Note: This is the first part of three that I am presenting on rape statistics the issue of rape on campus. The 2nd is here: http://www.justfourguys.com/the-campus-rape-myth/ and the 3rd is here: http://www.justfourguys.com/war-against-men-campus-rape-tribunals-are-out-of-control/
Growing up, I was taught at school, home, church and in the media that men were domineering bastards, responsible for the vast majority of the ills in the world, and that they were sex-hungry perverts. I was also taught that women were much more virtuous and kind, that they only liked sex and kissing when it was in a relationship and that they were doing the man a favor, that they were victims of man’s aggression and that I had to go out of my way to always make sure a girl or woman never felt uncomfortable or threatened in my presence. Tapping into my noble protective instinct and angered at the jerks and the abusers, I resolved to make extra sure that women felt safe around me. I seriously thought that most women didn’t really like sex or kissing and that it was only to show affection but never carnal lust.
Note: If you want to skip to the rape data itself, jump down to where it says, “A Feminist Star is Born” and read from there.
I remember going to college and hearing the 1-in-4-women-will-be-raped type of narratives and feeling sickened that so many men were abusing women. I felt terrible for the victims and took part in a campus program to walk women home at night.
How It Affected Me
All of these things had the effect of making me feel apologetic and even ashamed at times for being a man, even though I had never raped a woman nor been a domineering bastard. In fact, due to religious guilt, I never even kissed a woman until I was 21, in spite of opportunities to do so. I even got dumped by my first girlfriend at the age of 14, at the Valentine’s dance, because I had promised God I wouldn’t kiss a girl until I was married, or at least older (a hastily added addendum to give myself a bit of an out), and some girl came up to us while we were slow dancing and pretended to put mistletoe over our heads, the sign that I should fucking kiss my girl friend. I froze in an oh-shit moment and did nothing, even though I wanted to kiss her, my promise to God weighing more heavily than my lust, and my fear of being dumped. My good friend came up to me and told me I’d be dumped if I didn’t kiss her. I didn’t and I got dumped. Jesus, I got depressed after that.
Damaging to Men and Women
As we’ll see below, feminists exaggerate the real sins of the small minority of males and paint a broad stroke against most males. They do it in order to elicit male self-shaming and evoke most men’s natural desire to protect women, along with stoking the female fear instinct. They do it in order to gain more power for women. Corrupt researchers play into the need for alarmist studies and provide them, acquiring fame and funding while the more honest information brokers languish in anonymity.
Exaggerating the sins of men is damaging to men and boys for the same reasons it was damaging to me as a boy and a young man. It makes men feel guilty and apologetic for being men and it makes them more tentative in dealing with women. If women are wondering why it seems like it’s only the jerks and assholes that are approaching, this is part of the problem.
Exaggerating the sins of men is damaging to women because it makes them more suspicious than they need to be of the good guys. It makes them angry against men in general. This lack of trust makes many women less likely to want to enter into relationships that, if they chose well, would be really good.
Taking the Red Pill, Grain by Grain
Fast forward to my late 20’s, still a voluntary virgin, I had a new gf and we started to kiss, and kiss and kiss. She was like a machine. I had to come up for air and let the old smacker rest for a moment before diving back down for more (and not that far down, you pervs! I was still a good boy back then. 
). She was a nuclear submarine and I was an old-style diesel.
This was an utter shock to me. Yeah, I’d kissed a couple of girls that loved it in the past but they seemed to be of the naughtier type. But here was a good girl, a virgin with a kiss-N of 2 before me that just couldn’t get enough. I thought good girls didn’t love to kiss and only did it as a favor. It wasn’t fucking true! Good girls actually love kissing and don’t just do it as a favor or reward. It seems so obvious to me now but under the delusional haze of the blue pill it was a true revelation to me.
Unfortunately, due to various reasons, including my being way too into this gf and feeling way too needy and desperate for her, we eventually broke up. I was devastated and searched for reasons why and came upon Double Your Dating and bought it. Getting into game at least taught me that I didn’t need to feel ashamed of my sexuality and that women liked sex. But I still kind of bought into some of the men are jerks rhetoric (though I had toned it down to only thinking a minority were) and it wasn’t for a few years yet that I really got into the sphere and started taking the main portions of the red pill.
I share the above personal experiences and feelings to show how damaging the blue pill narrative is to many well-intentioned boys and men. The 1-in-4 rape claim is part of that damaging blue pill narrative and I will now delve into why it’s wrong, leaning heavily on this article from Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, Researching the “Rape Culture” of America. Also, let me add that I wish that no one were ever raped and I think rapists are total bastards that should be locked away. I do have great sympathy for real rape victims (but not the regret it and invent it type). Edit: The block quotes below are quoted from the Hoff Sommers article.
A Feminist Star is Born
The article describes the rise of the 1-in-4 mantra and how it was driven by feminist Gloria Steinem and her Ms. Magazine:
In 1982, Mary Koss, then a professor of psychology at Kent State University in Ohio, published an article on rape in which she expressed the orthodox gender feminist view that “rape represents an extreme behavior but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture” (my emphasis).[6] Some well-placed feminist activists were impressed by her. As Koss tells it, she received a phone call out of the blue inviting her to lunch with Gloria Steinem.[7] For Koss, the lunch was a turning point. Ms. magazine had decided to do a national rape survey on college campuses, and Koss was chosen to direct it. Koss’s findings would become the most frequently cited research on women’s victimization, not so much by established scholars in the field of rape research as by journalists, politicians, and activists.
Notice how once the journalists, politicians and activists got the results they wanted then they cited that, and as we’ll see below, ignored many other studies that contradicted it.
More Like 1 in 14 Than 1 in 4
Hoff Sommers continues,
Koss and her colleagues concluded that 15.4 percent of respondents had been raped, and that 12.1 percent had been victims of attempted rape.[9] Thus, a total of 27.5 percent of the respondents were determined to have been victims of rape or attempted rape because they gave answers that fit Koss’s criteria for rape (penetration by penis, finger, or other object under coercive influence such as physical force, alcohol, or threats). However, that is not how the so-called rape victims saw it. Only about a quarter of the women Koss calls rape victims labeled what happened to them as rape. According to Koss, the answers to the follow-up questions revealed that “only 27 percent” of the women she counted as having been raped labeled themselves as rape victims.[10] Of the remainder, 49 percent said it was “miscommunication,” 14 percent said it was a “crime but not rape,” and 11 percent said they “don’t feel victimized.”[11]
So only 27% felt that they themselves had been raped. 27% of the 27.5% who were found by Koss to be raped or attempted is 7.4%, much closer to 1 in 14 than 1 in 4 but that wouldn’t fit the desired narrative. And 27% of the 15.4% that had been raped (and not just attempted), according to Koss, would be 4.16%, or 1 in 24.
What was Counted as Rape was Too Vague
Continuing on,
“One in four” has since become the official figure on women’s rape victimization cited in women’s studies departments, rape crisis centers, women’s magazines, and on protest buttons and posters….
When Neil Gilbert, a professor at Berkeley’s School of Social Welfare, first read the “one in four” figure in the school newspaper, he was convinced it could not be accurate. The results did not tally with the findings of almost all previous research on rape. When he read the study he was able to see where the high figures came from and why Koss’s approach was unsound.
He noticed, for example, that Koss and her colleagues counted as victims of rape any respondent who answered “yes” to the question “Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?” That opened the door wide to regarding as a rape victim anyone who regretted her liaison of the previous night.
Feminists Padding the Answer
Koss also found that 42 percent of those she counted as rape victims went on to have sex with their attackers on a later occasion. For victims of attempted rape, the figure for subsequent sex with reported assailants was 35 percent….
Since most of those Koss counts as rape victims did not regard themselves as having been raped, why not take this fact and the fact that so many went back to their partners as reasonable indications that they had not been raped to begin with?
Even 1 in 14 is Too High–More Like 1 in 22
…if you eliminate the affirmative responses to the alcohol or drugs question, and also subtract from Koss’s results the women who did not think they were raped, her one in four figure for rape and attempted rape “drops to between one in twenty-two and one in thirty-three.”[25]
Another Study Saying 1 in 8–Flawed Too
Dean Kilpatrick performed this study that claims that 1 in 8 will be raped during her lifetime (go to the full article for details) but it counts fingering as rape. Hoff Sommers comments,
There is, however, one flaw that affects the significance of Kilpatrick’s findings. An affirmative answer to any one of the first three questions does reasonably put one in the category of rape victim. The fourth is problematic, for it includes cases in which a boy penetrated a girl with his finger, against her will, in a heavy petting situation. Certainly the boy behaved badly. But is he a rapist? Probably neither he nor his date would say so. Yet, the survey classifies him as a rapist and her as a rape victim.
