is, you’ve picked the wrong analogy, what you are looking for is the “observer effect” not the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which deals with the fundamental uncertainty inherit in the precision of the measurement between the momentum of a particle and its position. Another problem is that your assertions are simply wrong, you can inquire as to a person’s emotional state and “they may give you an answer that changes based on their state of mind, or give you a false answer to avoid self-incrimination.”, they will always give you, by definition, an answer that changes on their state of mind, its current emotional state is precisely what you are asking for. In addition to giving you a false answer, they may also give you a true, honest answer. So, we can in principle achieve accurate measurements of the emotional state of women, we simply have some issues of honesty and frequency of change to deal with. This contradicts your analogy, and claims that emotion cannot be “rationally” measured. The very act of measuring emotions transposes them from something which is irrational (i.e. emotions) to something that is rational, because measurements are something that can be dealt with in a rational manner. The accuracy of the measure may be the problem, not the act of measuring. Hell, in mathematics rational means that which can be expressed as a ratio of whole numbers.

                  Your statements are not an exercise of clear thinking and a pursuit or disemmination of knowledge. They are an exercise in bullshit. Your invocation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was not a means of drawing a tight analogy to demonstrate a point, it was a means of appealing to an obscure scientific concept in hopes making your argument look sophisticated and as means of baffling me, in hopes that did not understand it. Your declaration that emotions are essentially immeasurable, is not an honest reflection on our empirical access to them but rather a means of keeping emotions, and thus your arguments, ambiguous and unsusceptible to rigorous scrutiny.

                  “Your case is torpedoed by two statements.
                  1- are you in love with your middle aged accountant?
                  2- how come so many relationships that are “good on paper” fail? Why aren’t we often attracted to someone who is “good on paper”? ”

                  Again, more obscurantist bullshitting. Please explain in precise detail how the first question is even related to my benign assertion that emotions must function in accordance with some logical system in order for there to be such a thing as emotional dynamics, let alone how it refutes it?

                  “Oh joy! Finally questions I can give you discrete answers to.”
                  I provided you with plenty of questions that admit of discrete answers.
                  
”1. Developing this intuition is based on “socialising” and learning how to interpret the subcommunicated signals by other people, whether it be body language, pheromones, choice of words, personal history… and an infinite number of variables that can only be processed into a clear signal by distorting and summarising by intuition. Part of that intuition is a “guess” that is used to record personal history for future interactions.”

                  Oh really, we form intuitions based upon “subcommunicated”, as opposed to communicated, signals by other people. How interesting. Our finite minds also process an infinite array of variables, which can only be formed into a clear signal, that is undistorted or leaving no doubt and unambiguous, through the process of distortion and summarization by intuition, the very thing we wish to explain. Fascinating.
                  
”2. Intuition is a summation of the infinite number of signals from another person.”

                  I’ll tell you what, I got a set of signals which stretch from signal 1 all the way to infinity. Why don’t you sum every signal in that infinite set and get back too me when your done?
                  
”3. Intuition contributes to relationship dynamics by allowing you to calibrate and discern, with a high degree of accuracy, the motivations of the other party. In doing so, you can use psychology to predict the response of the other person and hence offer them attractive choices.”

                  I was looking for something a little more detailed and a little less obvious but fair enough.

                  “I’ll give you one funny piece of circular logic to consider- body language and emotions are linked in a positive feedback loop.”

                  Positive feedback loops are not an example of circular logic. There are things in this world that have a circular nature, that does not mean they cannot be explained by logic. Circular logic is a particular logical fallacy. For example, “The Bible is the word of God” (premise 1) because “the Bible says that it is the word of God” (premise 2) which is true because “the Bible is infallible” (premise 3) because “the Bible is the word of God” (premise 1). What you propose, proceeds logically as cause and effect, just in a cyclic pattern.

                  “Do actors know karate? lol”

                  No idea where you were going with this, but anyways, Mr. Miyagi is a karate instructor in “The Karate Kid” played by the actor Pat Morita.

                  I’ve read enough of your responses to ascertain that you aren’t interested in answering my questions, presenting well reasoned arguments or defending your criticisms of this article. It seems that you are interested in appearing as though you have a sophisticated understanding of the topic at hand, that you have legitimate criticisms and that you have insights into these matters that others do not. In your attempts to look sophisticated you have employed nothing but sophistry.

                  Good day.

                  • Richard Lee
                    September 24, 2012 at 6:32 am #

                    Why don’t you sum every signal in that infinite set and get back too me when your done?

                    Your jibe demonstrates either scorn or willful ignorance. Probably scorn- too much hubris to concede the point. Instead I will give you a sincere answer.

                    The problem with attempting Fourier Analysis on this article is that every signal (body language, choice of words, positioning, context) are disparate. Hence intuition is the only thing one can use to surmise and link them together- that’s the nature of human thought. We only have so much bandwidth to consider at every second, so intuition is a necessary distortion to filter the stimulus in our environment and maintain human sanity.

                    It’s clear that your mind is closed- that’s fine because, ultimately, you are the poorer for it, and only you yourself will be held to make peace with that. You say something about “my attempt to look sophisticated.” Really, I don’t care… this is an anonymous blog site. The reason I say what I do is because I want to share the happiness I have found for myself with others.

                    In fact, the reason I speak is I realize I have much to learn, and know so very little. I share what I have in the hope that others will share what they have, and we will find happiness together.

                    As I said before, spoken like a computer, with a smugness that no calculation is beyond your comprehension. You concern yourself with what is not possible so you lampoon others who do not share your prejudice.

                    The first quote that informs what I have said is this:

                    “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

                    – Albert Einstein

                    What we say, we make true- I concern myself with what is possible.

                    And, to leave you an even funnier quote from your favourite book:

                    Why should a fool have money in his hand to buy wisdom when he doesn’t have a mind to grasp anything?

                    – Proverbs 17:16

                    Good day.

                  • September 24, 2012 at 6:48 am #

                    Please explain in precise detail how the first question is even related to my benign assertion that emotions must function in accordance with some logical system in order for there to be such a thing as emotional dynamics, let alone how it refutes it?

                    A benign assertion that misses two main ideas. Firstly, love is a “Feeling”, the large, irrational part of an equation that women use to decide whether they procreate with you or not. There are many unions that are “logically sound” but there is lack of compatibility between the two parties that ends up dooming it.

                    Ultimately, the “why’ of science is irrational… “I like her because she has brown hair.” We could go to the nth degree wondering why, on an evolutionary scale that a man prefers brown hair, then find out that the first woman he thought was beautiful happened to have brown hair.

                    Why then, as well, do people have differing fetishes? Why aren’t all aligned? The issue is the human factor adds a randomness that defies any logical reasoning, in the ability to correlate all contributing variables and that comes down to choice that cannot be wholly explained by evolutionary leanings.

                    Emotions may function to some logical system, but there are so many variables that 1)you have no visibility of and 2) that are beyond comprehension because of 1 and the inability to trace them to their conclusion that emotions are effectively illogical.

                    who think that I am dense or that I “don’t get it”, they generally beleive that they are speaking on some higher level

                    Frankly, perhaps you should look in a mirror. Rather than accusing peers who disagree with of looking down at you, perhaps understand they are reacting to your intractable nature, and your arrogance. You yourself try to place yourself above others on some “higher level” by saying no standard of proof is sufficient and, instead of politely conceding points or asking further questions, you cover your retreat by putting forth cruel jibes that further entrench “denseness”. Someone who truly pursues knowledge does not do this; this is the mark of someone who has an ego to stoke rather than a point to share.

                    The problem with MRA and atheists I encounter is that most appear to be like this- bitter, argumentative and sour to any who question them because they are “revolutionaries” who are fighting the “enemy”. If you see love as a battlefield, you will only find enemies lol. Although I agree with many of the ideas presented by them, the sheer negativity makes these causes as repugnant as the feminists.

                    Life is simpler than that, and happier than that.

                    • Al
                      September 24, 2012 at 5:06 pm #

                      “Your jibe demonstrates either scorn or willful ignorance.”

                      No, my gibes are a demonstration of my intolerance of bullshit.

                      “Probably scorn- too much hubris to concede the point.”

                      I will concede a point to you when you bother to make one.

                      “Instead I will give you a sincere answer.”

                      I’de actually prefer intellectually honest ones instead.

                      “The problem with attempting Fourier Analysis on this article is that every signal (body language, choice of words, positioning, context) are disparate.”

                      I wasn’t referring to a Fourier transformation of a set of signals, I was pointing out that it is, in principle, impossible for our finite minds to add an infinite set of anything in a finite time. So either we don’t receive an infinite amount of signals and/or we don’t find their sum. No finite mind can apply an operation to each member of an infinite set in a finite amount of time, hence if that is what intuition is, then we, by logical extension, do not posses it, but I suppose that’s just my willful ignorance talking. Again, you introduce the an elaborate mathematical construct in order to obscure my simple objection based on the addition of the members of an infinite set.

                      “Hence intuition is the only thing one can use to surmise and link them together- that’s the nature of human thought. We only have so much bandwidth to consider at every second, so intuition is a necessary distortion to filter the stimulus in our environment and maintain human sanity.”

                      From signals are disparate, intuition is the only thing one can use to surmise and link them together does not follow. Allow me to summarize: I can’t explain how the human mind processes all the various stimuli that it receives, so instead of saying so I will appeal to intuition as its explanation without explaining what intuition is. Then when asked for an explanation, I instead manufacture some incredibly ambiguous terminology and phrases like distortion filter, subcommunication, “distorting and summarizing by intuition”. It’s a game of pass the ambiguity, I challenge you to define your terms like “spirituality”, “emotional reasons” and “intuition” and you either ignore me or define the term in equally ambiguous terms. As I said before, these terms are just empty vessels used to store our ignorance of a subject and to be pointed to as that subject’s explanation. Substituting an ignorance container with terms or notions that are equally as vacuous only serves to change the container’s name, not its contents.

                      “It’s clear that your mind is closed- that’s fine because, ultimately, you are the poorer for it, and only you yourself will be held to make peace with that.”

                      You’re right my mind is closed, its closed off to bullshit. I demand that things be scrutinized for logical consistency, be intellectually honest and be supported by evidence before I believe them. This demand closes me of from your rich world of intellectually dishonest, feel-good nonsense. If that is poverty, than I wish to remain a pauper.

                      “The reason I say what I do is because I want to share the happiness I have found for myself with others.”

                      You know how much your feelings have to do with the truth? Zero, zip, zilch, nada, fuck all, nothing. It makes me very happy to think that candy rains from the sky and that rivers flow with chocolate milk, that also doesn’t make it true. The time to share with others is when you have something of substance to share, not when having nothing makes you giddy.

                      “As I said before, spoken like a computer, with a smugness that no calculation is beyond your comprehension. You concern yourself with what is not possible so you lampoon others who do not share your prejudice.”

                      Again, as I have said, spoken like a person who pretends to know things he doesn’t know. For starters, calculating the sum of an infinite set of signals is beyond my comprehension. Also, unlike you, I don’t claim to comprehend intimate relationship dynamics, and I have stated as much. However, I suppose my stating that I do not know, nor do I pretend to know how something works is an example of my smugness and excessive pride, as you are so inclined to point out.

                      “A benign assertion that misses two main ideas.”
                      “The issue is the human factor adds a randomness that defies any logical reasoning”
                      “Emotions may function to some logical system, but there are so many variables that 1)you have no visibility of and 2) that are beyond comprehension because of 1 and the inability to trace them to their conclusion that emotions are effectively illogical.”

                      I didn’t miss your point at all. Even though emotions are in themselves illogical, if they function within intimate relationship dynamics they, by definition, must function in accordance with some system that can be logically explained. If this system is overrun with randomness, then it ceases to be systematic, ergo there are no relationship dynamics to speak of. To present some elaborate explanation as to how something works and then state that it is driven by random elements, is to explain nothing. To say that the apparent randomness of intimate relationship dynamics is driven by some elaborate system of emotion, intuition or whatever and that these things in turn are random is fundamentally indiscernible from saying that the apparent randomness of intimate relationship dynamics is driven by randomness. Both explanations deliver the exact same results and receive the same inputs. This “system” is merely a circuitous way of reiterating what we already know, intimate relationship dynamics seem random.

