rigorousintuition.ca

I detest the argument that makes it the female's imperative to preserve the egos of men who approach them. Especially when that argument is couched in terms of concern for the female's personal security.

This is mostly about ego, if that weren't plainly obvious from the Karaoke napkin number story.

Canadian_watcher wrote:I detest the argument that makes it the female's imperative to preserve the egos of men who approach them.

Seconded. It's such a low blow. Hurts whether it connects or not.

Canadian_watcher wrote:
I detest the argument that makes it the female's imperative to preserve the egos of men who approach them. Especially when that argument is couched in terms of concern for the female's personal security.

This is mostly about ego, if that weren't plainly obvious from the Karaoke napkin number story.

Aw, poor jlaw! All that education and so little edification!

We, who are all the wiser now having read his words, should take pity upon his poor soul; he's bound for a world of hurt, don't you know, from many women throughout his life.

Sadly and obviously, jlaw missed the Mansplaining prerequisite course: Manlistenin'.

But I'll be damned, his several comments prove that he's gotten Mansplaining down pat. Fascinating!

Good thing he has his head up his ass, because if he didn't, right about now he'd have more than one size 7 up there and perhaps also a few size 11s.

^^I actually thought there were individual gains and losses for everybody, but that everybody contributed to making the common gains greater than the common losses, ultimately.

Not excluding you. But also not excluding jlaw.

My two cents.

^^^^ Perhaps that's true, c2w?

As a woman, which I am not, I imagine there's some imperative (self-preservation?) that forces one to educate men to become better at being men, and how they interact with women, which is certainly understandable and indeed necessary.

But as a man, I have little tolerance for men whom need to learn how to be men who interact appropriately with women. And I wear a size 11 shoe.

The losses to everyone are plain and the gains to a few simply not enough.

I just don't know how you put up with us! Amazed, as always, that you so persevere and rarely resort to gunplay.

IanEye wrote:

At AVN this year, a guy grabbed my forearm while I was walking from the elevators to Digital Playground's booth. He let go when I punched him in the testicle area. There's an average of three people per convention who try the more subtle approach of sliding their hand a bit too far down my back when I stand next to them for a photo. Every single one of them apologizes when I gently put their hand back where it belongs and ask them to remember that I am not a blow up doll.

The above paragraph is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, compared to what it's like to be a girl or woman walking around in public in broad daylight. With dirty hair up in a ponytail or bun, no makeup, and baggy clothing on. With headphones in, sitting in a coffee shop or on the subway with your nose in a book, or talking on the phone.

http://jezebel.com/5941068/im-a-porn-st ... -the-balls

See that's what's fucked up about it all. You go out there knowing "boys are gonna be boys" and the whole reason you even get a check cut for you is because the market for degenerate males is huge and this is what the big dollars are preying on. I would like to see the Christian right and the decadent left go by the wayside for something far more equitable and honest and empathetic. But see this is the whole deal, IMO, everybody has their priorities wrong. Sex is awesome, but our goddamn focus on sex in a "puritanical" culture don't fucking jibe, especially when these fucking profiteers are the same fuckers who profit off the virtual renting of real human bodies and the human bodies being rented say "hey, why the fuck not?" or "how dare you criticize my choice?". And etc.

I'm just speaking overall. I don't give a fuck what people do on their own time. But I give a fuck when we are being told what our own time is supposed to consist of and esp when it comes down to the exploitation of other fellow travelers. Lady put herself in that position and honestly, comparing herself to not being a blow up doll says way more about her than the idiot who even partakes in the footage of her because it "means something". WTF ever! Normalization and comfortableness of porn is degenerate and not as a Christian do I say this, but say it as someone who gives a flying fuck. All this porn fetishization will not wind up good. I like the next naked lady too. But Jesus, this is one sick culture and the thing is is that being naked isn't sick, it's the culture that thinks its like rebellious and shit and making progress or whatever it thinks it's doing to be all about fucking who ever you want.

We live in the real world -- ideals and all. But we're still here and capitalism is destroying/has destroyed all that could have been beautiful and nobody sees how it comes down to their very shells that hold the spirit inside.