The 1-in-8 Study Gains Fame While the 1-in-29 Study Does Not
We’ll see another study, by Louis Harris and Associates, that found a far lower rape level but its news was not trumpeted far and wide. They asked the following question and report their results,
“In the last five years, have you been a victim of a rape or sexual assault?” Two percent of the respondents said yes; 98 percent said no. Since attempted rape counts as sexual assault, the combined figures for rape and attempted rape would be 1.9 million over five years or 380,000 for a single year. Since there are approximately twice as many attempted rapes as completed rapes, the Commonwealth/ Harris figure for completed rapes would come to approximately 190,000. That is dramatically lower than Kilpatrick’s finding of 683,000 completed forcible rapes
By simply multiplying the ratio of Kilpatrick’s to Harris’s numbers by 8 we can see that we get 8*683/190=28.8. The Harris study gets a number that’s closer to 1 in 29 than 1 in 8. Now, I don’t know for a fact that 1 in 29 is the true answer (and it’s subject to the inherent weakness of asking people) but it seems closer to the truth than 1 in 8. Also, looking at the broader question that asks about either rape or sexual assault, it’s about 1 in 14 women ever assaulted (rape or other sexual assault) during their lifetime.
Researchers Have to Juice the Stats to get Fame
Look at how this shyster bobs and weaves about the fact that he didn’t ask women if they had been raped and that he actually found a low rate, 1 in 20, in a previous study but decided to adopt the much more inclusive definition to jack the numbers and get some feminist fame. When pressed, this asshole gets angry and tells others to get funding and do their own research. By propagating higher rape stats, it’s painting many more men as being rapists than are actually guilty. I fucking hate men (like Hugo Schwyzer) that throw other men under the bus.
When the Blade reporters asked Kilpatrick why he had not asked women whether they had been raped, he told them there had been no time in the thirty-five-minute interview. [Han Solo comment: bull shit!] “That was probably something that ended up on the cutting-room floor.”[31] But Kilpatrick’s exclusion of such a question resulted in very much higher figures. When pressed about why he omitted it from a study for which he had received a million-dollar federal grant, he replied, “If people think that is a key question, let them get their own grant and do their own study.”[32] [Han Solo comment: like it’s just fucking easy to get million $ grants to ask the question you should have asked!]
Kilpatrick had done an earlier study in which respondents were explicitly asked whether they had been raped. That study showed a relatively low prevalence of five percent-one in twenty-and it got very little publicity.[33] Kilpatrick subsequently abandoned his former methodology in favor of the Ms./Koss method, which allows the surveyor to decide whether a rape occurred. Like Koss, he used an expanded definition of rape (both include penetration by a finger). Kilpatrick’s new approach yielded him high numbers (one in eight), and citations in major newspapers around the country. His graphs were reproduced in Time magazine under the heading, “Unsettling Report on an Epidemic of Rape.”[34] Now he shares with Koss the honor of being a principal expert cited by media, politicians, and activists.
Feminists Are Generating Hysteria
The Blade reporters interviewed students on their fears and found them anxious and bewildered. “It makes a big difference if it’s one in three or one in 50,” said April Groff of the University of Michigan, who says she is “very scared.” “I’d have to say, honestly, I’d think about rape a lot less if I knew the number was one in 50.“[30]
And They’re Doing It On Purpose
There are many researchers who study rape victimization, but their relatively low figures generate no headlines. The reporters from the Blade interviewed several scholars whose findings on rape were not sensational but whose research methods were sound and were not based on controversial definitions. Eugene Kanin, a retired professor of sociology from Purdue University and a pioneer in the field of acquaintance rape, is upset by the intrusion of politics into the field of inquiry: “This is highly convoluted activism rather than social science research.”[35] Professor Margaret Gordon of the University of Washington did a study in 1981 that came with relatively low figures for rape (one in fifty). She tells of the negative reaction to her findings: “There was some pressure-at least I felt pressure-to have rape be as prevalent as possible . . .. I’m a pretty strong feminist, but one of the things I was fighting was that the really avid feminists were trying to get me to say that things were worse than they really are.”[36]
Dr. Linda George of Duke University also found relatively low rates of rape (one in seventeen), even though she asked questions very close to Kilpatrick’s. She told the Blade she is concerned that many of her colleagues treat the high numbers as if they are “cast in stone.”[37] Dr. Naomi Breslau, director of research in the psychiatry department at the Henry Ford Health Science Center in Detroit, who also found low numbers, feels that it is important to challenge the popular view that higher numbers are necessarily more accurate. Dr. Breslau sees the need for a new and more objective program of research: “It’s really an open question. . . . We really don’t know a whole lot about it.”[38]
The Myth Continues
Just a quick search found these two universities listing the 1 in 4 claim.
Vassar seems to use the very numbers for the Koss report above, saying,
- One in four college women surveyed are victims of rape or attempted rape
- Only 27% of the women whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims
ASU says that,
- Over the course of 5 calendar years, including summers and vacations, 20-25% may be raped.
Conclusion
Feminist hucksters add categories that most reasonable people wouldn’t consider rape in order to juice the numbers for sexual-political ends. It’s more like anywhere from 1 in 14 to 1 in 50 instead of 1 in 4, depending on whether you’re including attempted rape in addition to completed rape and which study you look at.
Once again, I’ll state that any real rape is too much and said rapists should be locked away but by propagating the highly exaggerated 1 in 4 myth, feminists, scared females and white knight males continue to unfairly scare women, demonize men and aid in diverting more power and legal rights to women while taking them from men. Many campuses now have rape tribunals where only a preponderance of the evidence is needed to inflict punishment. Many boys grow up feeling ashamed of being male. Good boys and men–especially the shy and less popular–are less likely to approach women. Many girls and women will likewise have their minds poisoned that men are evil and that they need to be scared of most men. Others will wonder why only the assholes approach. This will make it a bit less likely for some of them to enter relationships. They will also be more likely to wallow in the disempowering tars of excess victimhood and fear.
We need to stand up and tell the truth and discredit the charlatans for what they are and free the minds of well-intentioned but deceived blue pill men and women. Politicians who support the lies should be voted out and money should not be donated to universities that spread such hysteria.
It is a great disservice (and a gross disrespect) for victims of truly atrocious crimes to lump them with those who would self-describe their experiences as “miscommunication.”
In another part of the world, some hypocritic males (pardon me Han, but They are usually Males) had the gall to compare artificial contraception to the holocaust — i.e. “preventing the meeting of the sperm and egg is tantamount to destroying a human life.” In another part of the world, it is the feminists (whether the male or female variety) that would defend a woman’s right to do with her body what she wants to do with her body.
So to go back to your post. In your part of the world, feminists are generating hysteria and are doing it on purpose presumably to get those $$$ research funds and accumulate political power.
Too bad for the “rape victims” — whether the ones who have been really (punched-on-their-stomach-and-gotten-their-clothes all-ripped-up) raped and the ones who had a bad-sex-after-a-liquor-laden-date “raped”. Of course there are also the small girls who were raped who were probably not a part of Ms. Koss’s study. Child sexual abuse, I heard, (correct me if I’m wrong) is also popular in your part of the world. As in mine. But that’s another story.
The thing is, being labeled “rape victim” is not particularly appetizing for a woman. I mean, even males would balk at being labeled “rape victim”(or so I think, unless the world has just made a 180 degree turn).
While I applaud Ms. Koss’s diligence in getting her facts (I haven’t yet read her research), I find it sad that her study results (or conclusions) gave rise to a culture where “boys grow up feeling ashamed of being male”. Because I’ve always thought that the goal of feminism is so that “boys & girls can be free/ to be you & me” — or some such nursery rhyme
@manangbok
Yes, in some parts of the world, there is need for better treatment of women and feminists there are pursuing some noble ends. However, in the west, that war has been won and taken much too far and now demonizes and discriminates against men.
Do not entertain the troll. The logic as stated doesn’t make sense. Crimes are calculated on a per-person basis, IE, 20 murders per 1,000 people. Simply having less people doesn’t mean less crime.
Excellent work here Han. I am going to have to book-mark this and share with others. This conversation comes up so, so, so, soooooo often, especially this stat, so it is nice to have some debunking material on hand. Even if it isn’t iron-clad, at least it “starts the conversation”
Your experience is similar to mine. Men were explained aggressors, especially in regards to rape. Thus, by posing no threat, I am a perfect man, and women will love me.
LOGIC WIN!
Always examine your priors….
In other news…
Someone wants me to trade CJ Spiller away…I am leaning against
Excellent post Han
Thanks, ADBG and Morpheus.
There was a good debunking as well that I once read about how campus rape hotlines and crisis centers basically aren’t used very much, in complete contrast with the supposed epidemic of rape during college.
Here it is:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html
@AUM, concerning post #8.
I, too, was raised that way. Completely so, in fact. I get it. And bear in mind that for most of my life I’ve been a hard left leaning individual . . . and that for the most of my life I would’ve considered it completely out of bounds to even question what’s being questioned here: rape statistics being skewered in favor of feminism . . . But now I don’t consider it out of bounds at all. It’s okay to simply look at the numbers.
And I feel the same as Han does: rapists need to be locked up . . . or worse, possibly, depending on the circumcstances . . .
And yes, what you describe in India sounds horrible . . .
I’m losing interest in reading this blog and its comments, owing to PJ’s trolling and stalking. Maybe it’s my problem.
Good post, and food for trolls
@ Han Solo,
Great post as usual! I had to comment after reading your experiences as a Christian, because I love that topic.