                      However, this isn’t the case. Human behavior can be predicated, human emotional responses can be predicted, relationship dynamics can be described in a logical way (the above article is a demonstration of that), just not terribly well. We simply don’t have a great purchase on the subject as of now, and we will have to wait for scientists to do what it is they do best; construct logical, falsifiable models of this phenomenon and figure out which ones work and which don’t. Nothing about this means that the topic is, in principle, beyond our grasp.

                      “Rather than accusing peers who disagree with of looking down at you, perhaps understand they are reacting to your intractable nature, and your arrogance. You yourself try to place yourself above others on some “higher level” by saying no standard of proof is sufficient and, instead of politely conceding points or asking further questions, you cover your retreat by putting forth cruel jibes that further entrench “denseness”. Someone who truly pursues knowledge does not do this; this is the mark of someone who has an ego to stoke rather than a point to share.”

                      I see, the implication that I am not good with women and so I am not qualified to speak on the topic, and the accusations of being “like a computer”, being smug, hubris, that my mind is closed and that I missed your points, without an explanation as to how, aren’t patronizing jabs at my character in efforts to tar myself and arguments as inferior. Your essential declaration of expertise on a subject as incredibly complex and lacking in scientific understanding as intimate relationship dynamics and psychology, isn’t arrogant. Neither is attributing this expertise to your superior prowess in intimate relationships, your highly developed intuition and the mastery it affords you over these topics and your, oh so, worldly knowledge of irrelevant quotes and elaborate scientific/mathematical concepts, aren’t exceedingly arrogant. No these are the marks of a person who “truly pursues knowledge” who has no “ego to stroke” and who is only interested in a rational exchange of ideas.

                      I could take a cue from you and conclude this response by regurgitating quotes from famous smart people at you, such as:
                      “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them” -Thomas Jefferson
                      or
                      “But I try not to think with my gut. If I’m serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble.” -Carl Sagan
                      but instead I will conclude with an old ancient Chinese proverb, that I just made up:
                      “Strive to be as the empty toilet bowl is; not full of shit.”

                    • September 25, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

                      No, my gibes are a demonstration of my intolerance of bullshit.

                      Le sigh.

                      That’s nice.

                      I could take the time to reply to each item in triplicate… Perhaps such a reply deserves an article in itself rather than a narrow comments column. I remain concerned, however, that I will simply try your patience, waste my breath and you will continue to confuse sincerity for weakness. It seems that you designate all explanation, crafted with care, as sophistry, especially explanation that cannot be related mathematically. It seems that you designate any view that opposes your own as egotistical, ill-informed, and worthy of scorn as if you had the omniscent eye of the Creator. The denseness and conceit means there is no concession, no mutual respect, no exchange of ideas, hence no fun for me. 🙂 Your experience of the world is not my experience, not that you value anything I have to contribute.

                      So instead of continuing to stoke ill will on a profitless endeavour, I will leave you to your contemplation and musings and instead offer you a benediction.

                      May the path you have chosen bless you with happiness, prosperity, the soft touch and companionship of many beautiful women. May you be filled with the dreams, wonder and imagination of a child discovering the possibilities of the world for the first time. Have a great day, and peace be with you.

                      PS: Please consider using HTML block tags to frame further replies on this website.

            • November 14, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

              “I would contend that an inability to form “intimate relationships” precludes you from contributing to the discussion because you lack the credentials.”

              By that logic, people without legs are precluded from discussing the physics of walking, or blind biologists from discussing eyeball anatomical functions.

              It would also preclude men from being gynecologists, or non-mothers from becoming midwives or doctors who deliver babies.

              Presumably if one hasn’t actually done something, one couldn’t possibly possess a valid opinion about the subject matter?

              However did men begin to build houses without experienced masons to guide them to it?

              People do not need credentials to contribute to the discusion.

              Also Richard: IMO you’re freakin’ handsome. Keep in mind that this could be a large part of success in relationships, amongst other attributes, that make you an attractive mate, as opposed to success being led by personal views on relationship dynamics.

        • November 14, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

          “Spoken like a computer. How good are you at connecting with and persuading people, would you say? How good are you at connecting with women?”

          Really Richard? So your argument is basically:
          -If you get laid easily, your religious views are true-
          -If you can’t get laid, your lack of religious views are false-

          That or… the ‘spoken like a computer, how do you connect with chicks’ was a complete sidestep of the criticism of the validity of your ‘spiritual’ comment.

  2. August 27, 2012 at 11:47 pm #

    A very interesting post. Since marriage first developed, and right up to the modern day. marriage has been fundamentally an economic institution, men working and offering resources in exchange for sex and the opportunity to have children. The attempt to redefine marriage in romantic love terms has been a predictable disaster, as anyone who reads Frank Tallis’s ‘Love Sick’ will understand.

    The vast majority of men and women act gender-typically, in so many ways. An obvious example is that the prime consumers of romantic fiction are women, the prime consumers of pornography men. I strongly recommend Sreve Moxon’s ‘The Woman Racket’ for coverage of gender-typical differences. And for an excellent account of how feminism has been the key driver of misandy for decades I recommend Swayne O’Pie’s ‘Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism’. Also available outside the UK and in a KIndle edition with the title, ‘Exposing Feminism: The Thirty Years’ War Against Men’.

    MIke Buchanan
    ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
    http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com

  3. James Hill
    August 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

    You were right to assume that many people would have a problem with your boiling down all romantic and platonic relationships to an economic transaction. Undoubtedly some kind of value proposition weighs into human relationships– for some people more than others– but it’s shortsighted to assume that’s the only dynamic at play. How else do you account for couples that stay together in their old age, once all the children are grown and gone? How do you account for couples where the wife stays by the husband after he loses his job? What of couples where one of them is struck down with a severe, chronic illness and the other becomes a full time carer? You could make the argument that they’re getting value from their partner as emotional fulfillment, in which case you’ve expanded the notion of economic transaction to include everything a hopeless romantic looks for in a relationship.

    Interestingly, many second wave feminists would agree with your point that the sexual revolution has “reduced the price of pussy.” They argue that many women are reluctantly forced to participate in the hook up culture as a means of obtaining emotional intimacy. To be sexually chaste is to invite loneliness, because men will simply date someone willing to provide them with sex.

    I cannot stress enough how poisonous the economic view of relationships is: for both men and women. The true value of intimacy is not ready access to sexual favours, or material security, but emotional intimacy and the bond that comes with having a partner that you can trust. You will often only get out what you put into the relationship: the gold digger and the pick up artist deserve each other, and both of them will wind up lonely and isolated, even if they get what they’re looking for.

    • August 28, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

      Gosh, those are all very interesting questions and I do spend a lot of time thinking about them. I didn’t include them here because I was avoiding a 4,000 word piece turning into a book. What I’ve presented here is just one thread in the social network in isolation.

      I’m not sentimental at all. I work as a psychologist and researcher these days and I so my focus on relationships is very clinical. I don’t think I’m cold at all, I still like people, I just don’t think I need to pretend they’re anything more than animals in order to justify to myself why I like them.

      I think the economic view is quite sound, until you have two people who both understand it very well, then you’re in uncharted territory. One should never be afraid of knowledge, just not actually having it when you think you do.

      • November 14, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

        The idea of a man and a woman in a relationship who understand this model, are on equal and fair terms, and pursue a romance based on actual mutual interests where there’s no contribution imbalance… man that’s just titillating eh? So abnormal, so uncharted, isn’t that true romanticism?

  4. August 28, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

    A note to Frank James Spencer. Frank, I’m 54, and I wish I’d been as smart and as clear-eyed about relationships when I was Jason’s age. Maybe then I wouldn’t have written my upbeat critique of modern marriage, ‘The Fraud of the Rings’, when I hit 50, after my second divorce.

    Mike Buchanan
    http://lpspublishing.co.uk

  5. August 28, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

    I am 43, the young guys now have the internet lucky guys.

  6. Nonymouse
    August 29, 2012 at 11:48 am #

    ” For a woman, she can consent to have sex with a man, but if he doesn’t call her back the following day she could change her mind and call it rape. She withdraws consent after the event. What’s her rationale for this position? ” — Case In Point: Julian Assange.

    • August 29, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

      Apparently Julian brags about the number of children he has fathered and that he doesn’t know about. He probably shouldn’t have hooked up with women in a country that has a novel legal definition of rape.

      • August 29, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

        This is gossip and even if it is true, last time I checked, there was no law against being an arsehole. Considering just how many options women have when it comes to contraception and abortion these women must want to have his babies anyway. Also, considering how smart Julian Assange is, I don’t think he’ll be harming the gene pool by spreading his seed around liberally, unlike many other people we don’t seem to mind letting breed.

      • August 29, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

        This is gossip and even if it is true, last time I checked, there was no law against being an arsehole

        But there is a law in Sweden that defines rape differently than most nation states i.e. a woman can withdraw consent mid copulation and rape = unconsented copulation without protection. Maybe it’s a jilted lover thing and maybe the law is stupid… at the same time, it’s their law in their country. As I said earlier, you need to make sure your customer is satisfied before you leave: that’s a fair requirement.

        when it comes to contraception and abortion these women must want to have his babies anyway.

        Not when they had a condom for the first round as contraception and he was bareback in the second round. Or began copulating bareback with another woman when she was asleep. If that is ”hearsay” and she has a semen sample to prove it, then Julian would have to think about the implications before coupling with women who will sell you out / betray you. See my definition of ”women who are not worth it” in one of the posts above.

        Also, considering how smart Julian Assange is, I don’t think he’ll be harming the gene pool by spreading his seed around liberally, unlike many other people we don’t seem to mind letting breed.

        It sounds like you have a strong belief in eugenics, which falls under one of the authoritarian controls we have to be wary of in a free society. Nevertheless, I don’t think that Julian’s ”genes” are particularly valuable. Not valuable enough, at any rate, to excuse him of not doing his homework before bumping hips, and not valuable enough to excuse him a day in court.

        Julian falls into the “pickup artists and golddiggers deserve each other” category in the post above.

        Anyway, part of the cost of “spreading his seed around liberally” probably should be alimony. That’s probably why women protect their reproductive organs carefully- if they fuck up they are left holding the baby, and some don’t want an abortion for their own reasons. You don’t need to be a feminist to hold this aforementioned reservation.

        Out of interest, is it a reasonable request that the man who fathers a child should contribute to its upbringing? If a man says, “this is a sperm donation, I don’t want any part of it” before the fact, that’s fair, but how often is that said in the real world?

        • November 14, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

          “sounds like you have a strong belief in eugenics, which falls under one of the authoritarian controls we have to be wary of in a free society.”

          In all things we should be wary of bad judgement. Applies to judgment of eugenics and prejudice just as much as it does judgement of science or feasibility.

          “part of the cost of “spreading his seed around liberally” probably should be alimony.”

          Why? Men who do not consent to have children should not be obligated to financially support them. Our system is broken.

          “if they fuck up they are left holding the baby, and some don’t want an abortion for their own reasons”

          Men may not want to pay for child support ‘for their own reasons’. Why does a refusal to choose the right option work in women’s favour, yet refusal to choose an unfair option works against men?

          “is it a reasonable request that the man who fathers a child should contribute to its upbringing?”

          No, not unless he signs a declaration of intent to father a child.

          “If a man says, “this is a sperm donation, I don’t want any part of it” before the fact, that’s fair, but how often is that said in the real world?”

          Irrelevant. A man shouldn’t have to have this disclaimer, a lack of intent to be a part of a child’s life should be the default assumption until a man declares that intent positively.

          For some reason men are being put into a special situation where their motives are assumed for them when they’ve never spoken their desires.

          Is it okay to assume a woman wants sex unless she vocally exclaims ‘I don’t want sex’? I don’t think it is. I realize the whole ‘wait until the issue is vocalized’ ideal doesn’t work out, but in the very least, when people pursue sex it’s based on assessing body language, subtle cues, etc.

          What subtle cues in a man say ‘I want a baby’? When men pursue sex, the default assumption should be that they want to get off, an impulsive momentary pursuit.

          Rearing children is a long term huge impact thing, and something it’s not unrealistic to expect a declaration of intent for.

  7. Caroline
    August 31, 2012 at 1:57 am #

    Hi there,

    I’m a woman, and I would define myself as feminist. Not the “I-think-all-men-are-pigs-and-women-should-have-the-power” type but in the “I-think-men-and-women-should-have-equal-rights” type. Some feminists out there do think that way.