82_28 wrote:
See that's what's fucked up about it all.
.
I'm just speaking overall.
.
We live in the real world -- ideals and all.

I just thought the article might provide an interesting perspective, warts and all.



.

OMFG, Ian. Really?

Are you a spy? Because that is uncanny. Like, really uncanny. Like really, really, really fucking uncanny.

I had that song loaded on my browser, bro! I've been listening to it off and on the past two days after finding an old and empty cassette case of Allroy's Revenge. Dude, wtf.

Nothing more, nothing less. She'll always be my ex.

Dude, that is so fucking fucked that you just so randomly posted that.

I smoke really good weed.

...

Ian, you are too funny.

...

barracuda wrote:Take your inane perspective to a men's rights forum or start your own thread, you misguided individual. You don't even have the wherewithal to defend your own misguided statements, or apparently to even try to. You're disrupting the thread. Get lost, troll. Be gone.

Wherewithal and time are two separate things. I don't react well to condescension and scorn, as I'm sure most people don't. I'm not a troll. I've been reading this forum since 2006 or so and the blog since around 2004 I think. I have no hidden agenda and I'm not some agent of misinformation. I also don't appreciate being called misogynistic or otherwise pigeon-holed. I don't care if you think I'm misguided, but I think it's sad to see that one of the more open forums that I've found is so close minded about certain things as to excuse bullying and name calling. I would much rather see ideas discussed rather than personal rivalries and unfounded accusations.

Wow. This conversation is still going on. You know, it's a lot easier to agree with whatever people say, but since the social consequences of speaking your mind are nil on here, I may as well. It's interesting to me that someone would bother to quote a porn star, who makes her living exploiting the hard-wired biological impulses of lonely males staring into their computer screens. The people that bother to go to those events expecting any kind of human connection are mentally ill, but it's still amusing that the exploiter expects to have her cake and eat it too. It's all very fine and well for the creeps to shell out their money buying her taudry products, but god forbid they actually touch her, even though her product is all about creating the illusion of sexual availability. Can you say occupational hazard, Stoya, I knew you could? Lumping Stoya in with women who don't do anything remotely resembling soliciting sexual interest does not help the argument.

And I'm sure the people that attack me on here think that only women are being exploited when pornography is made, or that they are the chief victims. It's kind of like saying that pushers, petty peddlers, or other low level drug cartel minions are the primary victims of the drug war, and not the lost souls they sell to.

Hey, maybe if you continue white-knighting Stoya, she'll mail you a pair of her panties!

^^^^ jlaw, don't for a minute believe the social consequences repercussions to "speaking your mind are nil here." You have me convinced that you're a creepy asshole.

Nice to have met you, I'm sure.

jlaw172364 wrote:Wow. This conversation is still going on. You know, it's a lot easier to agree with whatever people say, but since the social consequences of speaking your mind are nil on here, I may as well. It's interesting to me that someone would bother to quote a porn star, who makes her living exploiting the hard-wired biological impulses of lonely males staring into their computer screens. The people that bother to go to those events expecting any kind of human connection are mentally ill, but it's still amusing that the exploiter expects to have her cake and eat it too. It's all very fine and well for the creeps to shell out their money buying her taudry products, but god forbid they actually touch her, even though her product is all about creating the illusion of sexual availability. Can you say occupational hazard, Stoya, I knew you could? Lumping Stoya in with women who don't do anything remotely resembling soliciting sexual interest does not help the argument.

And I'm sure the people that attack me on here think that only women are being exploited when pornography is made, or that they are the chief victims. It's kind of like saying that pushers, petty peddlers, or other low level drug cartel minions are the primary victims of the drug war, and not the lost souls they sell to.

Hey, maybe if you continue white-knighting Stoya, she'll mail you a pair of her panties!

You poor thing, you're such a victim! Someone should have a fundraiser.

jlaw172364 wrote: It's interesting to me that someone would bother to quote a porn star, who makes her living exploiting the hard-wired biological impulses of lonely males staring into their computer screens.