One thing that I greatly dislike is that some Christians take the Bible too literal or misinterpret it and then propagate this as the truth. Well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a partner, kissing or making out. It is not a problem as long as you are not controlled by your flesh but by your spirit and as long as God remains the most important in your life.
Also, sure, Peter encourages people to be celibate, but that’s because it’s his preference. The bible doesn’t condemn wanting sex at all. In fact, the bible strongly encourages sex. (1 Cor 7:5 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.) The only condition is that you have to be married to have sex, which is something I still need to come to terms with as a Christian as I believe in sexual compatibility. Let’s face it, too – sex is also fun.
Cannot comment on the topic of rape as I am not well versed in that subject.
“I’m losing interest in reading this blog and its comments, owing to PJ’s trolling and stalking.”
True. Why is she taken seriously? Why are people responding to her, and why is she allowed to troll? It’s common knowledge that she’s a rabid feminist who wants to either destroy this site and others or convert it to feminism.
“with 4 kids under 10 in the house.”
Then what the heck are you doing on the Internet?
“Yes, in some parts of the world, there is need for better treatment of women and feminists there are pursuing some noble ends.”
There is no such thing as a noble feminist end. The stated purpose of feminism is social engineering, the smothering of free intellectual discourse, culture war, the victimization of men, the destruction of all traditional norms, both within and outside the family. It’s the enemy of human civilization. Institutionalized feminism will make India worse, not better. The same apples to any country that is not yet feminist.
“Speaking of data, here in the US we can thank Planned Parenthood for our decades long decline in violent crime.” – and what does that have to do with this column? Plus Steve Sailer has debunked that nonsense a long time ago.
Hmmm, a very detailed breakdown.
I don’t think anyone can really blame Mary Koss if she believed women wouldn’t answer “have you ever been raped?” truthfully (either because they were scared of shaming or didn’t think of what had happened as rape due to uneducation[although does the latter ever happen?]) However,it is obvious that such broadening of the question(have you ever had sex when you didn’t want to under force/alcohol/drugs etc.) was sure to bring false positive results and bring it did. I believe it is ultimately dishonest for the current feminist agenda to perpetuate such a blatant lie. I mean, come on, the research says %50 of the “victims” said it was miscommunication(not to mention the other %23 that objects to it being called rape for other reasons), But the people at Vassar still have the gall to say that “only 27% of the women whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims”. “Hey women, you are so stupid, you don’t even know what rape is, even though it has been grinded into your heads from the start of your life.” Lol, WOW. Then you’ve got the fact that those 1/14 women that have been raped haven’t been raped by that many guys, it is much more likely for one guy to be the perpetuator of multiple instances. Then you see how stupid (or maybe insanely clever- holding men shameful for their healthy sexuality) it is to put up posters saying “Don’t be That Guy”
Is such victimization of women and demonization of males widespread in feminist countries other than America? I mean, do the Swedes have these stuff? I mean, when you think about it, I’m not really sure most of the manosphere guys who hate feminism, really just hate the corrupt part of it. Yet we are constantly portrayed as misogynists that can’t handle women being equal. Puh-lease.
Note: By the way, I’m really curious about that Sweden stuff, if someone can answer I’d be most grateful.
Look, the only system that can effectively protect women from rape is the patriarchy. That’s the only one with a track record that shows that. This whole issue is just a pile of BS.
Our old pal Novaseeker explained it here:
sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/are-all-men-obligated-to-protect-all-women-from-sexual-assault/#comment-14922
sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/are-all-men-obligated-to-protect-all-women-from-sexual-assault/#comment-14926
“The alcohol/drugs thing…. if they didn’t want to and said that, yet the man still went ahead and did it, its rape. ”
What if he’s also drunk? And what about the idea enshrined in law that she’s unable to give consent when drunk/stoned?
@AUM
“Have you ever had sex when you didn’t want to under force is rape.
The alcohol/drugs thing…. if they didn’t want to and said that, yet the man still went ahead and did it, its rape.”
Yet, half of the so-called victims said it was miscommunication. Look, I’m not saying that men don’t rape ever, but if you don’t say that you don’t want it (aka you play the old victimization trope where you feel “you are scared that he might get violent” even though he hasn’t given you reason to believe that) and stick with it (saying “no” once and melting after making out for a couple of minutes shouldn’t fly), you can’t really claim rape. You shouldn’t be able to. How the hell are we supposed to know if you don’t want it if you don’t say it or change your mind multiple times. If we followed the feminist idea of “enthusiastic consent”, the one where you ask “Are you okay, are you comfortable with this?”, it is not only a mood-killer but also a sure way for you to be criticised as “These young guys are soft, what happened to the men who would just take you?” Don’t believe me. Check out “[URL=”http://a”]http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/08/12/obedient-american-husbands-inspire-homicidal-ideation-in-wives/[/URL]” and the two articles cited.
Wow, I think my comment got undelivered, I can’t really write it again, but if the moderators of the comment section help me recover it, that would be mighty helpful.
@hoellenhund2 I believe that without the social envionment changing drastically, there won’t be a return to traditional values or “patriarchy”. Humanity is nothing if not adaptable. Whatever problems that men are having now, will be dealt with by men looking forward, not pining for a past system that may or may not be valid again.
@AUM Yeah, there is a lot of middle ground between people running into absolutely no trouble with each other and gender based segregation. Not sure if you are trolling or not.
@27 I meant.constant verbal consent, as in asking for permission a lot, I don’t have a problem with once or twice.
That was well said, HS.
I’ve posted about this issue many times in other political debate forums. To the point I’m pretty spent over it. Imagine if the politicians had direct influence over the trial conviction process and we experienced an all politically motivated “rape” prosecution system, all of the time. That’s the experience of a military person accused of sexual assault. It’s literally turning into a witch trial system.
The results:
1) Punishes absolutely innocent people
2) Undermines the validity, nature, and seriousness of legitimate rape claims
3) Rewards false accusers (these women are generally untouchable, particularly during the investigation process because no one wants to jeopardize a career, her conduct becomes an irrelevancy even when it inhibits military effectiveness at the potential cost of lives)
4) Is a huge waste of resources (military and reserve now have ‘stand down’ days…entire days devoted to learning how to be a world class cockblock at all times, it’s the environment you see, not the individual…we’re all to blame when a woman goes home with a guy after having a few drinks. Well, everyone exception of her).
#14: Every forum needs one of those (though one is probably enough). Keeps things interesting.
If she didn’t exist they’d have to create her.
ADMIN:
Just want to take this time out to apologize to JFG readers. Aum aka Plain Jane aka BAG LADY is well known around these parts and it appears that she’s homeless in light of you know where “rebooting” itself.
Alas, she won’t find a home here.
Bag Lady, are you listening?
Sure?
OK, good.
GO. AWAY. Your intrusions are Creeperism 101.
If you attempt to post anything else here, it will disappear as just as fast.
My apologies again to regular JFG readers.
Carry on…
O.
@BV
Yeah, PJ (AUM) has gone too far so we’ve decided to clamp down more. I don’t like to delete comments and such but sometimes someone goes too far.
@Yohami Thanks!
@Starlight
Thanks. The problem is that there are many different interpretations of what is allowed and what isn’t. In my church, anything that was sexually arousing outside marriage was to be avoided, including passionate kissing. Now lots do passionately kiss but that’s about the extent (though of course some do go further as well into masturbation and petting and outright sex).
Also, I think you meant Paul and not Peter…I guess you’re robbing Paul to pay Peter. haha
@hoellenhund2
“There is no such thing as a noble feminist end. The stated purpose of feminism is social engineering, the smothering of free intellectual discourse, culture war, the victimization of men, the destruction of all traditional norms, both within and outside the family. It’s the enemy of human civilization. Institutionalized feminism will make India worse, not better. The same apples to any country that is not yet feminist.”
It’s all in the definition of feminism. Whatever you call it, I certainly don’t like societies that beat women and honor kill them if they get raped and so forth. I’m for fair treatment of everyone. That’s why I’m against western feminism because it doesn’t seek fairness but superiority for women, particularly those in alignment with feminist goals.
But I can see that feminism in some Muslim or other cultures could be a force for some good with some of its aims to have women treated more fairly…and at the same time have longer-term goals that would take them in the same track as western feminists and seek to put down men. The latter should be opposed.
“But I can see that feminism in some Muslim or other cultures could be a force for some good with some of its aims to have women treated more fairly…”
Whats the life like for a man in such cultures? last time I checked they have it very shitty, too.
@Shadow_Nirvana
That’s the infantliization of feminism, that women don’t know their own bodies and their own experiences enough and so they need some alpha mares and white knight/mangina administrators to tell them.
Yes, that’s a good point that most rapes are carried out by repeat rapists so the number of men that do that crime is less than the number of female (real) victims.
The posters and message are designed to tap into men’s protector instinct to get them to give up power and also white knight for women. It’s also a society-wide shit test to filter out the timid men who aren’t “alpha” enough to approach women or attractive enough to be desired by women to approach.