    Oh, and I’m French, so if I make mistakes… pardon my English.

    As a feminist (not an activist, just by conviction), I think the slutwalks are an interesting subject because it started with great ideas, but some aspects are very disturbing. That, along with the fact that I like to hear different points of view, is why I read your article “The Nobility in Slut Shaming” and then this one.

    Now, I’m not going to tell you how I feel about these articles. That would be useless, because first : you don’t care, and second : it would only reinforce you in the idea that I’m a whining troll.

    Instead, let’s talk about the facts, and only the facts.

    1. When you say “For a woman, she can consent to have sex with a man, but if he doesn’t call her back the following day she could change her mind and call it rape. She withdraws consent after the event.”, do you have any example of such a thing actually happening? If so, well, we can agree that this woman has no idea of what “consent” means. And I honestly don’t think you can find many women who would agree to say that this should be considered rape.

    2. “Also, a quick disclaimer, the female behaviour I am describing here is not found in all women, just the women who are ruled by their most primitive instincts.” OK, I can easily agree that some women act in a manipulative and calculating way. To say otherwise would be naive. But you see, the problem is that you start your article saying “OK, this doesn’t apply to ALL women, are we clear?” and then you spend your entire article saying “Women act like this, women are like that.” You have to make up your mind : do we talk about ALL the women or not? And if not, why do you keep saying “women” and not “some women”? Is it because you think it is “most” women?

    3. My boyfriend once told me that he was amazed at how many people don’t know what a theory is. Actually, I myself never really got to think about it before we talked about it. He explained to me that a theory is an attempt as explaining rationally some phenomenons. A theory is not true or false. (That is why so many people can argue for hours over theories : they want to prove that their theory is the “right” one.) The only thing that you can do to dismiss a theory is find an important set of facts that cannot be explained by this theory. I guess you already know all that stuff since you are a scientist.
    So, here you are saying : “The human relationships can be described only in terms of economic dynamics”. That is a theory. A controversial one, of course, a sad one perhaps, but hey, the real question here is not whether it is appealing or not, it’s : can it check against reality? The best attempt at dismissing this theory was James Hill’s :

    “How […] do you account for couples that stay together in their old age, once all the children are grown and gone? How do you account for couples where the wife stays by the husband after he loses his job? What of couples where one of them is struck down with a severe, chronic illness and the other becomes a full time carer?”

    and his subsequent statement : that if you added emotions as one of the possible “goods” exchanged, then your theory would stop being so shaky. It still wouldn’t be perfect, but it would make much more sense.

    4. “They [“women” or “some” women, still not clear on that one] know it instinctively enough to manipulate and control men without men realising that women have most of the power in romantic relationships.” OK, for the sake of argument, let’s agree that this is true. Can we agree that this is NOT a good thing, and that NO gender should manipulate the other into getting what they want ? And that, even if this dynamic is balanced and no part gets ripped off, the “I’ll-give-you-money-you’ll-give-me-sex” relationship is not exactly the most fulfilling human experience you could get ? You say : “men, smarten up, open up your eyes, remove the Disney glasses”. Why ? What if some men view their relationship in terms of feelings, are fine with it, and find some women who do too – how is that a bad thing ? I’ll give you that : it’s a bad thing if the girl you date actually DOESN’T care about feelings. But does that mean that you have to give up on feelings, and that you can’t keep looking for someone that wants love more than anything else ?

    Take me, for instance. My partner earns a little less than I do. I own my apartment and he lives with me paying just for his share of service charge, electricity and all that shit.
    He clearly told me that he doesn’t want to have kids. But I won’t waste my time thinking stupid thoughts like “I could do better”, and I will keep loving him and thanking my lucky star that, the first night that we spent together, he didn’t told me something like : “You know what, I’m willing to give you protection and money if you let me fuck you tonight”. Because I would have kicked him out. Hard.

    • August 31, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

      Bonjour Caroline,

      Thanks for your comment and you have earned my respect for not complaing about hurt feelings. Also, your English is excellent.

      1. Someone here has already pointed out that the Julian Assange case is an excellent example of rape after the event. But here is a list of women who have been verfied as having made false rape accusations: http://register-her.com/index.php?title=False_Rape_Accusers

      Not all of those cases are relevant, but many of them certainly are.

      2. Ok, this is a bit of a complicated answer. On one level I mean exactly what I said, only women who are immature. However, technically speaking even mature women are like this, they’ve just learned to be responsible for their urges and to rule from their heads instead of their ovaries. What I am describing here is default female mating behaviour, also known as hypergamy. Men have their own mating behaviours and they have long been humiliated about them by feminists. It’s only fair that feminists are informed that women are just as much victims of their biological urges as men are and that these urges, like the men’s, can be a serious threat to civilised life if women are not responsible for themselves.

      3. Yes, I am aware of the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. What I’ve put forward here is simply a handful of pieces to a much larger puzzle of human relations. I didn’t have the time to go into this in great detail but one very interesting thing about male sexuality is that men actually have an “attachment mechanism” that women don’t. Men tend to prefer one night stands over a long relationship and the best explanation I’m aware of is because if a man bonds emotionally (becomes attached to) a woman then his life is in serious danger if they should break up. Men post relationship breakdown are 10 times more likely commit suicide than normal. Women’s suicide rates are unaffected. Men already commit suicide several times more often than women so this means, post break up, men are liable to be 30-40 times at higher risk of committing suicide post relationship break down. Because women crave security it makes sense that women selected men for their strength of attachment and because attachment like this is so potentially disasterous for men it makes sense they the men don’t want to stay around with a poor quality female (a slut for example) that they could get attached to. This also goes a long way to explain why men are so quick to get themselves hurt or killed for the sake of women they’re attached to. This aspect of male sexuality is very rarelly appreciated or talked about at all. Women don’t talk about it because they have no idea how much men men experience post break up because women can’t experience the same level of pain that men experience and men don’t want to burden their friends with the pain they’re feelings… this of course is a recipe for suicide.

      But beyond all this are thousands of other topics about human relationships I could have talked about but didn’t because of length constraints.

      4. My answer to this is simply that to live in ignorance, especially willfil ignorance, is incompatible with human dignity. A person who lives in ignorance is a pathetic and depraved creature. People deserve the truth, this is the cornerstone of honour and self-respect.

      Regarding your personal experience, well, since you weren’t having a one night stand then that was probably fine. But my point was, and I thought I was very clear, if a man just wants to have sex with a woman, he should be straight up and tell her. Clearly, you didn’t just want to have sex, you wanted more than sex because you wouldn’t have said that you would have kicked him out otherwise. You need to be honest with yourself that as a woman, you were seeing your first night together with this mand as more than just sex. What if he had just fucked you and disappeared? Would you have been angry with him?

      Other thing is, you really need to own your own life, because I wonder if you actually want to have kids and now you’re in a position where you might be tempted to blame him for your own bad decision about your own happiness later on. As a woman, you crave security, knowing and understanding this will not only help you, but most women, to make wiser decisions before they get committed to a man. Spreading this information will not hurt any woman, it will only make them wiser and happier.

      • Caroline
        September 1, 2012 at 1:04 am #

        Well, let’s go… WRESTL… Hum, I mean, ARGUE !

        1. I’m not as familiar with the Assange case as you obviously are. So I tried to find an article describing what took place, and this is what I read :

        “He pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she “tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again”. Miss A told police that she didn’t want to go any further “but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far””

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

        OK, I don’t know if this woman is lying or not. But the fact is that if she is actually telling the truth, that IS rape, and there is no question to it.

        Boys, a hint : when a girl tries to put her clothes back on when you’re trying to have sex with them… not really a sign of consent.

        In your article, you talked about women consenting, then claiming it’s rape the next day because the guy didn’t call. Well, that has nothing to do with this case.

        And for the other examples of “false rape accusation”, well yeah, that’s why they call it *false* rape. If it’s a lie, it’s not rape.

        But don’t say that women do consider that sex is rape if they don’t get “what they want” after it even if they were consenting. That is a whole different thing.

        2. My question was : do you think that ALL women view relationships in terms of economics and exchaning goods? And your answer is :

        “even mature women are like this”

        Oh, well, OK, so we don’t agree anymore… but then you say :

        “they’ve just learned to be responsible for their urges and to rule from their heads instead of their ovaries”

        Wait, what ? I don’t understand you anymore. Trying to get money and protection by offering sex is an urge coming from ovaries and not from thinking? I guess we’re not talking about the initial issue anymore, are we ?

        “women are just as much victims of their biological urges as men are and that these urges, like the men’s, can be a serious threat to civilised life if women are not responsible for themselves”

        OKaaaay, so no, you’re not talking about economics, here. Or if you are, that is not very clear.

        Maybe my question wasn’t clear enough, so I’ll try again : do you think that ALL women view relationships in term of economics and exchanging goods ?

        3. My question (OK, OK, my bad, I didn’t actually phrase the question) was : do you realize that your theory of relationships being all about economic transactions does not check with reality if you don’t add emotions to the equation?

        “What I’ve put forward here is simply a handful of pieces to a much larger puzzle of human relations.”

        I would like to think that this an answer to my question 2, and that you do agree that “economic relationships” are only a small amount of relationship. I would like to think that, but I’m not quite sure. Actually, I really don’t think that’s what you mean. And either way, that doesn’t answer my question number 3. It sounds more like “hey, I was just trying to explain my point of view”. OK, so, what about the reality check?

        Because if I say “Men are all pigs, all they want out of women is sex and nothing else, so girls, try to keep that in mind when you are talking to a man”, you could (and rightly so) prove that it is utter bullshit with a lot of counter-examples.

        And then you talk about how men are much sensitive than women when it comes to beakups. OK, that’s a different subject, but an interesting one, let’s talk about that ! It’s interesting how you turn upside-down that cliché (and a stupid one, too) “women are frail and sensitive, and men are jerks who just think about sex”. So you are saying that it’s the other way around ! An original idea, I’ll give you that.

        And you have evidence to prove that it is true :

        “Men post relationship breakdown are 10 times more likely commit suicide than normal. Women’s suicide rates are unaffected.”

        OK. (I’d like to see the study if you have a link, but I’ll trust you one that one.) And that allows you to say :

        “men actually have an “attachment mechanism” that women don’t”

        And so, you conclude that because of that “attachment mechanism”, men prefer to stay way from commitment as a survival mechanism.

        That’s a way to interpret this figure. Here’s a second interpretation : what if, precisely because men avoid commitment, when they DO commit, it’s when they feel very strong emotions for that one person they have decided to commit with, and then it’s so much harder to cope when a breakups come ? Whereas women would get used to men not wanting commitment, and it wouldn’t come as such a great shock when the guy leaves them ?

        Here’s a third interpretation : what if women were just better are at coping with their feelings than men ?

        Here’s a fifth interpretation : what if all of these interpretation were in fact bullshit, and we should all realise that jumping to conclusions on a matter as complex as human emotion is very dangerous ? Personally, this one is my favorite.

        “a poor quality female (a slut for example)”

        OK, girl, breathe. Breathe. Keep cool. Keep reading.

        “women can’t experience the same level of pain that men experience”

        Well, I myself avoid as much as possible asserting anything about anybody’s capability of having feelings, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. But hey, that’s just me.

        “men don’t want to burden their friends with the pain they’re feelings”

        I’ll strongly agree on that one. Since there are these stupid notions that “only women can cry and complain about their feelings”, and “men should man up”, there we are having men that keep their feelings to theirself, and that of course, is, as you say, “a passport to suicide”. Look, we agree on sompething ! Isn’t that grand ? Could I go as far as saying that we agree that oppressive gender roles are bad for everybody ?

        4. I stronlgy agree, people deserve the truth. But I think all men know that they are gold-diggers and cold manipulative woman out there. If not, pointing it out is indeed a good thing. But saying that all women don’t care about feelings and men should adjust their behaviour to that idea is not what I would call “the truth”.

        “if a man just wants to have sex with a woman, he should be straight up and tell her”

        Agreeeeeed ! Oh God I agree so much.
        And, hey, here’s another idea : what about *not* sending her mixed-messages about him actually appreciating her as a human being and wanting to know her better ?

        Oops, I have to go, so I’ll be back for the personal remarks, I have some things to say about them too, but I’m running out of time ! (Didn’t have time to proofread, I hope it’s readable.)

      • Caroline
        September 1, 2012 at 3:25 am #

        I’m back ! OK, for the personal remarks :

        “You need to be honest with yourself that as a woman, you were seeing your first night together with this mand as more than just sex. What if he had just fucked you and disappeared? Would you have been angry with him?”

        Yes, I would have been angry. Because even if you don’t explicitely say what you want from a relationship, there are way to make the other people feel what you want in a relationship. That’s why I would have been angry if he had just fucked me then left. Because we spent a lot of time talking to each other online, then during dates, and he showed interest in me as a person. If he had disappeared after sex, that would have meant that he was FAKING this interest. And nobody likes faking.

        And I was thinking about what you were saying about being open wit a woman when you only want to fuck. That’s a great idea, but in some case, that can be a mood-killer.

        When I think of a one-night stand that I had (she’s a slut! A slut! Kill it!! Kill it with fire!!… OK, just kidding, I know you won’t burn me. Especially when it would be so expensive – airplanes tickets aren’t cheap…), I’m thinking that if the guy would have stopped for a minute and told me “You DO realize that this is just a one-night stand, right ?”, it would have killed the magic…

        ” I wonder if you actually want to have kids”

        I don’t. I know I might change my mind one day, but I really don’t think I will. And I’m 28, so I think I can be able to figure out what I want by now.

        ” As a woman, you crave security”

        Why, that’s cool of you telling me what I want! I never realized that’s what I craved! Thanks for sharing, I was stupidly relying on my own feelings. How stupid of me.

        OK, joke aside (sorry if I revealed my feelings a little bit), I’m not only a woman, I’m mostly a human being, a grown-up, wit a brain, who is able to make decisions for herself.

  8. August 31, 2012 at 11:12 am #

    Lol an article in the Age that cannot comprehend the concept of “negligence”

    http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/clothes-dont-cause-rape–rapists-do-20120827-24w49.html

    it’s like there’s a mental block in the head that stops feminists from appreciating the importance of responsibility or the concept of “defensive driving”

    • Caroline
      August 31, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

      I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say “responsibility”…
      “Responsibility” as in : “you’re partly responsible for being raped if you show cleaverage”, or am I missing your point ?

    • Richard Lee
      August 31, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

      Don’t get me wrong, I love women, and I’d love for them to walk around in revealing clothing being sexy and beautiful. But there are bad men out there, and the police can’t be everywhere 24/7, and they shouldn’t be holding your hand when you take a piss.

      If a bad man rapes a woman he is ENTIRELY at fault. I get that.

      The issue is: How come a shopping centre can tell you to take your valuables out of your car without “blaming you for getting robbed”, while you can’t tell a woman not to walk into a shady area of town only in a string bikini? Can I tell my brothers and sisters in a Kung Fu school not to carry laptop bags down dark alleys, because I am “blaming them for getting robbed?” Can I tell my friends not to yell back at the angry drunk to avoid a fight without “blaming them for starting a fight?” *facepalm*

      Because ultimately if that bad man rapes a woman, it’s his fault and he’s a criminal. Yet it doesn’t matter at that point because she still got raped and you can’t unrape her… all the confected outrage and jingoism in the world doesn’t change that bad things happen. There are bad people out there willing to lie, cheat, steal maim and kill to get ahead. “Risk profile” is the name of the game. For some reason all the slutwalkers are thinking “me me me” as if God made them immune to the real world.

      That’s why slut walk is stupid. No ladies, it’s not just about you. I encourage you to dress however you like and show as much cleavage as you like… just make sure you guarantee your own security before you do it. That’s where responsibility comes in.

      • Caroline
        August 31, 2012 at 11:31 pm #

        I understand your point of view perfectly. I think this sums up the whole problem with slutwalks : it is very easily misinterpreted and easy to criticize.

        You agree that when a man rapes a woman, no matter what, it’s entirely his fault. Well, there you go, I think that’s pretty much the message that slutwalks are trying to send !

        Because though YOU think that, there are people who DON’T, and that’s a real issue in our society, especially when that person is a JUDGE :

        http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1494590.judge_claims_paedophile_victim_dressed_provocatively/

        I think that’s the most important message of slutwalks.

        But to me, the issue is that trying to convey this message by endorsing the word “slut” is not the best way to do it. Because I don’t think that if that judge sees the slutwalkers protesting, he’s going to say “Hey, let’s listen at what these people, maybe they have a valid point”. He’ll see women claiming to be sluts and think “Those horrible depraved girls ! Let us pray for their soul !” and totally miss the point.

        I don’t believe I am immune to the world. I believe I could get raped tomorrow coming back from a party at 1 AM wearing a dress, or tonight, coming back from home wearing a T-shirt and jeans. I just hope I won’t, and if society keeps putting into people’s head that a girl that dresses in a certain way is “a slut” and “asking for it”, well, that’s just the excuse that creepy horney sick guy needs to jump at me if my dress is a little too short.

        (By the way, I read all your comments on this thread and loved them. Thanks for being open-minded.)

        • Caroline
          September 1, 2012 at 3:04 am #

          “Hey, let’s listen at what these people **have to say**”
          “coming back from **work**”

          Sorry about that.

        • James Hill
          September 3, 2012 at 9:56 am #

          The problem I have with slutwalks of any kind isn’t the message that rapists are bad, it’s how wilfully ignorant they are about what the other side is trying to say. No one is suggesting that women are to blame for being raped, or that rapists are anything but scumbags. What is being said is that there are certain precautions you can take to reasonably reduce your chance of certain kinds of rape, the same way you can reasonably reduce your chances of robbery and violent assault.

          My house got broken into last year. When the police came over to take my report, the officer remarked that my neighbourhood is a bit of a hotspot for burglaries, and I might want to invest in a camera for my back yard. So that’s what I did. What I didn’t do is start a “Sucker walk” complaining that the police shamed me into feeling bad for being burgled and that not enough emphasis was put on how awful burglars are. Slutwalk won’t prevent a single rape. It’s just a launching point for some extreme feminists to show how outraged they are. It’s a cry for attention disguised as politics.

          • September 3, 2012 at 10:35 am #

            Slutwalk won’t prevent a single rape. It’s just a launching point for some extreme feminists to show how outraged they are. It’s a cry for attention disguised as politics.

            QFT. Very succinctly put.

        • September 3, 2012 at 11:22 am #

          Well, there you go, I think that’s pretty much the message that slutwalks are trying to send !

          No, the message slutwalks are trying to send are that, if you suggest to a woman that she is responsible for her own security arrangements, that she is somehow complicit if she gets raped. In part she is in terms of negligence. As James has pointed out, the police can tell you to get bars on your windows, avoid the rough side of town and to keep your valuables hidden as common sense measures.

          When you try to tell a woman she has to take similar measures to reduce her own risk profile, militant feminists only hear, “oh noes, you are blaming her for getting raped!” and are accused of being sexist. Apparently, to a feminist, it’s always completely the man’s fault no matter what 😉

          It is his “fault.” But it’s still smart for a woman to take up “defensive driving” to reduce her chance of being raped.

          especially when that person is a JUDGE :

          Politicians need to ensure that there is no “provocation defense” for rape available to the judiciary. The provocation defense is manifestly ridiculous, I agree.

          The issue here is… a school girl likes an older man, a school teacher, and does her best to seduce him, even if the union is unlawful. Here is the grey area that Jason is talking about in his article.

          , that’s just the excuse that creepy horney sick guy needs to jump at me if my dress is a little too short.

          You are right, that behaviour is inexcusable. At the same time, we should be able to, as a society, point out to women the importance of strengthening their security arrangements without being called out as “sexist”.

          I also wrote an article a while ago about how patently stupid the word “slut” is, and how we should kill it off rather than celebrate it.

          • Caroline
            September 3, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

            “we should be able to, as a society, point out to women the importance of strengthening their security arrangements”

            What I don’t get is : what security arrangements are you all talking about exactly?

            Is it dressing less sexy? If so, how far do we have to go? Really, do tell me. No cleavage passed midnight? No skirt above the knee in risky neighbourhood? But wait, rape aren’t only commited in risky neighbourhood, and not only after midnight. So what… no cleavage at all and never show our knees? But wait, there are those guys with fetish for high heels. Only flat shoes? Oh well, I guess the best security arrangement would be a big long black potato bag with just a hole to breathe. But, wait again, it already exists, and it’s called a burqa! I guess countries where women wear only that must be pretty safe from rape, aren’t they ? Oh wait, they’re NOT.
            OK, I’m pushing it too far, but, really, think about it. Imagine : you’re a woman. You have beautiful boobs. You have pretty legs. Or wait, maybe you just have plain boobs and legs. And you like how you look in that dress. Why should you refrain from wearing it? Because there might be a scumbag out there? How do you know the scumbag won’t rape you if you wear jeans and a T-shirt? Well, there you go : you *don’t* know.

            Or maybe by “security arrangements” you mean having a pepper spray in her bag, or taking self-defense classes? Or always walk around in groups, or accompanied by a guy?

            That would be more constructive – although a lot of us don’t have time for self-defense classes, and personally, I’m reluctant to having any form of weapon in my bag. And sometimes, you have to walk from the subway to your home alone, because, well, you just have to. But I never hear “she should have a pepper spray in her bag”, or “why was she alone?” – only “she should stop dressing that way”. Everytime.

            Do you realize how much stress is put over women’s appearance? A guy can wear almost whatever he wants, nobody will ever give him shit about it. But to women, it’s like every time we put a single piece of (even just a little) sexy clothing out of our closet, we are treated like we’re making a statement to the world : “I want to be fucked.” No, a thousand times no. And if you tell me “maybe that’s not what you mean, but that’s how some guys understand it”, then maybe it’s up to these guys to change how they think. Because if we change the way we dress, that’s only a validation that dressing sexy is an invitation to sex.

            I do realize that this is a very delicate subject, but I’m only trying to make you see how exhausting it is to be judged all the time for what we wear.

            And, Richard, I read your article about the word slut. It was very smart and refreshing. Thank you so much for that.

            • James Hill
              September 3, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

              I’ve made this point many times in many threads: what a woman wears in western society is a lot less risky than how she acts.

              How about avoiding sexual assault by doing the following?
              – Don’t get blackout drunk
              – When you go out to party/socialize, go with a group of trusted friends and make sure you all look out for each other
              – Don’t go home/get into cars with strange people you only just met.
              All of those pieces of advice are good for males to prevent assault/strong arm robbery too. I’d encourage every young person to follow them.

              Your point about it being hard to define provocative clothing is facetious. You know what is provocative for a social circumstance, just because someone can’t enumerate the complex rules for social norms doesn’t mean they don’t exist. It’s like me strolling into work with a giant cock painted on my business shirt. You said it has to be business casual, right boss? You didn’t say anything about designs on the shirt. I only have to wear a collar, right? What if I sew a collar onto my wife beater? I guess office dress codes don’t exist.

              • Caroline
                September 3, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

                Well, those are very good pieces of advice, and I totally agree with them!

                But if that’s the “security arrangements” a woman should take, then why are we even arguing ? A woman should be able to wear whatever she want, only be careful about what she does. There we go, we agree, then !

                But then you tell me something like : “oh, come ON, you know what we’re talking about when we talk about dressing provocatively!” OK, so here we go again.

                We were talking about that issue with my boyfriend the other day, and he told me he saw a woman wearing a white t-shirt with no bra in the subway, and everyone could clearly see her nipples. OK, I agree that this is where limits are reached. Just like the giant cock on your shirt.

                Because, yes, there are limits, I know. But in our society, wearing a strechy skirt or a T-shirt showing cleaverage should not be called “negligence”. That’s all I’m saying.

                • James Hill
                  September 4, 2012 at 8:23 am #

                  That’s a fair comment, I think we do agree on the major points of this issue. We both acknowledge that risky behaviours are more of an impact than risky dress. We both see the need for reasonable precautions to be made to protect oneself, and we both agree that the culpability for sexual assault rests with the rapists.

            • September 4, 2012 at 9:46 am #

              Oh well, I guess the best security arrangement would be a big long black potato bag with just a hole to breathe.