I’ve mentioned it many times but the Tom Brady SNL skit keeps on giving:
@Shadow
Basically, it enables the hypergamous pursuits of women by keeping the average and lesser males at bay and makes it so only the attractive are more likely to approach. (of course, society isn’t completely that way and average and lesser guys can still get some success sometimes with some women, but much less than 100 years ago)
@Yohami 29
I agree that most men have a shitty life there too. But that doesn’t change the fact that I think honor killing rape victims is totally fucked up.
I suppose that the logic behind that is that if men aren’t “man” enough to protect their women then they have to kill them. A rather brutal incentive to make sure your own genes (as present in your daughters) don’t get messed with. IOW, protect your own or you have to kill them yourself.
@Shadow
I rescued your comment from the spam. Not sure why it made it in there. Perhaps it’s because you made several comments in a short time AND included a link in one of them.
General note, putting more than one link in a comment will likely cause it to go to spam. Not sure the exact algorithm of how the spam filter works.
Honor killing is fucked up – so is self sacrificing bombing yourself for your religion (only men doing so). I think the male rapists are killed too. And probably all men do over there is to provide, but what do I know?
I dont think going there and teaching women that all men are scumbags is going to change things for the better.
Kind of like going into a very repressed christian subculture and “liberating them” through satanism.
@Liz
Thanks. I’m probably going to do a part 2 to this that summarizes the City Journal article I linked to in a comment. It’s a more recent look at things than the excellent Hoff Sommers article of this post and shows how the rape crisis centers are vastly underused, meaning there really isn’t some epidemic that the 1 in 4 would imply.
Also, I think that it’s probably time to end women in the military, at least in the combat portions.
I agree with your four points, that it punishes the innocent, dilutes the true victims’ suffering and basically sets up an environment where women can do whatever they want and have any blame put on the man and also cry wolf and get away with it.
@Yohami
I agree that going there to teach women that men are scum isn’t useful. But I see that as more 2nd and 3rd wave feminism.
I’m quite okay with most of 1st wave feminism of basic “equality” kind of stuff.
@ Han Solo
“I guess you’re robbing Paul to pay Peter. haha”
Paul for the win!
Hehe, you are right! I shouldn’t be playing favourites as credits should be given where credits are due.
“In my church, anything that was sexually arousing outside marriage was to be avoided, including passionate kissing.”
What a mix, hey, sex and religion? Your statement reminds me why I feel uncomfortable (for lack of more suitable word) with overly conservative believers who take the Bible too literal. Whilst in olden times passionate kissing might have been risqué, now times have changed. The teachings of the Bible can be applied to modern times and we Christians should do so; of course, within reason.
Literally, there are heaps of believers in this world which deem tight clothes as inappropriate as it fosters sinful sexual desires in men and some other ridiculous statements. There’s plenty on the web about this topic. I wonder whether these individuals understand the underlying reason as to why sex before marriage is considered sinful? These are most likely the same people that forget that ‘our body is God’s temple’ and therefore we need to take care of ourselves – which looking good is based on.
Then again, as with any topic, there is always a group of people that exaggerates, twists or misuses excerpts (for lack of a more suitable word), blatantly disregarding context. Even worse are those who simply repeat things just because.
Okay, got carried away – tuning out now.
The rape of men is also a large problem in many war zones but one that is often ignored:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men
“Sexual violence is one of the most horrific weapons of war, an instrument of terror used against women. Yet huge numbers of men are also victims. In this harrowing report, Will Storr travels to Uganda to meet traumatised survivors, and reveals how male rape is endemic in many of the world’s conflicts.”
Yeah, in the new Harper’s Index I believe it says that 53% of war related rape victims were men.
wow…
very very interesting and contreversial topic.
i dont know what to say..it just makes me think.
either way though, it’s horrifying.
+1 The problem with feminism and feminists is that they are cowards and thrive only in countries where women already enjoy a good degree of freedom and fair treatment. Then they start their gender war and men shaming, while also seeking supremacy and total freedom and irresponsibility, including the killing of innocent children if necessary, and subversion of all traditional family values.
It’s really a disservice to honest women, because what feminism really does is to destroy societies where there is fair treatment and freedom to women and hence, sort of incentivizing misogyny. I think the only way to reconcile feminism with its purported political ends is to send feminists to fight misogyny in countries where women need their assistance and women rights fighting. Note: No, I’m not talking about Sweden.
Sorry I haven’t been commenting much guys. Been pretty busy lately. Just like to leave y’all with this:
“Why do I buy the cow when I can get the milk for free? Because I like steak!”
@ 43 Augustus: “The problem with feminism and feminists is that they are cowards and thrive only in countries where women already enjoy a good degree of freedom and fair treatment. Then they start their gender war and men shaming, while also seeking supremacy and total freedom and irresponsibility, including the killing of innocent children if necessary, and subversion of all traditional family values.”
Exactly so.
Also notice how quickly they shift the script. Makes one wonder what the real agenda is. Okay, just kidding, there’s no mystery about the agenda it’s already flagrant.
Clinton sexes a chubby intern, a white trash trailer girl, and other homelies he’s still their man regardless of abuse of authority/conflict of interest. Hugo Schwartz screwed good looking women, see what happened to him.
Han,
Great post.
“General note, putting more than one link in a comment will likely cause it to go to spam. Not sure the exact algorithm of how the spam filter works.”
The spam filter shouldn’t block a post based on links until four. One is just too hair trigger, so I bumped it up to 4.
Now there may be something to the “posting too fast” and I’ll look into it.
Great post, Han.
The wildly overblown “1 in 4 women has been raped or will be raped in her lifetime” was the kind of scare tactic common when I was in college in the late 1980s. Han is right that these were used to “control” male sexuality and keep all men other than the 15 to 20% of attractive men from operating freely in the sexual marketplace.
Other similar controls were the wide expansion of “sexual harassment” procedures and definitions.
1. Sex harassment is any conduct that any one woman does not like. Thus permitting one woman or a minority of women complete control over intergender relationships in the workplace.
2. Sex harassment is sexual conduct by unattractive men.
3. The “reasonable woman” standard controls in sex harassment. Thus, it does not matter how innocuous or obsequious or deferential the man’s conduct is. The only thing that matters is whether a “reasonable woman” in the same position would believe that she was being harassed. In practice the “reasonable woman” standard comes down to how the woman felt about the conduct, at that time, from that man. No man could ever conform his conduct to this standard because he is not a woman. The “reasonable woman” standard is not a standard at all because it does not rely on “reason”, but rather about her feelings and emotions.
4. Silencing men’s questioning or attempting to make sense of the policies. Any man accused of sex harassment must meekly accept whatever “discipline” is meted out and is sternly instructed to never, ever talk about the incident again lest women be made to feel uncomfortable. Any discussion about the incident or the “discipline” in the workplace is “retaliation”. Any man who asks about the policy or points out unfairnesses or inconsistencies is labeled an inveterate sexist and put on an informal “watch list” for “unprofessional” conduct. The moment that man does or says ANYTHING that could remotely be construed as a violation of the policy, he will find himself up on sex harassment/hostile environment charges.
5. The unintended consequence of the policy is the neutering of all but the most attractive men in the workplace, and fostering deep, deep distrust between the sexes. Men are told never, ever, ever to ask any woman out at work. It’s just out of the question because even asking a girl out could cost you your job. You can’t comment on anything not work-related, because if she doesn’t like it it’s harassment. In other words, a man cannot act like a human being at work and go into healthy diversions into current events, relationships, home, etc. He must be a robotic automaton, always hyperselfconscious that he is not saying anything that someone at work will take the wrong way. If you do get into a workplace romance and the relationship goes south, she has all the power over you at work. You do ANYTHING she doesn’t like, you’ll be reported to HR.
Following up on what hollenhund said above and his link to Novaseeker’s comments:
The real issue here is women who want to dress like sluts, act like sluts, and get drunk around drunk horny men.
This reminds me of the “date rape” explanation and concept we heard about in college in the late 1980s. Date rape was said to be of absolutely epidemic proportions. Men were expected to be their date’s guardians and protectors; and they were responsible for their dates’ sexual choices. A man had to have clear, unambiguous verbal consent for every step in the sexual back-and-forth. Drunk/intoxicated women were ab initio unable to provide knowing and intelligent consent. Therefore, a woman who has sex while drunk was by definition raped. She was REALLY raped if the guy was unattractive, or didn’t call her the next day, or bruised her up a bit, or her friends didn’t like him, or she wanted to make out but didn’t really want to have sex (despite how she acted and came across), or she just wishes she hadn’t had sex.
If you get drunk and you agree to be alone with a drunk guy, some things are going to happen that you might not want to have happen.
I would say that the unintended consequence is the neutering of all but the most sexually aggressive men, not only in the workplace, but everywhere. The reality is, to my mind, that the overwhelming majority of men are not sexually aggressive by nature and are just interested in a meaningful LTR relationship. Nowadays, every man is subject to the risk of false allegations of sexual harassment, even if she, e.g., was quite drunk and actually consented to the act.
With regard to the issue of why most men seem to be too much tentative in approaching women, there are a lot of factors apart from this, including the lack of enough good, healthy interaction between the genders, apart from work and college, common activities, etc. But men shaming and the risk of unfounded accusations of sexual harassment do play a major role I think. I think that in deciding or not to approach a woman, men respond a lot to basic incentives and risks, as related to their objective (which is a LTR for most men), such as risk of sexual harassment accusation, her attractiveness for a LTR, beauty, character, receptiveness, agreeableness, etc. On the other hand, while feminist unnatural policies deregulated traditional gender roles, both men and women continue responding instinctively to the same incentives as they always did.
I hadn’t read your comment while writing my previous one. Absolutely: if a woman dresses herself improperly, gets drunk, seeks casual encounters and hangs out with guys and in places which are not secure enough for her, she’s creating a risky situation and assuming such a risk. The collective manhood or good and honest men are not to blame for her lack of prudence and common sense. And where there is crime, it should be treated as such, following the normal, legal procedures of the due process of law.
“I would say that the unintended consequence is the neutering of all but the most sexually aggressive men, not only in the workplace, but everywhere. The reality is, to my mind, that the overwhelming majority of men are not sexually aggressive by nature and are just interested in a meaningful LTR relationship. Nowadays, every man is subject to the risk of false allegations of sexual harassment, even if she, e.g., was quite drunk and actually consented to the act.”
THIS! Can we print this up on flyers and hand them out at HR conventions?!
@Deti:
“5. The unintended consequence of the policy is the neutering of all but the most attractive men in the workplace, and fostering deep, deep distrust between the sexes. Men are told never, ever, ever to ask any woman out at work. It’s just out of the question because even asking a girl out could cost you your job. You can’t comment on anything not work-related, because if she doesn’t like it it’s harassment. In other words, a man cannot act like a human being at work and go into healthy diversions into current events, relationships, home, etc. He must be a robotic automaton, always hyperselfconscious that he is not saying anything that someone at work will take the wrong way. If you do get into a workplace romance and the relationship goes south, she has all the power over you at work. You do ANYTHING she doesn’t like, you’ll be reported to HR.”
O: I don’t disagree with you on this point, and in fact I’ve written a bit about this in the recent past, and have plans to write more about this in the near future:
The Day Street Harassment Stood Still
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/110742
The Curious Case Of The Man-Less Meet Market (The Obsidian Files Remix)
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/104470
Sistas In America Have Very Good Reason To Be “Frustrated”
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/124568
Bad For Business: Everyone Has An “Adria Richards Story”
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/03/31/bad-for-business-everyone-has-an-adria-richards-story/
And of course, there’s my recent article here at JFG:
A Blue Collar Brotha Speaks (At Last!)
http://www.justfourguys.com/a-blue-collar-brotha-speaks-at-last/
And that’s just for starters.
Having said all that though, I think this period of time we now exist in opens up some new opportunities for us guys. How?
Simple.
How about the idea that we chuck this notion of “cold calling” Women altogether – and have THEM approach US instead? That’s what I’ve done for years, and it has proven highly effective. Simply make yourself an attractive guy and make yourself available out there in the social spheres of American life.
Nowadays, there are all kinds of sources of information for Men to learn how to improve themselves – getting themselves in shape, getting their grooming and fashion sense correct, learning how to get good in bed, learning how to chat up the ladies, you name it. And, Women are slowly coming to the same realizations you noted above, trust me – as I point out in my posts above, quite a few Sistas have been lamenting the dearth of Brothas even bothering to show up at all (and like I said, I’ll have more to say about all this very, very soon…), so like I said, there ARE Women out there who know the deal.
I think if more guys just focused on improving themselves wherever they can, even if its only little, small things, like getting a nice haircut and other basic grooming things right, that can and often will make a huge difference. And it will do a serious “end run” around this truly sociosexual Orwellian thing going on in our time today.
That’s my take.
O.
@Ted D: Not sure if you’re serious, but feel free to print.
@Obisdian; Very good point about guys not even caring to show up. It could make a good series of posts, with a positive tone.
@Augustus – I do my best to NEVER be anywhere an HR convention is occurring. It would pretty much guaranty I’d end up in some kind of trouble…
Augustus, #51:
A lot more women are revisiting their histories now. And while they will not say they’ve been raped, they claim “sexual abuse”. They say they were sexually abused by a man or men. When you dig down deep enough, what you almost always find out is that sexual conduct clearly against her will is NOT involved.
It almost always involves alcohol or drugs; the girl getting lit or baked or high; and her lowered resistance to isolation and sex. One girl I knew was only 14 years old; and was drunk and making out with a guy who she says just kept on going and penetrated her despite the fact that she never once told him “no” or said “stop” or tried to get up and move away. Another girl was on a double date, proceeded to get so smashed she was half asleep but still managing to fondle the guy’s dick and pull it out; and the guy had sex with her half-passed out body.
So what’s really going on here? First, alcohol and drugs lowering inhibition and the ability and will to think clearly and avoid unwanted conduct.
Second, regret in having sex with an unattractive guy or a guy who treated her poorly.
Third, refusal to accept responsibility for her part in creating the conditions for sex to happen when she might not have agreed to sex had she been more in control. Ladies, if you come across as wanting sex, men will keep right on going until they encounter firm resistance. So if you don’t clearly say no, and your actions are saying yes (or are not saying “no”), he will keep going until he gets what he wants.
“Third, refusal to accept responsibility for her part in creating the conditions for sex to happen when she might not have agreed to sex had she been more in control.”
This is the big one though, because it is squarely where the woman’s responsibility lies in keeping herself out of trouble. Equality means EVERYONE is responsible for their own actions, and unless someone slips a young woman a “mickey” or something, she CHOSE to get sloshed. First failure. Then she CHOSE to be alone with a guy. Second failure. And lastly, she allowed the two previous failures to put her in a tough spot. Major failure. (and in most cases the man in question is probably no more “in control” of himself than she is)
Men do it all the time, but mostly only guys who are married or otherwise attached, so it goes unnoticed by most women. I always do my best to NOT end up alone somewhere with a woman I’m in the least bit attracted to. Not because I don’t trust myself to act accordingly, but because its far easier to stay out of situations where I might be led astray than to completely rely on my self restraint. (I save that for the few times I truly need it!)
@HanSolo:
Thank you for sharing your experience:
Although we from different walks of life we have something in common: I also had a religious upbringing. And what I find interesting is that we had more or less the same views about women and relationships, as highlighted in the quotation above. The difference being, I think, that I had actually female caregivers participating in the shaming process.
I really struggled a lot with girls and relationships and was also shamed a lot (e.g., being sarcastically dismissed as being gay, or not being man enough to **** a woman, was played as the “gay friend” a couple of times by girls who were actually ****** and in love with assholes, etc.). But contrary to you, I think, it took me more time to overcome of this brainwashing. Instead of diverting to casual sex, however, I ended up getting addicted with hardcore porn. Porn was sort of instrumental and helpful in making me understand my own sexual needs. I’ve overcome the addiction which was far enough to the point of full blown ED (already healed but still in the process of “rebooting” though).
Yet, when I think of porn stars, I actually think of them with a mix of admiration and respect. Admiration and respect because, in certain ways, at least they were not the feminist women who were shaming me for being a man. Quite the contrary. I have similar feelings and views about prostitutes. Yet, as far as feminists are concerneced, I think they are epic existential failures. With regard to the caregivers who participated in my shaming process, not necessary to say that I feel a deep distrust of them, although I have forgiven them, for they have their own issues.
I am curious to know: what is your view about women’s attitude to sex nowadays? I think that the key to understand women’s sexuality is that it is essentially receptive/passive, i.e., a strong need to feel desired. This explains a lot of things. And, curiously, how they “administer” the male desire is what will determine their marriage value. But the bottom line is: the best thing you can do for a woman is to feel genuinely attracted to her, and not just infatuated. Not much in a man’s control anyway, and that’s where the whole feminist utopia/sand castle breaks down.
@AUM/PJ/BL:
“- Liz, Hugo admitted trying to MURDER someone and that is why, long before he started blogging for GMP, feminists (and other decent people who know about it) were against him.”
O: http://www.justfourguys.com/hugo-schwyzer-teaches-the-manosphere-a-huge-lesson-will-it-listen/
Your response?
“- B.S. I’ve been sexually harrassed by “mainstream hunks” and 8s and over.”
O: Pics or it didn’t happen…
O.
Hey Vitor,
Thanks for sharing, man. Must have sucked to get all the gay accusations and stuff. That’s interesting about the porn addiction. If it’s TMI, don’t answer but did you just sit there watching for like hours? For me, porn has never been an addiction like that. Rather, it’s a helpful but unnecessary aid for masturbating and once come, I really have no interest in the stuff. And when in relationships with frequent sex, I have no desire at all for the stuff.
I agree that making women feel desired while not going being too pushy is key. Basically, putting out a laid-back but intense desire for her is very helpful. Presenting it as she just turns you on and you are trying to be good but you just can’t help feeling an immense desire to be naughty with her seems to be a good mix of strong desire and yet trying to restrain. It’s a kind of push pull, two steps forward, one step back where there’s enough desire to get her attention but by pulling back and saying how you’re trying to not be naughty you’re taking a step back to calm her flight/fear mode and make her wonder if you really want her and then you pull her back in by saying how she’s just so irresistible. I’ve found that by making it about her sexiness and that you just can’t help feeling turned on that it can be a big turn on for a woman (assuming, most times, that there’s some foundation of attraction and comfort to build off of).
It’s better to make it about her sexiness creating an involuntary desire in you (and even one you’re trying to resist) than to just say “I want you.” Making it too much about what you want and not about her creating this irresistible attraction will put the focus more on your want and lack of having that want fulfilled–a form of scarcity and neediness–needing her.
As to women’s attitudes about sex, well, it runs along a spectrum but most prefer more passive and receptive roles most of the time. But! I’ve found with basically all but the most passive women that they do like to switch things up at times and be the seductress that’s wielding her magical power over you and you just can’t resist and she pushes you onto the bed and climbs on top and teases you into erection and wanting her.
I’d say that probably an 80/20 balance of you being dominant and initiating 80% of the time and then 20% of the time being the guy that’s “busy” reading and she just watches you and wants you can comes up to see if she can tempt you away from your book and you resist a bit and she wants you even more and ups her seduction and you finally succumb to her wiles and let her seduce you and then you get so turned on by her riding you or sucking you that you “rebel” and reverse roles and throw her off you (after she’s gotten off riding you or is getting really excited) and pound her good.
A useful attitude in that kind of situation–and again, probably 80% of the time you’ll be the one escalating and so on but 20% of the time you can either let her start escalating or you escalate a bit by kissing and getting her turned on but not going forward and let her be the one to want you so much she starts pulling out your cock–I had a gf that I would often do that, just start kissing and getting her turned on so much that after a while she would take off my boxer briefs and ravish me or make it clear she wanted to be ravished….
Anyway so in that minority of times where you let her be the seductress or get her so turned on with more mild stuff so that she starts ravishing you, a useful attitude is to present her as a ravenous tiger that’s just using you as her sex slave and that she loves getting off on you and being so naughty…and then at some point, you get so turned on that you are the rebellious sex slave that throws her off and fucks her mightily and you tell her that now she’s your sex slave and she has to do whatever you want.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I think women mostly want to be dominated but if you can get them so turned on that you bring out their wild and proactive and ravishing side then it really amps things up a lot. Reversing the dominant “narrative” and flipping the roles of who’s dominant can really make things awesome. But it has to be done within the context of you still being the (benevolently) dominant partner, in most cases.
@HanSolo: Thanks for your pornographic narrative. It looks like you’ve come up with a very smart strategy yourself:
I think I should give a certificate of Master of Female Ego.
Not for hours, but in conjunction with masturbation till orgasm. Usually I would look for clips with the porn actresses I found the most attractive. Generally I had one or two who were my favorite ones. Then I kept this process of escalating in variety of girls and naughtiness, over the years, but always one-on-one male-female clips. So I would basically use porn to feed my fantasies and give me a “high”, so as to say. Eventually it became my sole source of pleasure until escalating even more was not possible anymore (ATM scenes, etc.) and got full blown ED (no real attraction for common, real women). However, the whole process happens actually in the brain reward mechanism. You understand better how it works here: http://yourbrainonporn.com/erectile-dysfunction-and-porn
No. Basically I would use porn to feed my fantasies while masturbating till orgasm. I would typically look for the clips with the most attractive girls, and eventually this sort of became my sole and main source of sexual pleasure. Generally I would have one or two favorite actresses and use their clips (one-on-one male-female sex scenes gonzo or POV style) for some time. When these clips were not exciting me so much, I would look for new ones and while also looking for even more attractive girls, sort of adding to novelty. Over the years I ended up escalating in the preference for the girl’s naughtiness until it was not possible to escalate anymore (ATM scenes, etc.) and was already in practically full blown ED (no attraction for common, real women). However, the whole process actually happens in the brain: http://yourbrainonporn.com/erectile-dysfunction-and-porn. Yet it’s very real and only reversible through a thorough rebooting process: http://yourbrainonporn.com/node/79.
Perhaps I should give you a certificate of Master of Female Ego?
Thanks for the narrative.
Vitor, there’s definitely a difference between a good in-sex orgasm and a mast. orgasm. Sometimes the mast. orgasm can feel more pleasureful even but the overall experience of sex makes it better and more fulfilling. And just based on personal experience but consistent with a lot of anecdotal stuff out there I think that sex orgasms don’t make you as lethargic as mast. orgasms do.
As to the narrative, that stuff really has worked for me (thought it’s no magic bullet–she has to be into you to begin with).
Thanks. I know the difference because I have had a couple of girlfriends. I just cannot relate to the experience of having regular casual sex.
Just as a side note, I was reading this thread of another forum and it has a lot of interesting information and reference studies about the relationship between orgasm and relationships. Couples also report that orgasm in itself is not satisfying in the long run because of the coolidge effect and how many of them are resorting to karezza (bonding and trust) to keep and strengthen the emotional intimacy/connection.
@Aum (#66): Actually the same principle, regarding orgasm and masturbation, sort of apply to men as well, especially if used porn to amplify and feed the fantasies. A woman’s vagina is not able either to give us a “death grip” either.
But ultimately, masturbation is a DIY (Do It Yourself) form of lovemaking, i.e., the man or woman is essentially loving himself/herself.
I think that couple lovemaking takes it to a next level, where intimacy is possible (a sharing of spiritual and emotional connection), and is more fulfilling where there is intimacy. And yes, it also takes a “learning curve” or adaptation. But I also like the expression coined by Susan Walsh that sex without intimacy is kind of a masturbation with two willing partners.
With regard to Karezza, I do not think that making a conscious effort to contain orgasm as in White Tantra is advisable. I have a more humanistic view of it and, as I understand it, the merit of Karezza lies in keeping and building intimacy, with bonding and trust gentle lovemaking, without a focus on orgasm, which should be allowed to happen, even though not aiming at it. And once in a while, if both feel like to and in the right circumstances, why not spice up things as well?
@Han Solo
“The rape of men is also a large problem in many war zones but one that is often ignored”
Totally agree! And not just in war zones … I personally know a guy who used to work in a Middle Eastern country who was raped. His friend told me about it. I don’t know how rampant male rape is … it is a harrowing experience for anyone. The guy I mentioned is still traumatized. He’s single, by the way.
The academic discourse would say that “Rape is about power and not about sexual desire.” And I would have to agree.
People (more often, my own sisters) have often derided females for having “rape fantasies” ; for example, our penchant for romance novels where the heroine was “powerfully seduced” or some such shit :))) Anyway, the things is … women who read these stuff most often can tell the difference of fantasy from reality. And hey, the fantasy is in having someone “want you so much” that they will “powerfully seduce ” you — it’s about being raped.
Having said that, I must also say … I can totally understand guys’ penchant for pornography.
But pornography has been getting a bad flak from feminists. The bad flak stems from the fact that the pornography industry usually (though I have no idea of how often) involve coercion and victimization of its actors (i.e. the men and women who perform in porn films). Maybe there are people who enjoy starring in porn films and would consider it a great honor that their work entitled “Going Down in 69″ was considered the blockbuster hit of 2013 — but how many are they? I would think that a lot of women (and maybe even men) who perform in porn films are overworked, underpaid, and would never want their parents to know what they do for a living.
Who cares about what feminists think of pornography? Only women do. I do not condone pornography and I think there is a lot of dysfunctional people in the industry, just as in prostitution. But I think that feminism actually enables pornography and prostitution, with its war on patriarchy and traditional family values, women’s sexual freedom, etc.
The day the collective womanhood makes a global conference and decides that from that day on they will democratize access to sex to all men, from all social conditions and classes, with the sole requirement to access to free sex being of average beauty, healthy and good character, then the collective manhood will happily let go of all these crutches for relieve of sexual tension, including fake game, and indulge in these offer of freely accessible sex with real women/girls until satiation. Perhaps the collective womanhood could even set up men’s sexual health community centers to cater to the needs of sexually needy men, or who suffer from shyness, some kind of sexual dysfunction, etc. and do a similar work such as that which was done by sexual therapist Barbara Keesling as a surrogate partner for men going through these sexual health problems? It would certainly be a revolution in the history of democratic and equal gender relations/rights.
Who cares about what feminists think of pornography? Only women do. I do not condone pornography and I think there is a lot of dysfunctional people in the industry, just as in prostitution. But I think that feminism actually enables pornography and prostitution, with its war on patriarchy and traditional family values, women’s sexual freedom, etc.
The day the collective womanhood makes a global conference and decides that from that day on they will democratize access to sex to all men, from all social conditions and classes, with the sole requirement to access to free sex being of average beauty, healthy and good character, then the collective manhood will happily let go of all these crutches for relieve of sexual tension, including fake game, and indulge in these offer of freely accessible sex with real women/girls until satiation. Perhaps the collective womanhood could even set up men’s sexual health community centers to cater to the needs of sexually needy men, or who suffer from shyness, some kind of sexual dysfunction, etc. and do a similar work such as that which was done by sexual therapist Barbara Keesling as a surrogate partner for men going through these sexual health problems? It would certainly be a revolution in the history of democratic and equal gender relations/rights.