              This one is really easy, despite your faux outrage. If you want to dress to get noticed, make sure you’re in a well lit public place with control of your faculties. That means not getting drunk, that means not wearing a bikini while walking down dark alley shortcuts, that means meeting strange men at the door of your house behind a metal grill to ensure they can’t force their way in before identifying themselves.

              Dress however you like, ladies, just make sure it’s safe to do so. It is negligent if you dress skimpily, walk down a dark alley alone while drunk. A girl is asking for trouble at this point. That is the definition of “security arrangement.”

              Why should you refrain from wearing it? Because there might be a scumbag out there? How do you know the scumbag won’t rape you if you wear jeans and a T-shirt?

              This argument is easily substituted for men. If I have a gold chain, I take it off before going to a rough side of town, or hide it under my skivvie. I leave my laptop in my office before I go drinking. The key is to reduce your risk profile so that criminals don’t target you. Every measure you take decreases the chance they notice you and target you and instead target someone else.

              If you are wearing a jeans and t-shirt, the scumbag is less likely to notice you and more likely to believe you’re not worth their time. There will be scumbags out there, and they are an unavoidable part of human society. Nevertheless, preventative measures that discourage them are common sense.

              a lot of us don’t have time for self-defense classes, and personally, I’m reluctant to having any form of weapon in my bag.

              Failure to prepare is preparing to fail. Not investing in insurance means you’re caught out when the storm hits. That is your risk to take, and my choice to point out it is a foolish risk and irresponsible.

              And sometimes, you have to walk from the subway to your home alone, because, well, you just have to.

              Avoid working late; travel home during rush hour when there are many people walking the same route. Avoid dark, poorly lit shortcuts in favour of a longer walk in a brighter area. Walk in the middle of the road to avoid being grabbed from the bushes.

              Those are simple tips rather than a quote above which tries to justify irresponsibility.

              You make a lot of excuses but are reticient to take some responsibility. That’s why feminists are so short-sighted- it’s always someone else’s fault, it’s always the fault of “men.”

              “she should stop dressing that way”.

              Well the thoughts that you hear from others are wrong, so you should point out that a way a woman dresses isn’t the only factor in an attack.

              Appearance is a factor though, just like a man with a gold chain showing, the gold chain is a factor, as my elderly uncle found out once to his chargin. Ask carefully if dressing a particular way gets you noticed by the wrong kind of people.

              A guy can wear almost whatever he wants, nobody will ever give him shit about it.

              LOL Guys who dress badly find it harder to get laid. Trust me, women give men shit about it!

              I appreciate how much trouble a woman goes to to tend to her appearance, and sometimes feel sorry for them that appearance matters so much. Nevertheless, clothing has to be appropriate for the setting at hand, including security considerations.

              “I want to be fucked.” No, a thousand times no.

              1. What’s wrong with a woman wanting sex? You say that like it’s a bad thing.
              2. If dressing in a sexually provocative way is somehow not to elicit a sexual response, then what is the point of doing so?

              I think the answer to number 2 is that women don’t dress up to please men, but to compete with other women lol. Perhaps the “women wearing jumpsuits” was one equaliser that the communists got right.

              Perhaps another reason for #2 is so that a woman can use her feminine whiles to bedazzle men when negotiating with them. Well, then she needs to know that the reason they are bedazzled is because they want to have sex with her.

              Did you know that women unconsciously dress sexier when they are at the height of the fertility cycle? Perhaps the conscious, feminine mind abhors the idea, but having sex is an instinctive part of human nature. There is nothing wrong with it at all; in fact it’s a beautiful thing.

              I’m only trying to make you see how exhausting it is to be judged all the time for what we wear.

              Not exhausting at all, just entirely unnecessary. I’ll let you in on a secret.

              Men don’t give a shit.

              As long as they have a beer and a girl dresses sexy, they’re happy. They’re not really judging at all. I’d say, more importantly, women are judging each other or even more…

              … women are judging themselves.

              That last statement… not my problem.

              • Caroline
                September 4, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

                I’m glad to see that after all, we are not very far from agreeing.

                Still, there are some delicate points :

                “That is your risk to take, and my choice to point out it is a foolish risk and irresponsible.”
                “You make a lot of excuses but are reticient to take some responsibility.”

                (By the way, how do you quote another comment? HTML tags? Can’t seem to find how you do it, and since there’s no preview option…)

                That is the notion that I really disagree with : being called “irresponsible”, “negligent”, “foolish”… I agree that, when I have the choice, I will choose the less dangerous way. I agree that some measures can be taken to avoid danger – practical ones, ones that come with good sense. But not taking ALL of them does not make one “irresponsible”.

                On that one, I feel like we can never reach an agreement. And I want you to know that I UNDERSTAND your point of view. I’m just saying I disagree.

                “LOL Guys who dress badly find it harder to get laid. Trust me, women give men shit about it!”

                Well, do you think being whistled at, called names (and you know what names I mean), and hearing inappropriate innuendos by complete strangers can be compared with some acquaintances telling you that this shirt looks like crap? People will give men shit about what they WEAR, people make women feel shitty about THEMSELVES because of what they wear. Really, think about it. Totally different things.

                “you should point out that a way a woman dresses isn’t the only factor in an attack”

                Isn’t that what slutwalks are (awkwardly, agreed!) trying to say?

                “1. What’s wrong with a woman wanting sex? You say that like it’s a bad thing.”

                There’s nothing wrong with a woman wanting sex. What IS a bad thing is asserting that a woman that dresses sexy is trying to send the message that she wants to have sex.

                “2. If dressing in a sexually provocative way is somehow not to elicit a sexual response, then what is the point of doing so?
                I think the answer to number 2 is that women don’t dress up to please men, but to compete with other women lol.”

                Well, it may come as a total shock to you, but many women dress FIRSTLY to please… themselves. Yeah, we LIKE to look pretty. We LIKE to look sexy. We like to look at the mirror and think : “I look good.”

                Of course, this also has to do with other’s people’s eyes. Of course, sometimes, we DO want to fuck when we dress sexy. But sometimes, we don’t. Why else would I put some makeup and pretty dress when I go to my parents, or even when I’m alone?!

                “a woman can use her feminine whiles to bedazzle men when negotiating with them.”
                “Did you know that women unconsciously dress sexier when they are at the height of the fertility cycle?”

                Well, yes, I’m aware that women, consciously or not, are sometimes trying to seduce men. The same way that men, consciously or not, are sometimes trying to seduce women. Or men. (And not necessarily in a homosexual way.)

                Seduction in all its forms is a huge part of human interactions, no question about that. And I’m not saying that it’s a good nor a bad thing, it’s just the way it is.

                All I’m saying is that you can’t – and MUSN’T – assert a person’s sexual state of mind just by looking at their clothes. Sometimes I’m dressed not sexy at all and still feel horny as shit!!

                “Perhaps the conscious, feminine mind abhors the idea, but having sex is an instinctive part of human nature. There is nothing wrong with it at all; in fact it’s a beautiful thing.”

                Agreed, sir. Totally agreed. Nothing to abhor about sex. (With consent, that is, obviously.)

                “Men don’t give a shit.”
                “They’re not really judging at all.”

                Well, some of them don’t (lots of love to all of you out there who are like that!), but when I hear that a coworker stopped wearing dresses at work because she heard that a guy was making inappropriate gestures behind her back… I have to disagree. Many many MANY people judge.

                “I’d say, more importantly, women are judging each other or even more…”

                Well, yes, I know. I myself work very hard on myself to try and STOP judging. It doesn’t come easy, but with practice, it’s slowly fading away.

                I’m not trying to antagonize men and women. There are not bad guys and good gals, and nothing in between. Women also participate in sexism, that is no news. Doesn’t make it any better.

                “… women are judging themselves.
                That last statement… not my problem.”

                I disagree. Sexism, judgement and bigotry are a whole society’s problem. You don’t sound like somebody who judges too much, so in that case, men who judge shouldn’t be your problem either? Well, it still is. Through discussion, education, and mostly through our actions, WE are making the society what it is. If we all try to make it better, then maybe we can make things change.

                Sorry if I sound a little too much like a Michael Jackson’s song…
                But I think society’s issues are everyone’s problem.

                • September 5, 2012 at 10:35 am #

                  (By the way, how do you quote another comment? HTML tags? Can’t seem to find how you do it, and since there’s no preview option…)

                  Use the HTML blockquote tag

                  But not taking ALL of them does not make one “irresponsible”.

                  But choosing not to take just one may still be enough to render you irresponsible. Not using a condom , QED

                  I’m just saying I disagree.

                  That is okay and good to disagree. Debate should be based on polite discussion and mutual respect.

                  “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

                  – Evelyn Beatrice Hall, often misattributed to Voltaire

                  I don’t think we’ll ever agree because everyone has different values and standards. None are necessarily better than the other, but some are more easily justifiable and defensible than others. Hence the importance of conceding points and clarifying agreement.

                  people make women feel shitty about THEMSELVES because of what they wear.

                  People yell racist remarks at me as an oriental man when I visit the rougher suburbs in Australia. Do I take great offence to it?

                  No, because I know that theirs is a display of ignorance and foolishness. Their prejudice is their problem and I don’t have time to correct on a one-on-one basis. When they get drunk and wrap their cars around trees, I just shrug.

                  Isn’t that what slutwalks are (awkwardly, agreed!) trying to say?

                  No, what a slutwalk says to me is that women are complaining that they should never be criticised for dressing in a particular way. That’s a pretty absurd piece of political correctness right there: society should reserve the right to criticise people who dress inappropriately for particular situations.

                  We like to look at the mirror and think : “I look good.”

                  Easy answer then.

                  Dress sexy and stay at home, since, as a woman, one is only trying to please the self. Then put a burqa on when you go outside.

                  You’re only trying to please yourself, yes? 🙂 You know you’re sexy inside?

                  I’m being facetious, yes, but to point out the absurdity of this argument. The fact is, the only measure of “I look good” truly is the impression you get from other people. Otherwise everyone would be happy to wear a burqa to conceal it.

                  What IS a bad thing is asserting that a woman that dresses sexy is trying to send the message that she wants to have sex.

                  This may or may not be true for each woman. If a woman really did want to have sex, and that statement is true (and she knows it!), is telling the truth of the matter a bad thing? 🙂

                  You said yourself, “sometimes, we DO want to fuck when we dress sexy. But sometimes, we don’t. ” Well is it a crime to ask which of the aforementioned is true today? 🙂 If a man never asks, a man never gets.

                  Why else would I put some makeup and pretty dress when I go to my parents, or even when I’m alone?!

                  I find it sad that most women are conditioned from young to determine their value reflexively by their appearance. Makeup is practice for the social shoal a woman has to navigate each day. Thankfully I don’t have to do that as a man.

                  At the same time, I think that the burden of appearance is largely self-imposed. I have suggested before “go out without makeup or showering today” to a look of horror.

                  All I’m saying is that you can’t – and MUSN’T – assert a person’s sexual state of mind just by looking at their clothes.

                  I think the key here is to see the clothes then ask the question, and see what response it elicits. Sometimes that question is a wolf whistle 😉 a woman may feel threatened, but it’s the way men show appreciation.

                  Better that than no appreciation, yes?

                  she heard that a guy was making inappropriate gestures behind her back… I have to disagree.

                  That same jerk is probably rankling on other men as well and acts unprofessionally. Your friend should wear that dress, ask other people “do I look good in this” and keep going irregardless of the worthless worm’s actions.

                  Her “being offended” is not enough to absolve her of the necessity to take control of her destiny. One man’s immaturity shouldn’t dictate that- his “judgement” is worth less than dirt lol.

                  Inevitably when someone does anything, they’re going to stuff something up or offend somebody. The key is to do it anyway because one knows that they are doing the right thing. The people you should listen to are not the immature jerks in the office, but the close friends whose opinions you actually value.

                  If we all try to make it better, then maybe we can make things change.

                  The difference is, I don’t take responsibility for a woman’s own choice of melancholy. I cannot prescribe her of making a thought crime, nor can I mind control her. I cannot change her mind.

                  What I can change is the mind of her open-minded friends around her. That I agree with.

                  Yet, if a woman is determined to be a “victim”, I cannot stop her. All I can point out is the damage she is doing to herself.

                  This quote may be pertinent to women, that they could learn from men:
                  “A boy doesn’t become a man until he overcomes his fear of disapproval. A man doesn’t become free until he overcomes that craving for approval in the first place.” – Johnny Soporno

                  • Caroline
                    September 6, 2012 at 12:43 am #

                    Use the HTML blockquote tag

                    Thanks for that !

                    I don’t think we’ll ever agree because everyone has different values and standards.

                    I guess that’s true.

                    People yell racist remarks at me as an oriental man when I visit the rougher suburbs in Australia. Do I take great offence to it? No, because I know that theirs is a display of ignorance and foolishness.

                    Well, I guess you have to grow a shell when you get insulted all the time, whether you’re a woman or a member of any minority. Women do grow shells too. But that doesn’t mean that the prejudice isn’t an issue, or that you can’t try to fight it, does it? Not by punching some stupid drunk guy, obviously, but fighting through protesting, open dialogue, and any way of making society change. Think of the Civil Rights Movement. Sometimes, you have to stop shrugging, and try to do something about it.

                    society should reserve the right to criticise people who dress inappropriately for particular situations.

                    Well, it’s still a question of limits. Yours seems to be “a bikini in shady areas” (I don’t know about Australia, but in France it’s not so common. Maybe because it’s colder?), but for a lot of people out there, it’s just cleaverage or a dress in the street in broad daylight.

                    The fact is, the only measure of “I look good” truly is the impression you get from other people.

                    I said it, a part of feeling good about how we look like is through the eye of other people. But it’s not the ONLY measure. Another is called a mirror, and another is just how pretty you feel in your mind. Because, yes, I think beauty is, in a way, a state of mind.
                    And no, to answer the question that you’re gonna ask, I don’t necessarily need to dress sexy to feel pretty (oh so pretty, I feel pretty, and witty and briiiight ! Oops, excuse-me, couldn’t hold that one back), but once in a while, hey, it helps.

                    Otherwise everyone would be happy to wear a burqa to conceal it.

                    WHY would I want to conceal my looks? Ugh.

                    What if I told you : you’re an oriental man. You know that there are racist and violent people out there. Violences can be done to people with foreign looks. Why don’t you wear a latex caucasian mask when you go out at night? That way, you’re safe! Yay! What? You don’t want to? Well, you’re irresponsible.

                    Well, that’s exactly how I feel when people tell women they should change their clothes because of the existence of rapists.

                    Oh, and by the way :
                    “Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims. His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated.”

                    http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html

                    I find it sad that most women are conditioned from young to determine their value reflexively by their appearance.

                    I agree, it’s sad.

                    At the same time, I think that the burden of appearance is largely self-imposed.

                    OK, let me have a big long laugh… Thanks, that felt good, I needed that.
                    Yes, because when you’re in a society that keeps sending you messages like : “Loose ten pounds in two days!”, “She could be pretty, it’s such a shame that she doesn’t spruce up”, “Look how pretty that photoshopped model is!”, “Hey fatty, you should go easy on that cake.”, it is SO easy to get ridden of that burden.

                    I know I did. I wear makeup maybe twice a month, and as a matter of fact, I hardly ever wear cleavage, skirts or dress. But that’s just because I feel more comfortable this way. And I think it’s everybody’s right to wear what they’re comfortable in.

                    I think the key here is to see the clothes then ask the question, and see what response it elicits. Sometimes that question is a wolf whistle 😉

                    In what sick world is a whistle a “question”? How often did you see a woman, after being whistled at, turn around and say : “Oh, yes I want it, right here, right now”?

                    Whistles are for dogs.

                    a woman may feel threatened, but it’s the way men show appreciation. Better that than no appreciation, yes?

                    You know what, every now and then, if a guy comes to me in the street and gives me a compliment in a nice, polite way, I smile and say thanks.

                    But do you know how many of those street flirting ends? 99% of the time :

                    “Can I have your number?”
                    “No, I’m sorry.”
                    “Why not?”
                    [insert here eventual insisting questions]
                    “I said no.”
                    “BITCH.”

                    That is not what I call “appreciation”. Do you know how you feel, walking away after such an exchange? Can you guess? A hint : “pretty” is not the answer.

                    Your friend should wear that dress, ask other people “do I look good in this” and keep going irregardless of the worthless worm’s actions.

                    I agree. As a matter of fact, one morning, I made up my mind to tell her that it was not her who should change the way she dressed, but that guy who should change the way he acted. I didn’t have to, because she had done the same reasoning herself and showed up that morning in shorts. I think we eventually high-fived, but maybe I’m building it up.

                    I cannot prescribe her of making a thought crime, nor can I mind control her. I cannot change her mind.

                    What about talking to her? You know, sometimes, that helps.

                    if a woman is determined to be a “victim”

                    I missed your point : what exactly are you talking about? In what ways are some women “determined to be victims”? I never understand this idea… A victim is someone who undergoes something. Nobody chooses to be a victim…

                    “A boy doesn’t become a man until he overcomes his fear of disapproval. A man doesn’t become free until he overcomes that craving for approval in the first place.” – Johnny Soporno

                    Nice quote.

                    So, if what you meant earlier was that some women just can’t beat the idea that they’re worthless if they are not perceived as “pretty”, well, I wouldn’t put the blame on them. When the idea is massaged into your brain since childhood, it’s a damn hard one to chase away. Realising that you are a victim is the first step – the hardest one, actually. Then when you do… nobody wants to be a victim, but it takes time and character to free yourself. So don’t be smug with those who can’t, and say that it’s all their fault. Saying that “they are determined to be victims” is trying to blame them, and asserting that no one can help them. One can.

                    • Anonymous
                      September 6, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

                      Why don’t you wear a latex caucasian mask when you go out at night?

                      I have no choice in my appearance because “I am only trying to please the myself”, but a woman does, so the situations are not equivalent.
                      I also have taken steps to be able to defend myself and choose my locales carefully where I am safe, if there are areas where asians would be assaulted, I’d avoid them, travel during the day or travel in a group.

                      I’d write letters to the newspaper saying “we need to improve the safety of these suburbs because it’s bad for investment and social cohesion to have asian no-go zones.” Notice how I don’t make myself a victim in all of it? I just fix it the best I can by taking responsibility for what I can fix, while calling out that which I cannot.

                      fighting through protesting, open dialogue, and any way of making society change.

                      I agree with this form of action: rpotest, open dialogue and education. I ask however that the reasons and motivations need to be cohesive to the other group you are trying to change; right now I just hear from the feminists at the slutwalk “me me me me my feelings are hurt your fault your fault your fault your fault !” It’s very selfish and short-sighted, there are no consessions and there is no common sense in that sort of dialogue. I’d respect it if the feminists said, “hey ladies, look after yourselves because the men can’t and won’t always be there to look after you.”

                      The civil rights movement was correct because it was justifiable. Feminism has gone from justifiable (such as Universal Sufferage) to descending, as James Hill put it, to “a cry for attention disguised as politics” over concerns that have gone from rightfully correcting injustice and descended to the trivial, the banal, the vexatious and easily remedied by common sense.

                      it is SO easy to get ridden of that burden.

                      It isn’t easy to get rid of, but it doesn’t mean that one should not get rid of it. We know that the marketting world is unrealistic… apparently all men have six packs, work on construction sites, look good in a suit and tie , are perpetually erect and drink beer. In truth, it affects men less because we are less concerned about our appearance. At any rate a french woman once said, ” a little vanity is good for you.”

                      But that’s just because I feel more comfortable this way. And I think it’s everybody’s right to wear what they’re comfortable in.

                      That’s good, we need to encourage more women to wear what they feel like wearing, rather than what society expects them to wear. At the same time, we need to encourage appropriateness e.g. not wearing a bikini to a snow drift

                      it’s just cleaverage or a dress in the street in broad daylight.

                      Let’s do an analysis
                      “it’s just cleaverage or a dress in the street in broad daylight.”

                      1. it’s in broad daylight (more safe)
                      2. it’s probably in a public place (more safe)
                      3. dress to impress / attract moderately, not to titilate
                      4. she is not drunk or compromised by substance abuse
                      so risk is low
                      Notice how “how she dresses” is not the only factor? I don’t think any reasonable person would say showing leg or cleavage in a shopping mall increases chances of rape, because it’s not a patently dangerous situation to be dressed in such a manner. If you’re walking through Saudi, however, wearing a red bikni while walking with a group of nuns… you stand out like a sore thumb and the religious police would be easily singling you out for “re-education.” The key here is for women to reduce the chance they are chosen as a target.

                      Whistles are for dogs.


                      You say so, you say it is “sick”, so it is to you.
                      But it’s the way some men, culturally, pay a compliment… no whistle for “ugly” women. If you perceive their sincere compliment as an insult, that’s “looking a gift horse in the mouth”

                      President Nixon found this out when he made the “ok” symbol with his hand in Latin America in the 1950s, then he was booed as he got off the jet by the locals because he told them they were “assholes.”
                      Maybe men need to communicate better by not offending women with wolf whistles if they want to get laid. Maybe women need to learn male culture and to accept the sincerity of the compliment. The answer lies halfway in between.

                      That is not what I call “appreciation”.

                      A little secret: those guys go home, having not slept with you, as losers. They go, “why didn’t she give me the time of day” and end up crying in the corner, alone. They blame women for not reciprocating when they are the ones acting like assholes, and that is the male form of “perpetual victimhood.”

                      It’s quite elegantly darwinian actually… the more crass those boors are the less likely they are to get laid. And, by blaming the woman and calling her a “bitch”… if I was a woman I’d just smile. Because I know the man is shooting himself in both feet, like a fool.

                      If a woman feels bad after such an exchange, she’s assigning too much value to a man she doesn’t know who isn’t worth anything. If your best friend called you a “bitch” after you betrayed him, then maybe that’s a fair call, but… a complete stranger? How can a woman let a complete stranger define a woman’s sense of self-worth? He doesn’t even know the woman, and already she is giving him too much power. So rather than feeling bad, smile, because the initial compliment was already paid to a pretty girl. And that loser is sleeping alone, because he has no game.

                      I missed your point : In what ways are some women “determined to be victims”? Nobody chooses to be a victim…

                      My definition of “determined to be a victim” is, rather than fixing the problem or moving on with their lives after an event that has occurred that they can never change
                      they become determined to turn being a “victim” into a life sentence, as if it defines their whole identity, and condemn themselves to suffering for the rest of their lives. They expect someone else to pull them out of it but, in truth, they must pull themselves out. They can have the support of friends and family, but it is up to the perpetual victim to make a conscious choice to move past victimhood.

                      some women just can’t beat the idea that they’re worthless if they are not perceived as “pretty”, well, I wouldn’t put the blame on them.

                      I would just pity these women, and point out to them each time they want to play the “victim game” what steps they can take to empower themselves and escape victimhood. The sentence of “victim” never need be a life sentence. As I said, I told a woman once to “not wear makeup and not shower for a week” and she was horrified. It’s a disgusting suggestion, yes, but, if she went through with it, she would come to realise a lot of the walls and expectations placed on her are arbritrary, woman-made and self-imposed.

                      So don’t be smug with those who can’t, and say that it’s all their fault.

                      Ultimately it’s not smugness at all. It is about confronting people with the importance of taking responsibility for themselves as adults, because we can’t hand-hold all of these wannabe feminists who act like spoilt children 24 hours a day. No, mummy won’t tuck you in bed at night and yes, the world is a harsh place and no, nobody else is going to come and fix it for you- you have to fix it yourself. “This is too hard” is not an excuse to avoid enacting lasting change and taking responsibility for one’s own life- that is a truly equal, gender neutral statement. A victim mentality is a perennial black hole of bad karma… by blaming other people, one absolves the self of responsibility and the introspection required to learn and improve. It also breeds paranoia.

                      If a woman wants to change her destiny, all she can really change are her own decisions from this point onwards. If that means women being less likely to put herself in a risky situation, so be it. Just because it’s “rape” and just because she’s a “woman” and a “victim”, it does not absolve her of that responsibility for her own security at all, and doesn’t mean that the emotion and the “crime of passion” overrides the logical faculties… ultimately a rape is violent crime comparable to burglary, robbery, assault and murder, even if the final result is “more horrific” to women, many of the safety considerations are the same. There will be a time for hugs and tears and sympathy, but after the post-match assessment society as a whole needs to say, “well next time we should instead recommend women do X to reduce their chance of rape.”