If all of this is not possible, then perhaps it’s necessary to review feminism at the least, because traditional family values are the best option.
“The day the collective womanhood makes a global conference and decides that from that day on they will democratize access to sex to all men”
Which might happen the same day men decide to share power / money / resources equally with other men, and to father every kid in the world regardless of genetics, to commit to every woman in the world without discerning nor judgement – just so everyone can have the same slice of the cake.
Im gonna stay on bed that day.
Very likely after satiating yourself.
“Very likely after satiating yourself.”
I have girls for that… thought they are probably going to be at that conference.
*though.
Why? Aren’t they already democratizing access to sex?
Which do you think might be the possible causes?
[…] Growing up, I was taught at school, home, church and in the media that men were domineering bastards, responsible for the vast majority of the ills in the world, and that they were sex-hungry perverts. […]
@Vitor:
“Usually I would look for clips with the porn actresses I found the most attractive. Generally I had one or two who were my favorite ones.”
O: If you don’t mind my asking, could you give us a short list of say, half a dozen (if there were that many!) of your favorite porn actresses – and would you mind telling us WHY these ladies were your favorites, again, if you don’t doing so? I think this is a chance for us all to learn something here.
Thanks!
O.
Hello brotha!
Well, I can for sure tell you why they were my favorites. Of course, a lot of personal preferences are entailed, and so before giving names, I will tell how my screening for the “favorite” ones were:
1. External beauty (looks), i.e., even before watching the clip, I would quickly screen for potential “good clips” based on the actress appearance/beauty/looks and if she fitted my preferred type I would rank them in order of beauty and then proceed to have a look at the clips specifically.
2. The first thing I would pay attention to in a clip is to screen for her spontaneity, especially by the way she would look at the camera (and there at me, the viewer :)). Through their eyes I could tell if she was faking, if she was enjoying it or not, if she looked sick and dysfunctional or having receive bad treatment, etc. And also how self-confident she was. Those who were focused on pleasuring the viewer would receive most of my admiration, so as to say, because they were sort indirectly show both spontaneity and validating my need to feed and even live my sexual fantasies.
3. Then comes the sexual scene specifically and to be honest, how naughty she was, especially in doing blowjobs, and her general attitude to stimulating my pleasure and fantasies, such as f****** her exactly the way she was being f***ed. Well I am little timid here :))), but I prefer those who stimulated my fantasies of f*****g a girl like her in every possible way (only me and her anyway).
With regard to looks:
i) Using pink clothes and very feminine, sexy and romantic lingerie would give her many extra points;
ii) Extra points for long hair;
iii) Extra points for some makeup;
iv) Extra points for being shaved and having a rosy, pink a**.
v) Girls with tatoos and piercings would lose points and I would also tend to ignore their clips, unless she was very good in the other aspects. But typically I prefer the “natural” ones.
That said, I can give you some names, which come to my mind:
Katy Caro, from Hungary.
Kimberly, from Hungary.
Cristina Bella, from Czech Republic.
There are others too who come to my mind (I have mentally counted about 12 more, making a little effort to remember them), but I don’t remember their names, including two very naughty ones from the U.S. But for sure, the above named were kind of my favorites.
Do you think I am a pervert?
P.S.: I have completely let go of porn for almost six months now, as part of my rebooting process. My current goal is to let go of it forever. Yet, I really do not have any bad judgements about it, or about the girls either.
@YOHAMI. “Which might happen the same day men decide to share power / money / resources equally with other men, and to father every kid in the world regardless of genetics, to commit to every woman in the world without discerning nor judgement – just so everyone can have the same slice of the cake.”
Sigh — says the guy who just captured my heart
@YOHAMI. “Which might happen the same day men decide to share power / money / resources equally with other men, and to father every kid in the world regardless of genetics, to commit to every woman in the world without discerning nor judgement – just so everyone can have the same slice of the cake.”
In any case, this may be wishful thinking.
Possessiveness and greed may be ingrained in the human psyche — to what extent, I have no idea. I’m sure the evolutionary biologists and geneticists will have their theories.
Anyway, some Facebook friend shared this article on a guy who was raped by his (are you ready for this?) 5 wives which you guys may find interesting.
http://rollingout.com/shame-on-you/african-businessman-dies-after-being-raped-by-his-5-wives/#.Ui_9YHJUW3R.facebook
@Obsidian (75): I getting a duplicate comment nag message. I’m not sure if it fell to moderation.
The comment text is this one: http://justpaste.it/cp5k
No no, really. The day we all hold hands, jump and fart at unison – that’s the day everything will start rolling.
Nothing has ever happened because everyone agreed on something. And specially when this something robs them from privileges (dirty word) or advantages they possess over others.
Every major change has been produced by force. Leadership – followers and force. The herd moves in whatever direction, not because they agreed to do so, but because they follow.
The time and energy necessary to awake the masses so they can decide their own path, which would be required for them to agree on anything (or to actually, factually disagree on anything) – would be better invested in leadership. Turn one light on and let everyone else chase it.
Bottom line, women will never reach a consensus and provide sex for men because men need it. Just like men will never reach a consensus to do what I stated in my joke above. Because it’s not wanted, and also because it’s not necessary, and it’s not really what anyone wants.
If Vitor had the chance to have every woman pinning for him, or to have to share them with Justin Biever and Hugo Swayzer, plus his dad – Im pretty sure he’d prefer to keep them for himself. Same with money power and whatever else.
Human nature.
I’ve never stated otherwise.
@ magangbok1
And the 5 wives were jealous of the 6th!
Christina Bella is from Hungary, not the Czech Republic.
[…] a previous post, I provided excerpts from an excellent investigative article by Christina Hoff Sommers that showed […]
[…] chapter on why the 1-in-4 rape meme is wrong was the basis for my JFG post on the topic: http://www.justfourguys.com/rape-why-1-in-4-is-wrong/. Her book, The War Against Boys, and similar work is also important in addressing the unfair […]
[…] I stated in my post, http://www.justfourguys.com/rape-why-1-in-4-is-wrong/, my intention was to get at the truth of things so that men wouldn’t be excessively seen by […]
“Exaggerating the sins of men is damaging to men and boys for the same reasons it was damaging to me as a boy and a young man. It makes men feel guilty and apologetic for being men and it makes them more tentative in dealing with women. If women are wondering why it seems like it’s only the jerks and assholes that are approaching, this is part of the problem.”
It made you feel bad even though YOU were not the one raping women? HUH?
I’m happy that you grew out of that mentality but instead of looking at the external reason why you felt the way you did maybe you should focus internally and realize that your guilt was illogical.
I have no sympathy. Even if the statistics were true, you shouldn’t feel bad! 1 out of 4 is still a minority of men. Maybe your religous upbringing made you this way. Maybe the bible verse below confused you into believing that you raped every woman you looked at.
“But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Monika,
“It made you feel bad even though YOU were not the one raping women? HUH?”
Is that a serious question?
“1 out of 4 is still a minority of men.”
The falste statistics is that 1 in 4 women gets raped. If it was that 1 in 4 men is a rapist, then every woman in the world would get raped at least 10 times during their lifetime.
@Monika
That’s pretty funny.
Have the seen this brouhaha in Canada?
The Femtard run state (aka ‘the Cathedral’) put up “Don’t be that guy” posters – accusing men as a sex of all being potential rapists who all needed to be told that rape is wrong – this was right and correct, all ebul penus weelding bastids r raaaapists, or should feel shamed (apparently) (*shrugs*)
When some MHRAs put up posters with “Don’t be that girl” over some women making False Rape Accusations / DV – the femtards popped their corks, flipped their lids, started foaming at the mouth. The police were called in and promptly followed the femtard line. There are multiple articles on this them on AVFM, but here’s one made by a nice lady who’s output I rate highly (see her youtube channel
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/dont-be-that-anti-rape-campaign/
(there’s a video version of this article by Karen Straughn / GirlWritesWhat) here’s an excerpt
[snip]
I don’t mind what standard you set for sensitivity (the one you state would be fine afaiac), but how about one standard for both sexes?
This isn’t about some posters, it’s about women waking the fuck up and noticing how men are treated in this so called ‘patriarchy’. They need to check their female privilege.
*this is exactly the mirror of the scenario that you describe. But when women do it (feel attacked), they must be defended. When men do it they’re ‘over-sensitive’ as you said.
** details are on AVFM, but basically some drunk women made a false rape accusation against a taxi driver, just to get out of paying $13 for a taxi ride. Stay morally superior ladies.
Monika, I think you need to understand more of what it’s like to be a man and constantly get told that you (men, collectively) are responsible for most of what’s wrong in the world and that even if you don’t do anything wrong that you’re still privileged for being a man and have all kinds of advantages over women because of that.
Men that buy into that message–and it’s prevalent–become more tentative and apologetic and even may feel a bit of collective guilt along the lines, “of jeez, we men do kind of suck and do lots of shit,” even if they themselves are not doing it.
For me, the feeling bad was more of a feeling bad that such things were happening to women (though not as much as I was led to believe), not that I was doing them. But there was a bit of a feeling of collective guilt when I thought of things in a man/woman dichotomy. More than anything, it motivated me to want to protect women and right the wrongs wrought upon them, basically be a well-intentioned white knight. So not really a personal guilt for me as a bit of a feeling of collective guilt and feeling like I needed to do my part as a part of “team man” to make up for the sins of my “brothers.”
It’s easy to tell kids (or adults) that they should just realize something but that ignores that their whole world view may be shaped by things completely different and that any contrary information means that the person is flawed rather than the world view.
If you have no sympathy then that’s your business. I don’t really care. But I doubt that that kind of attitude will serve you well in real life. No one’s perfect and extending sympathy or empathy and trying to understand where someone came from is usually more productive than simply calling them illogical for not realizing something sooner.
@Hansolo
I fundamentally disagree with the “team man” mentality. It’s just as bad as personnel guilt over something that you didn’t do. I think you would agree when you look at it with the feminist twist. How some women feel guilty about wanting to be a stay at home mother. How they feel that they are turning their back against their own gender and their “progress”. It’s the “team” mentality that created the feminism that we have today. Collective struggle is being forced down on women who if on their own would have never felt discriminated or raped. By treating women like they are so damaged that you couldn’t even kiss them, you only reinforced their belief that there is something wrong.
You are not responsible for your gender. I’m treating you with the same lack of sympathy I have with women who think that they were going to marry a millionaire at 35 after the carousal ride.
This is honesty and tough love. I think we need more of it in this society. Fighting irrational thinking with more irrational thinking will get society no where.
Monika, I was simply explaining how I and many men grew up feeling. It’s purely descriptive, not prescriptive. I’m not saying men should feel that way. If anything, I’m trying to help them realize that the propaganda brought against men is largely false, namely that most men aren’t evil. That is not irrational thinking. Of course, another part of it is that no one is guilty for what others did, though tell that to feminists that claim that all men are privileged and start out as guilty unless they do something to atone for their original sin of being male.
I don’t feel any guilt or trepidation for being a white male anymore. But feminists want men to feel guilty for being men and racists want white men to feel guilty for being white.
I don’t think I’m team man. I want fairness and good things for everyone.
Also, the guilt instilled into men isn’t just about being rapists. There are many more subtle things that men are accused of, such as being lazy and making their wives do all the housework (even if that’s not true), that men are violent and make women feel uncomfortable and on and on. These things do really seep into many boys’ and men’s minds and some men will feel like maybe they are a bit guilty of not valuing women enough or of making them feel uncomfortable because all the attention is on what men are or may be doing wrong and very little on the good they bring to society.
@Hansolo
I agree. Fairness and good things for everyone. I just perceive your story as using the same type of tactics feminists used to describe their struggle.
Monika, I don’t know why you see my story as the same type of tactics that feminists use. In today’s society girls are told they can do it all while boys are told to sit still, that girls are better and that boys are privileged. Huge difference. Perhaps both sides say that they have been treated unfairly but there is a lot more evidence to support the fact that girls have been privileged over the last 30 to 40 years while boys have not been.
Look at the study where boys got worse grades than their test scores would suggest because a big portion of the grades were based on feminine normative behaviors and how much the mostly female teachers liked the students or perceived them to be acting appropriately in class. So right off the bat, boys are put at a disadvantage because the educational system doesn’t feel like something they can relate to or that is on their side. So with worse grades and poorer attitudes about education than they need have, less will either want to or be able to go to college. Affirmative action largely benefits girls and women, compounding the effect. College campuses spout the meme that 25% of women will be sexually assaulted by the time they leave, at the hands of their male classmates. All of this adds up to create the 57 to 43 ratio of women to men in college (or whatever it exactly is, depending on what level you look at).
Another difference is that my “story” and what I say is based much more in facts than the exaggerated claims of victimhood (while actually being privileged) that many feminists make about women.
And the final difference is that I will debate you and not just resort to name calling or banning you, which most feminist sites do.
@Hansolo
I agree that affirmation action and our education system have failed to support men but I’m not comparing you and the feminists about facts. I wasn’t calling your claim that the “men are evil” campaign is a propaganda as illogical thinking.
What I do think is illogical is feeling guilty for things that you didn’t do and will never do. Just like feminists feeling like the world is against women but they don’t have the evidence to back their claim. It’s feelings with no critical thought put into it to test whether it’s valid and if it isn’t valid, what is the cause behind the feelings?
You and the feminists are on the opposite side of the spectrum between the abuser and the abused. You guys placed yourselves on each end without real reasoning.
Monika
The poster campaign (an example of “Men are evil”) shows the difference between feminists and MRAs.
Feminists demand the right to accuse men of any and every thing but refuse any accusation about any woman.
MRAs demand equality. If one can’t make baseless accusations against all women, then one should not be able to make them against all men.
So there’s an issue of equality.
But beyond that equality issue, there is also the fact that the posters intentionally exploit normal human feelings, they are an attack on men because they imply that all men need to be shamed out of raping women. Most men will be affected by the lie to some degree, even if they know it’s a lie. There is also the effect on women, who on seeing the posters are also likely to regard men with more fear. It’s an attempt to split men and women.
The fact that men traditionally allow such posters to be remain up shows that guys do realise that they are themselves innocent and allow the slight to pass. But that is a mistake, MRAs are addressing that mistake. MRAs are standing up for themselves, but also for Boys. Boys (and blue-pill guys) that do fall for the implied shaming of themselves for the actions of a minority of men and women.
You might see that as feminist style over-sensitivity, MRAs see it as a way of waking men and boys up to the fact that they are being subtly attacked by society. Waking up men and boys (and women and girls) about the evils of feminism is the ethical thing to do.
Women leverage these BS small lies to gain undeserved political influence; they are not ‘harmless’. These type of lies are why there are very, very few men’s shelters, because feminists grab all the funding. Women’s shelters often refuse to take boys in. Boys as young as 9 can be refused shelter (Check out Erin Pizzey on AVFM, she set up the first shelter for women in the UK. She describes the harm done to men and boys using feminist lies, distortions and misandric spite.)
I can see that English is not your mother tongue so I’ll let pass your “You guys placed yourselves on each end without real reasoning.” as poor English, rather than an intentional attack.
@St Swithunus
I reread my statement. When I said “You guys” I meant both HanSolo and feminists. “Guy” is an informal term for a man but can be used for both gender. I disagree that it’s bad English. I understand that there are multiple ways of interrupting that sentence. I should have caught it before posting to make it clearer.
I agree. Men should not allow the slight to pass. They should speak out and say it’s wrong. They shouldn’t take it for face value and start believing it like HanSolo initially did.
The bad English isn’t the usage of ‘Guy’.
“You guys placed yourselves on each end without real reasoning.” (a statement that no (valid) reasoning was used)
would have been better put as
“I don’t understand the reasoning that you used” (an implicit request for clarification. you may have valid reasons, can you tell me them, please?)
or
“Could you please explain your reasoning, because I don’t understand how you came to this position” (an explicit request for clarification)
as I said, I did not take offense. But I thought I’d flag up that you’re wording could have been better. J’ai le meme probleme avec la belle langue francaise.
—–
Han’s initial believing of the slight is just normal human behaviour. Men are human too. People grow up trusting the messages, implicit and explicit, that they see. That is why the posters use that phrasing – the intent is to shame all men. Han was ‘normal’ in believing the implied message “men bad”…and thus “Han is bad”
Boys (and girls) are even more vulnerable to this programming; “men bad, men dangerous, men are rapists by nature”
Women also will tend to receive the same message.
Unfortunately human beings tend to accept what they read as valid (‘well surely no one would have written that if it wasn’t true?’) Han was describing the moment when he consciously realised what the underlying message was and that it was not valid, and that it is harmful at the personal and societal levels.
—-
“I agree. Men should not allow the slight to pass. They should speak out and say it’s wrong.”
Cool. Nice to meet you, Monika.
Probably the word ‘shame’ would be better than ‘guilt’ and applies to more men/boys since they aren’t guilty themselves but get accused of things (e.g. the rape posters) and even though they know they’re not guilty of it themselves they feel the shaming and suspicion that society sends their way. I think that a smaller portion may actually start to internalize the shaming a bit more and wonder if they are doing some of those things or look for ways in which they are and feel a minor amount of guilt.
And I agree with Swithunus that it is normal for many/most young people to believe much of what is told to them. At some point, some of them will start to think through things and realize some of it isn’t true but not others and not all of it.
[…] are a few excerpts, from my post on why the 1-in-4 rape stat is wrong, that explain many of those false and damaging believes I grew up with. Life experience helped me […]
[…] http://www.justfourguys.com/rape-why-1-in-4-is-wrong/ […]
[…] Rape: Why 1 in 4 is Wrong, which relies heavily (and justifiably so) on Christina Hoff Sommers’s article […]
http://communityvoices.post-gazette.com/opinion/the-radical-middle/27667–one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven
[…] it comes to attraction and intersexual dynamics, their entire lives and foundations are built on lies their parents, teachers, pastors, and everyone else told them. The lies feminism propped up can no longer be papered over or explained away, and are being […]