                      Beyond that recommendation, women take their own risks, and should be rightly called out when they take them. I’d do the same by saying to a robbery victim, “next time don’t walk down a dark alley with your laptop bag.”

    • James Hill
      September 3, 2012 at 10:10 am #

      Hahaha, that article was beyond stupid. She says this:

      “These kinds of arguments have two things in common. Firstly, they’re completely stupid. Rape is possibly the only criminal act in which the victims are expected to take partial responsibility for the choices of the perpetrator. Victims of muggings aren’t asked why they were flaunting their wealth in ‘bad neighbourhoods’. Banks aren’t expected to hide the fact they have vaults of money because some people might be tempted to rob them.”

      Which is just astoundingly naive. She’s obviously never been to a neighbourhood watch meeting, or been in a bad area with a spate of robberies The police will certainly encourage you to not leave valuables in plain sight in a locked car. Police will encourage young men and women to travel together at night, and avoid certain neighbourhoods to avoid being mugged. Banks spend billions on security. I can’t believe someone this painfully stupid is allowed to write for a blog affiliated with The Age.

      • September 3, 2012 at 10:35 am #

        I can’t believe someone this painfully stupid is allowed to write for a blog affiliated with The Age.

        Just like the Herald Sun is a Tabloid, the “Spencer Street Soviet” is losing quality journalists and simply fanning their pet issues (e.g. feminism, Abbott bashing, asylum seeker advocacy). It would be fine for them to do that if they weren’t haemorraging market share so spectacularly.

        They are hacks filling out a propaganda paper that have consigned themselves to insignificance.Two words: Death Spiral

      • Caroline
        September 3, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

        Well, yes, the police has the right to encourage you to put a camera in your yard if you are in a risky neighbourhood – that’s about fair.

        But did they tell you that you were “stupid” or that you “asked for it” because you didn’t put a camera ? Did they shame you about it ? How would you feel if the guy was arrested, but a judge said that there were mitigating circumstances since there was no camera ? Did people passing by your yard say “Look at this stupid guy, not putting a camera. If he get robbed, I won’t feel sorry for him. Nitwit.”

        Because that’s what happens to rape victims (except “slut” is a little more offensive than “nitwit”). And that’s VERY different.

        Why is it that the majority of rapes aren’t reported to the police ? Because of shame. Because women have that unjustified feeling that the rape might have been their fault. And if we don’t fight that shame, if the society keeps sending the message that dressing sexy is a mitigating circumstances for rapers, that won’t change a bit.

        • James Hill
          September 3, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

          they didn’t catch anyone for the crime, Caroline, because they didn’t have enough evidence to get suspects. In much the same way it’s very hard to prosecute rapes that start out as a date/consensual sex: the objective evidence simply isn’t there to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.

          And no, no one called me an idiot for not having a camera, but there are probably people out there who think it. You won’t stop people having aggressive opinions, it’s simply impossible. For the most part people are very accepting/sympathetic towards victims of crime. It’s a strawman to paint people who preach caution and common sense as people who aggressively blame the victim.

          Can you also point to a case in the last 20 years where the woman’s clothing was considered a mitigating circumstance for rape? I’d be very interested to read about it

          • Caroline
            September 3, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

            “And no, no one called me an idiot for not having a camera, but there are probably people out there who think it. You won’t stop people having aggressive opinions, it’s simply impossible.”

            There will always be jerks in the world, I do agree. But mentalities can evolve. And that’s what feminism is trying to do : to make people realise that it’s not OK to blame a woman for what she’s wearing, the same way that it’s not OK for people to think you’re an idiot because you didn’t put a camera in your yard.

            And here’s the case I was talking about earlier :
            http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1494590.judge_claims_paedophile_victim_dressed_provocatively/

            • September 4, 2012 at 9:51 am #

              what feminism is trying to do : to make people realise that it’s not OK to blame a woman for what she’s wearing, the same way that it’s not OK for people to think you’re an idiot because you didn’t put a camera in your yard.

              It should be okay to tell a man to put a camera in his yard, just as it should be okay to tell a woman to cover up if she’s going to a seedy red-light district. We should be free to call a spade a spade.

              I don’t think it’s a woman’s fault if she dresses provocatively, but she is negligent if she thinks she can do so in a dangerous place, just as she is foolish if she dresses skimpy on a snow drift. In both cases I’d call her a fool.

              A feminist may absolve a woman of responsibility. Common sense does not.

              • Caroline
                September 4, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

                The difference lies between :
                “You should think about putting a camera in your yard.”
                and :
                “You’re foolish and irresponsible for not putting a camera in your yard.”
                But I tried to explain my point of view up here :
                http://intentious.com/2012/08/27/sabotaging-slutwalk-like-a-man/#comment-3750
                so I’m not going to do it twice.

                • September 5, 2012 at 9:41 am #

                  “You’re foolish and irresponsible for not putting a camera in your yard.”

                  I read your previous comment and my point still stands.

                  You may think the advice is quaint, just like I think an IT Security expert’s advice is quaint when he says that “you shouldn’t use e-mail, you shouldn’t use Facebook or someone will steal your identity.”

                  His point would still be valid.

                  I would still like to hear his point of view in the marketplace of ideas.

                  I can duly ignore his point and accept the risk without thinking the worse of him for criticising me.

                  “Look at this stupid guy, not putting a camera. If he get robbed, I won’t feel sorry for him. Nitwit.”

                  If everyone else in the street has a camera, if the police advise people in the neighbourhood to have cameras and you attend neighborhood watch meetings stating the importance of cameras… it’s a fair call for them to say, “hey, why don’t you have a camera?”

                  It’s the same with leaving your house door open… if everyone locks their doors, if the police tell you to lock your door and you attend neighbourhood watch meetings that describe burglers going through front doors… would people be justified in calling you a “nitwit” for not closing your door, especially if you’re a “victim” of a burglary? 🙂

                  The value of freedom of speech it has to be given to your most vocal critics. Some will offend you, but that’s part of playing devil’s advocate.

                  that’s what feminism is trying to do : to make people realise that it’s not OK to blame a woman for what she’s wearing,

                  Feminism swings the pendulum too far the other way; it is political correctness gone mad.

                  the same way that it’s not OK for people to think you’re an idiot because you didn’t put a camera in your yard.

                  It is okay to criticise a person as an idiot for not putting a camera in his yard.

                  You do understand freedom of speech and its value, yes? 🙂

                  This video is an excellent primer: The forbidden history of unpopular people

                  Because women have that unjustified feeling that the rape might have been their fault. And if we don’t fight that shame, if the society keeps sending the message that dressing sexy is a mitigating circumstances for rapers, that won’t change a bit.

                  The provocation defense is stupid. That we agree on.

                  Nevertheless we should use positive encouragement to get women to practice “defensive driving” when it comes to rape i.e. avoiding risky situations. Not to pin blame on them, but to encourage them to take responsibility for their security like adults are expected to.

                  • Caroline
                    September 6, 2012 at 1:58 am #

                    OK, we have to stop this double conversation, it’s getting hard to follow! Next time, I’ll answer only the second comment, it will be simpler.

                    The value of freedom of speech it has to be given to your most vocal critics.

                    I watched the video, it was funny and interesting. I had heard about that Australian law project earlier and thought to myself that it sucked.

                    Still, as much as I value free speach, I’m really not comfortable with the fact that hainous, discriminatory speaches, along with speaches that are harmul to the society, cannot be criticized.

                    If an official says on the TV that black people are a subrace that should not have the same rights as white people, for example, wouldn’t it be only right that people protest loudly and demand an apology? The “meh, you know : free speach” argument… I can’t, I just can’t.

                    Nevertheless we should use positive encouragement to get women to practice “defensive driving” when it comes to rape i.e. avoiding risky situations.

                    Well, for that, I allready gave the link above stating that clothes and rape are unrelated :
                    http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html

                    (Definitely, only one comment the next time…)

                    So, how else than by prejudice do you think that if women try to change the way they dress, it will result in less rapes? If it were true, there would be very few rapes in countries where only headscarf and burqas are worn. But it’s not the case. By far.

                    But what DOES happen when you say to women “stop dressing provocatively if you don’t want to be raped”, it’s that they feel like it’s up to them to make the rapes stop. I know these are two very different ideas, but when a woman gets raped, she’ll think : “Maybe it was my fault. Maybe if I had been dressed otherwise, I could have prevent it. Maybe that if I go to the police, they will say that I brought this upon me.” And believe me, a lot of them already think that way.

                    • September 6, 2012 at 7:40 am #

                      I’m really not comfortable with the fact that hainous, discriminatory speaches, along with speaches that are harmul to the society, cannot be criticized…wouldn’t it be only right that people protest loudly and demand an apology?

                      You are wrong, they CAN be criticised, they SHOULD be criticised. Speak up, and call the misogynist a fool! Call the racist a fool.

                      At the same time, the racist should be allowed to speak, so that all can see how foolish he is and all can watch as his argument is pointed out for being a farce.

                      From this, no speech should be silenced or declared unlawful. Especially to prevent “hurting feelings” because “free speech” = “hurting feelings”

                      The people who try to silence others do not realise that the very laws they ask for could be used to declare their own activism unlawful. It is better that all is placed into the marketplace of ideas so that society can judge which ideas have merit.

                      “Maybe it was my fault. Maybe if I had been dressed otherwise, I could have prevent it. Maybe that if I go to the police, they will say that I brought this upon me.”

                      It’s insentitive to scold a person immediately after a bad occurrence, but sometimes it is warranted. I agree though that it doesn’t help in convincing victims to come forward.

                      The problem with your argument that “rape is not related to clothing” is that you are reducing it to be “dress only” argument, then magnifying the dress component until it’s the only factor you consider. That’s specious.

                      The truth is, you need to understand how scumbag criminals choose their target.

                      1. Choose a sin that defines them e.g. greed for robbery, lust for rape, envy for murder, wrath for revenge etc. They need a motivation to act out a criminal act.
                      2. They choose a target. Target choice is based on these factors
                      – how much do you stand out
                      – how weak do you look
                      – can they perform the crime without being recognised
                      – Is the setting so they can they perform the crime without it being noticed
                      – is the target within reach / striking distance?
                      – are the valuables / spoils of crime in plain sight?
                      3. The predator waits for the opportunity to attack their victim

                      Your argument that “people wearing burqas get raped therefore disproved” is false because rapists will suddenly choose other factors when deciding their targets. It doesn’t say that dress isn’t a concern, it’s just that they choose other things instead to case their targets.

                      The above is derived from talking to social workers and security experts on the issue. In fact the two disturbing and common situations of rape are

                      1- woman is not situationally aware, she is pushed forward and raped from behind, never seeing her attacker
                      2- woman allows a man into her house (such as a plumber) who forces himself on her before she screens that he is a danger

                      The way you dress is NOT the only factor, but IS a factor when you play the “let’s see if a criminal goes for me today” game

                    • Caroline
                      September 6, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

                      I’m going to lack time to keep arguing with you…

                      And though we agree that :
                      1. When somebody is raped, the blame should never be put on them,
                      and 2. It is a good idea to take some measures to improve your safety.

                      Which is already not that bad !

                      But I think we won’t ever agree about 2 things :

                      1. You think anyone should be able to tell a woman that she should change the way she dresses to avoid rape without her being offended, whereas I think this kind of talk can only promote victim-shaming (even if it’s not direct victim-shaming, I know) and will not reduce rape rates.

                      and 2. You think that slutwalkers are just a bunch of whining self-centered babies who are only interested in complaining about their hurt feelings, whereas I think that they are trying to send the message that it is not acceptable and even toxic to say “Ladies, refrain from dressing like sluts” (which is actually what started it all : http://www.excal.on.ca/news/dont-dress-like-a-slut-toronto-cop/)

                      But, well, this is the way you and I see things and I don’t think any of us can change the other’s mind about it.

                      Oh yes, and we also agree that trying to reestablish the word “slut” as a positive word is not a good idea…

                      Sorry, I won’t be back here, but it was very interesting talking with you, and thanks for answering me in a constructive way. (Oh and good luck handling numnut if he comes back…)

                    • September 7, 2012 at 9:40 am #

                      Have a good day Caroline, great chatting to you. Maybe one day I’ll come to France to see if the women are as beautiful as everybody in the world says they are. On your advice, I’ll leave my wolf whistle at home 😉

                      be blessed

                    • November 14, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

                      “If an official says on the TV that black people are a subrace that should not have the same rights as white people, for example, wouldn’t it be only right that people protest loudly and demand an apology? ”

                      I don’t think it’s right to demand apologies. The guy’s expressing an opinion, so people should express contrary opinions such as “you are wrong” or “you don’t support your subrace theory views”

                      Simply telling people to apologize is missing the spirit of free speech, that people presumably should speak their minds, and that rather than striving to make people change what they say, we should be striving to change their minds.

                      Better to have a racist man tell the truth about being racist than to lie and pretend he isn’t.

                      Better to have a non-racist man lie and pretend to be racist than a racist pretend to be non-racist.

            • November 14, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

              Caroline, http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1494590.judge_claims_paedophile_victim_dressed_provocatively/ is not at all like the examples you were giving.

              In this case, the judge was saying that the 10 year old girl’s attire contributed towards her looking older, in this case, towards supporting a supposed claim that she was 16 years old, something that the 2 men who had relations with her claimed to believe, while others were skeptical. Example:

              Michele Elliot, from Kidscape, said: “This particular case really took my breath away because I cannot imagine a 25-year-old man not realising how old she was.

              Since OxfordMail didn’t include a picture of what she looked like on the night in question, it’s hard to say. Assuming that some 10 year olds can look 3 years older and some 16 year olds can look 3 years younger, it’s potentially feasible.

              Relevant parts of the article on the events:

              “the girl approached the two men in Henley-on-Thames. They started chatting in the street and she told them she was 16. After making their way to a recreation ground in Luke Avenue, the girl – who cannot be named for legal reasons – had oral and full sex with Fenn. In a police interview, when asked about whether she gave consent, she said: “I’m in the middle, I don’t actually know.”

              “Later Wright forced the girl to commit a sexual act on him at his home in Mount View, Henley-on- Thames.”

              Relevant parts no the sentencing:

              “Fenn, 25, was given concurrent two-year and 18-month sentences, but could will be free in months after spending eight months in jail on remand.

              His friend Darren Wright, 34, was given a nine-month jail term for inciting the girl to engage in a sex act on the same night on October 14, last year. Unemployed Wright had also served eight months, so was immediately freed.”

              OxfordMail can’t even remain consistent in a single article in regards to how it describes events. It switches from saying “Wright forced” to “inciting to engage”. Which is it, force or incitement?

              Out of the two descriptions, it appears the Wright event seems to involve outright assault, whereas that impication seems absent in the Fenn case. Yet Fenn got longer sentencing because of the nature of the acts, regardless of the context (forcibly rape versus inadmissable consent statutory rape).

              The judge’s comment about clothing appears to be related to the Fenn charge in regard to him thinking she was 16 (presumably that’s of age there?) as she supposedly said she was. I don’t think it meant “she dressed a certain way so it was okay for Wright to force her to do something”

  9. numnut
    September 5, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

    The difference being men do not read emo-porn about burglary fantasies,anmd would have no motivation to stage,provoke,or otherwise cause their own burglaries.
    Women have strong rape fantasies,this speaks to motivation,applicable in court.(for now)
    The feller that wanted “politicians to change the law to not consider provocation” well I hope he’s entrapped by the device of his construction.

    • September 6, 2012 at 7:24 am #

      Hmm… to be entrapped, I’d have to 1) wanting to rape a girl 2) know a girl who wants to get raped 3) know she knows she has a rape fantasy 4) know she wants *me* to act out her rape fantasy 5) know she is emotionally stable enough not to unravel after the fantasy happens 6) know that after the fantasy happens there’s a high likelihood of her accusing me of raping her after the fact

      That’s a lot of things that have to line up

      I don’t think going to the judge and saying, “but judge, she told me she wanted to get raped!” will wash

      Ignorance of the law is not a defence. Neither is that sort of provocation. Even if a girl sent me sms saying, “rape me, please!” I would think she is batshit crazy and see how precarious that is. I’ve got many other things happening and going for me to explore that avenue, thanks.

      I don’t “have sex” with women, I “make love” to them. If there was such a fantasy, I’d be in a loving relationship with a woman who told me that was her fantasy. As James above said it’s pretty hard to prove rape if you are living with a person and demonstrably have a sexual relationship with them.

      When you trust strangers with that, you put your fate into the hands of strangers. If that floats your boat, you’re as foolish as a woman on a snow drift with a bikini… you take your own risks. And I’ll cheer when the judge throws the book at you.

  10. numnut
    September 5, 2012 at 11:59 pm #

    “The provocation defense is stupid. That we agree on”

    Ah,no “we” don’t.
    Come and get some!

    • Caroline
      September 6, 2012 at 12:56 am #

      Attention, people, I think we may have a troll here!

      I’ve heard interesting arguments and points of view around here, but what is yours, exactly?

      That because women have rape fantasies, it means they want to be raped and should be blamed for it?

      You see, the point of a fantasy is that you have CONTROL over it. No woman actually WANTS to get raped. Because when a woman wants to have sex… well, that’s just called sex, not rape.

      When somebody plays a violent video games where he/she shoots people, he FANTASIZES about violence. It doesn’t mean that he WANTS to go in the streets and shoot random people.

      • November 14, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

        Troll-suspecting is a waste of time Caroline. =/ Can’t read minds, this and other labels are hypothetical mental constructs which aren’t provable.

        “No woman actually WANTS to get raped. Because when a woman wants to have sex… well, that’s just called sex, not rape.”

        Incorrect. Rape is defined by whether or not someone consents to sex, not whether or not someone wants the sex.

        A man can, for example, be raped if he says “no, stop, don’t envelope me!” even if he secretly wants a woman to ignore his protests and proceed to the enjoyable act.

        He can also say “sure, let’s have sex honey” giving consent, all the while not particularly wanting to do it, and doing so under a feeling of duress, for other motivations.

        I imagine similar scenarios exist for women.

    • James Hill
      September 6, 2012 at 9:35 am #

      I’m interested. Give me a circumstance when a woman could reasonably have provoked a man into raping her? It’d be nice if we could agree on what it means to be “provoked” as well. In the case of violent assaults, provocation usually looks something like being physically attacked, challenged to a fight, or someone doing something incredibly horrific to your loved one (e.g. molesting someone’s child)

      • November 14, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

        Hypothetically speaking James, what would it be considered if Female A wrote a bunch of journal entries expressing her desire to be taken against her protests (aka rape) by a strapping Male B, and then left those journal entries lying about in a place where Male B would come across them?

        I do not think those notes would constitute consent, but there is a conceivable element of provoking someone to act if they think if will be welcomed, if they think it is desired.

        The problem is that this attitude is taken to far less blatent things, where aggressors interpret signs which never existed.

        • James Hill
          November 15, 2012 at 3:09 pm #

          Every day people try to seduce other people based on non verbal queues they pick up from the other person. It’s not rape to try and kiss someone, but it is rape to continue to try to kiss them when they’ve made their feelings clear.

          I don’t see how the hypothetical you described is qualitatively different. Male B makes a pass at Female A based on information he’s picked up (or secretly read). If she doesn’t consent to his advances, but he continues, it is sexual assault.

          For what it’s worth, people can and do engage in BDSM fantasies including simulated rape. The proper way to go about it would be to discuss with the other person and lay boundaries and safewords. You wouldn’t just jump straight into it, so to speak.

  11. Anonymous
    September 7, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    This article is like a tennis match, hit for hit. I would like to see a comment from Andrew Bitto.

  12. Anonymous
    September 16, 2012 at 7:46 am #

    Hmmmmm, thinking

  13. January 30, 2013 at 1:32 am #

    Jason thanks for this article, i really enjoyed the different perspective on the economics of relationships.

    Having said that, what Richard Lee had to say earlier has some validity. Women are going to be pragmatists when it comes to picking partners, for obvious and deeply ingrained reasons, and are often far more realistic about the potential satisfaction relationship offers them.

    However, saying this is all there is to it is a very reductionist point of view. You’re saying that anything that falls outside your field of analysis and economic analogy is meaningless. That in itself is problematic, because as much as you might like rationalism, using it to define the field of all that is is essentially arbitrary and based on the assumption that this is in fact all there is. If based on this assumption you then only integrate information that fits your hypothesis, you’re deep in confirmation bias territory and have effectively insulated your assumption from any sort of critique.

    It’s always tempting to reduce complexity to basic tangible rules, and I think that attempting to do so can be a useful exercise which allows one to analyse an ELEMENT of a phenomenon without interfering factors and further appreciation of the whole.

    However, interfering factors do exist, and female emotion is one of them. As cold and calculating as women can be, anyone who knows several of them will know that they are extremely prone to making rather irrational choices in this regard. Virtually every extremely attractive woman I know has at some time or another ended up pouring her energy into an obvious deadbeat based on her romantic yearnings, and one or two needed to be forcibly extracted from those situations before they imploded.

    It’s also not unusual to see women sticking through harsh times with men they respect, times in which their ‘contract’ is essentially violated. People can and do feel genuine affection for each other, and many people will persevere with relationships to quite extraordinary lengths and only abandon them when it becomes clear that the relationship is beyond repair. I could then contrast that with the behaviour of women I have known who have had all their contractual needs for material comfort met and have proceeded to bugger off anyway, mostly citing lack of an emotional connection.

    The emotional nature of women isn’t some sort of delusional narrative cooked up by feminists, it’s an obvious artifact of how women relate to the world around them which has an immense impact on how they conduct themselves in relationships and otherwise. I, for one, would be much happier if women were as cold and businesslike as you seem to believe they are, since life would be considerably easier for the males of the species.

    Finally, being a tosh to the people who comment on your does indeed make you look a bit bitter, hypersensitive and fanatical.

  14. Shocky
    March 23, 2013 at 1:22 pm #

    I’ve really never seen such a unique view of relationships, but I really find how much sense it makes when it comes to CERTAIN women. The only problem with this, is, women who get into a relationship with a man, knowing that their biggest priority is her body, won’t get the treatment they deserve. But I suppose this is the point you were trying to make? Not that any one like that would be able to understand that, so I doubt you’re trying to help show anyone how stupid they are with your thought-provoking article. And I can understand how you don’t really describe your view with much of an emotional viewpoint (because really when it comes to the type of men you’re referring to it’s not the emotions that are important to them), but that doesn’t mean you don’t consider it. You easily sound like someone who’s been in an equal and loving relationship. So I think it’d be fair to say this is what the idea of modern relationships are like, not what relationships are supposed to be like. I’m not sure if you directly stated that, but it would help because of how many ridiculous comments came from people not realizing it.
    Maybe I’m wrong about that, if so, I’m probably completely off in my interpretation of this. But I’m glad I’ve gotten to understand a new type of person, because I admittedly don’t interact with much girls, let alone attractive ones.
    Whether it’s business or practical that doesn’t change how stupid those women are in thinking they’ll get what they want out of such a animalistic relationship. And they don’t even care about reproduction (at least from how it seemed in your post). Admittedly, that makes me feel they’re less smart than animals.

  15. April 9, 2013 at 11:44 am #

    I am seeking tips on the best way to improve the amount of responses on my own blog site, how do you flourish in achieving this?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. You can be jailed for offending: that’s right, it’s illegal to be controversial | Intentious - September 10, 2012

    […] is illegal. The way the law is now, you could be taken to court for saying, for example, that women who dress like sluts are arguably irresponsible for their own safety. Someone offended by that point of view can just say “It’s illegal to offend. In fact, […]

  2. Chinese Man Successfully Sues Wife for Ugly Children | Intentious - October 28, 2012

    […] list goes on and on.  Apart from the fact we’re told we men should not objectify women when women clearly are the biggest sexual objectifiers of their bodies, I found myself worried that such women have no honour.  A big part about honour is honesty and a […]

  3. Chinese Man Successfully Sues Wife for Ugly Children | Radio Liberty Earth - October 28, 2012

    […] list goes on and on.  Apart from the fact we’re told we men should not objectify women when women clearly are the biggest sexual objectifiers of their bodies, I found myself worried that such women have no honour.  A big part about honour is honesty and a […]

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: