The glaring inconsistency of the manosphere

[jurry]

Just what the Western world needs. Another mewling mangina pretending the fictitious patweeearchy is real declaring his "equalness" to an already statistically overly depressed and overly medicated sex.

Honestly, what are you even doing here? Every time you post you have like half a dozen fellas call your gyno nonsense out. You seem to be at odds with game. You most certainly don't help any of the newer members out with your continual stream of pozzed tripe so what are you actually doing here?

It seems to be the same 4 or 5 people everytime actually, and many agree with me if you look back through the thread. Ive given advice where I can on many other threads to new people, this particular thread is a bit more of a philosophical discussion though.

I dont see it at odds with game, I see it right in line with it. A DJ should be aloof, cool and just cruising through life working with what comes. He isnt dependent on women, he does his own thing and they see this and are attracted to him for it.

This is half of it, and the advice type posts along those lines (at heartiste for example, and some here) are beautifully, impeccably written. But then there is this huge ugliness and conflict in the manosphere, what comes across as a vitriolic hatred for the world and the society around us, specifically feminism, liberals, gays, etc. Any challenging viewpoint really is met with "you're a pvssy fem liberal".

To me this is a huge letdown, and I dont see how the kind of relaxed, open attitude of a DJ would mesh with this total lack of understanding and unwillingness to accept differences. It just doesnt add up. I think many people on the forums are simply frustrated men and they want an outlet to relieve their anger and failure with women, and that is very harmful to someone trying to get better with women. I cant imagine anyone who is that successful in life and with women displaying this level of intolerance toward other people.

This is the same point ive been making since the beginning. A true DJ should be embracing these changes (unprecedented level of access to women, less expectations for commitment, etc.), only a chump is going to sit around whining about the court system and that women are sluttier and working more.

 

[zekko]

only a chump is going to sit around whining about the court system and that women are sluttier and working more.

If the court system is biased and unfair, then a man should speak out against it. Anyone who would not do so would be a sheep.

I've said all along that the anti-boundary people were simply putting forth the feminist agenda, and some of your recent comments support that thought.

 

[jurry]

I never said women are social justice warriors, I have only pointed out the reality that our culture has moved closer to gender equality. The reason I dont see a problem from the male perspective is because it is still an unquestionably male dominated society in terms of politics and the economy. Women have always exerted control over men in relationships, and vice versa. This is why a true DJ should have nothing to worry about with more gender equality.

Again, you've provided no support or studies of any kind to support this idea of an oppressive, misandric court system. It is all heresay, and charts that show that women are ending up with kids 90% of the time. Ok, how is that misandric? How do you know ANYTHING more about any of those cases other than your own prejudged assumptions?

I know men who have been taken to the cleaners in divorce, I know women who have received nothing when she takes custody of a child because the dad is a total dead beat. Do either of those scenarios tell us anything conclusive about our court system as a whole? No they are just anecdotes, and thats all you are resting your argument on, heresay.

 

[VikingKing]

It seems to be the same 4 or 5 people everytime actually, and many agree with me if you look back through the thread. Ive given advice where I can on many other threads to new people, this particular thread is a bit more of a philosophical discussion though.

I dont see it at odds with game, I see it right in line with it. A DJ should be aloof, cool and just cruising through life working with what comes. He isnt dependent on women, he does his own thing and they see this and are attracted to him for it.

This is half of it, and the advice type posts along those lines (at heartiste for example, and some here) are beautifully, impeccably written. But then there is this huge ugliness and conflict in the manosphere, what comes across as a vitriolic hatred for the world and the society around us, specifically feminism, liberals, gays, etc. Any challenging viewpoint really is met with "you're a pvssy fem liberal".

To me this is a huge letdown, and I dont see how the kind of relaxed, open attitude of a DJ would mesh with this total lack of understanding and unwillingness to accept differences. It just doesnt add up. I think many people on the forums are simply frustrated men and they want an outlet to relieve their anger and failure with women, and that is very harmful to someone trying to get better with women. I cant imagine anyone who is that successful in life and with women displaying this level of intolerance toward other people.

This is the same point ive been making since the beginning. A true DJ should be embracing these changes (unprecedented level of access to women, less expectations for commitment, etc.), only a chump is going to sit around whining about the court system and that women are sluttier and working more.

That sounds like something a feminist, gay, liberal would say. I think its fine for women to be slvts, but they should be treated by all men accordingly.

Actually, you're starting to sound like zarky.

 

[jurry]

Jurry,

I asked this question of you, which I have not seen an answer to yet. You may have missed it since it was an edit earlier this morning.


What kind of equality are you hoping for? Equal opportunity? Equal outcome? Equal treatment?

These are all different forms of "equality". Your reference earlier to the number of women CEO's and politicians leads me to believe you are speaking in terms of equal outcome. Is this your basis for defining equality and if so, I assume this is your underlying reason for being a SJW for the cause of feminism and for ignoring the issues men face?

Can you clarify?

Equal opportunity. And this is where our country has undertaken a large shift, because by and large women (and minorities if theyre born in the right zip code) do have a lot of the same opportunities as anyone else now.

To say that our society is still male dominated is not a judgment, it is an observation. Im not "damning the patriarchy" for being in the position they are in, they are just a product of the times. In the next couple decades I think the equality of opportunity will translate into more equality of outcomes, with a less male, less white dominated system in terms of politics and the economy.

 

[Evan]

It seems to be the same 4 or 5 people everytime actually, and many agree with me if you look back through the thread. Ive given advice where I can on many other threads to new people, this particular thread is a bit more of a philosophical discussion though.

I dont see it at odds with game, I see it right in line with it. A DJ should be aloof, cool and just cruising through life working with what comes. He isnt dependent on women, he does his own thing and they see this and are attracted to him for it.

This is half of it, and the advice type posts along those lines (at heartiste for example, and some here) are beautifully, impeccably written. But then there is this huge ugliness and conflict in the manosphere, what comes across as a vitriolic hatred for the world and the society around us, specifically feminism, liberals, gays, etc. Any challenging viewpoint really is met with "you're a pvssy fem liberal".

To me this is a huge letdown, and I dont see how the kind of relaxed, open attitude of a DJ would mesh with this total lack of understanding and unwillingness to accept differences. It just doesnt add up. I think many people on the forums are simply frustrated men and they want an outlet to relieve their anger and failure with women, and that is very harmful to someone trying to get better with women. I cant imagine anyone who is that successful in life and with women displaying this level of intolerance toward other people.

This is the same point ive been making since the beginning. A true DJ should be embracing these changes (unprecedented level of access to women, less expectations for commitment, etc.), only a chump is going to sit around whining about the court system and that women are sluttier and working more.

It's easier for men to go on a message board and complain about it than it is to go out and actually try to change things. I use to enjoy reading red pill reddit but have gotten tired of the same old story being told. "Women are all the same" "don't get married" or "feminists are taking over the world".

While there is a movement of men trying to make men aware of what is going on, I don't see much other than that. What are men actually doing to change things other than talk about it on the internet?

The most helpful advice I see on the red pill sub or sites like "the rational male", and other manosphere sites is to allocate your time and energy to your life and let women take the back seat. Yet we still see men left and right on these sites talk about how broken women are and how feminists are taking over the world.

I understand feminism is everywhere and blue pill mentality is impossible to fully avoid, but talking about an ideal on the internet and not acting for it does nothing but add to the fantasy that made men join the site and movement in the first place. What are men doing about the unfair marriage laws? What are men doing about the world being painted with feminists paint brushes? Doesn't seem like much because all I see is women getting stronger and more influential every day. Evidence is on this forum, red pill websites and any relationship forum. Jurry is right, all you see is whining and wishing things would be different than what they are. Wishing women would be different than how they are.

Well where's the change? There is none. Maybe men are getting wiser and if that's the goal great but it's not going to keep feminists from fighting for their cake. White knights and orbiters are always going to be around and fighting for the feminists. Forums like this and red pill reddit will always be shamed and labeled misogynistic. Just like any guy who says anything against it will be labeled a feminists or a fag. It's been a while now, where is the change? I'm not saying men shouldn't fight for it.

If men are really passionate about it why aren't they doing anything about it? It's because it's much easier to whine and complain about it on the message board. I don't see men coming up with plans or solid ideas on how to make the world more equal again. Just more of the same old "all women are the same" or "don't get married". Where's the action?

 

[VikingKing]

Danger, I dont think it is fair to read that far into the charts. The women is likely getting the child by default because the man has left her, or doesnt want to raise the kid. Should she not receive support for this? Or they may have mutually decided that its better or easier for the child to live with the mother, who in turn will need food clothes etc for the child. Theres no way to determine that from the data.

Regarding marriage, there are many reasons men are not manning up. Not being able to find a job is certainly one, fear of divorce payments is certainly another (though id bet its much further down the list). But many still are getting married. I really dont see the problem.

The main issue I have with your prediction is that it deals only with absolutes. Either men have the control, or its women. Why does it have to be one of the extremes? My prediction is that the pendulum swings a bit further back towards women (similar to nordic countries or australia) and then stays pretty constant for awhile. Im not interested in matriarchy or patriarchy, just a peaceful, relatively equal world where one group does not have all the power over the other.

Also, i dont know why the boundary discussion has moved onto this thread..

How about this jurry. If a woman gets pregnant, and doesn't want the kid then she can have an abortion, the father has no say. What if you accidently get a woman pregnant, but you don't want to have the kid, and she does and if she does you have to pay child support even though if it was up to you, you would abort it. Men should be able to opt out if they did not intend to have the child, and the rest of the society shouldnt have to pay for the womans mistake. Her body, her choice, her problem.

So how are the laws right now fair?

It's her fault for putting herself in a position to risk getting pregnant.

How is it equal if a woman can got to college, get a job and then still get married to some one who will provide for her. She has the security of either getting married to a beta provider, can divorce and still benefit financially if she was in the wrong. She can either be taken care of or take care of herself. That is a blanket of security men do not have.

The more secure you feel, the more confidence you will have, the less stress the longer you will live, less health problems.

So shouldnt women only be able to choose one? Either take care of yourself financially or don't.

Men can only take care of themselves. The world is only dominated by a few men. The rest of us have the odds against us while women benefit from what men have created and established. They even have law on their side.

I'm not complaining jurry, I'm only making rational observations. So please explain how men have a better deal in society?

 

[jurry]

The pregnancy issue is a tricky one, I definitely feel you on that. The bottom line there I think is do not bang a girl without a condom unless you fully trust shes on the pill or are ready to accept the possibility of having a child with her.

There are definitely those girls out there who try (or succeed) to have a kid to keep a man. Thats obviously a poor quality woman and its an awful decision for them to make. Again, most girls wouldnt do this. Ive been involved in a couple pregnancy scares and looking back it was not surprising at all and I should have known better considering the girl.

The solution you offer puts all the power with the man though, and men are certainly just as capable of exploiting that (i.e. you were banging other girls and told her she was your gf or something, and now want to walk away). Even if we say were not going to pay her for her bad decision, one way or another society will have to. I cant think of a good solution to it other than making sure you really trust a girl and wearing a condom if you dont.

Regarding the marriages/divorces, I would think that you guys would support women working more and making money since that means they wouldnt have anything to take from you in divorce. Personally, it would take one hell of a woman to get me to consider marriage, and I dont really care much about money, many girls ive dated make more than I do. Quality men are just as capable of getting a girl to pay for him as women are to do the opposite.

If youre loaded, you should be very careful and if you dont trust her sign a pre nup.

 

[jurry]

Comments in bold.

So, in summary you think it is the difference in "opportunity" which is responsible for fewer women in politics or as CEO's? No, I literally just said the opportunities are pretty equal nowadays (within the same racial socioeconomic class that is). You're not even reading my posts just trying to start an argument with what you want me to be saying.

Can you define this difference in opportunity which you believe is causing this?



As a note on the pregnancy subject. Women have the right to walk away from pregnancy, and the murder a child to do it. Men wan the same right and they are not even asking to murder the child to have it.

As far as the "her body her choice" mantra......Why is 9 months of her body worthsomething, but 21 years of a man's life NOT worth anything?

Additionally you never answered the subject on why women are criminal for a DUI but a "victim" for having sex while under the influence? In one manner she is considered an adult, but in the other she is a naïve little girl? Compared to a man who is the criminal in BOTH cases??again this is just assumptions you are making without any support. Where are the numbers that demonstrate the "misandric court system" here? Im not a lawyer but from what ive heard sex assault and rape charges are some of the most difficult cases to win.




Evan,

Rollo soundly addressed your points here in regards to "what is being done".

The bolded parts are key. Any major attempt at movement will fail because there is not enough underlying momentum to enact change. Remember the process of change.

• First they ignore you.
• Then they laugh at you.
• They they fight you.
• Then they agree you were right all along.

Guess where we are today?

 

[:-)]

Uh, that isn't what I got from your posts. This is your quote below...which suggests that TODAY you do not think there is an equality of outcome. But also suggests that 20 years ago you think there was NOT an equality of opportunity?


So today, you believe there is an equality of opportunity.....but you still recognize that far fewer women choose STEM classes?




As for this one....







The mere FACT that a man is presumed guilty when both sexes are drunk does not strike you as misandric?

The mere FACT that women are guilty when driving under the influence, but are victims when having sex under the influence does not strike you as misandric???

I am not talking about court cases here, I am talking about actual LAW with the basic premise that men and women are NOT considered equal when drinking, but that women become VICTIMS and men become CRIMINALS.

THIS does not strike you as misandric???

Listen here, Danger. You wanna show everyone here what a big shot you are with your 'twin ponds' and Porsche Boxster (http://www.ebay.com/gds/10-Things-I...tml?roken2=ta.p3hwzkq71.bsports-cars-we-love).

For someone who knows so much about economy you spend an awful lot of time on these forums trying to convince 18 year olds they are wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVHJrz6Sk7U

 

[jurry]

Comments in bold

Uh, that isn't what I got from your posts. This is your quote below...which suggests that TODAY you do not think there is an equality of outcome. But also suggests that 20 years ago you think there was NOT an equality of opportunity?what?


So today, you believe there is an equality of opportunity.....but you still recognize that far fewer women choose STEM classes?I dont know ive never really looked to find out. And if they do... This means, what exactly? men and women are different, there are some fields men are more interested in, same for women.....?




As for this one....







The mere FACT that a man is presumed guilty when both sexes are drunk does not strike you as misandric?

The mere FACT that women are guilty when driving under the influence, but are victims when having sex under the influence does not strike you as misandric???

I am not talking about court cases here, I am talking about actual LAW with the basic premise that men and women are NOT considered equal when drinking, but that women become VICTIMS and men become CRIMINALS.

THIS does not strike you as misandric??? I didnt know these were facts, they sound like things you just decided are facts but have no evidence of.

 

[:-)]

Comments in bold

danger and guru1000 are one and the same.

 

[The411]

Don't get washed up over this Alpha beta bullsh!t. Don't get caught up over blue pill and red pill. It's just dudes reasoning why and why not strategies work. And if you have been out there and attracted quite a few women, none of that sh!t matters. Theories are theories. Practice is practice.

Most men will always find a shortcut. They are lazy, afraid of rejection and will do everything in their power to not be rejected. Truth is, you gotta get out there and experience the techniques for yourself. See what works, see what does not. This technique may work for some and it may not work for others. Why? Because we all aren't cut from a different cloth. There is NO one-size fits all glove. You have to go out there, experiment and find out what works for you.

There is a cesspool of gentlemen on this site that says MASULINITY ALPHA traits are the end all to be all. Check out the Reputation and see how frustrated they get when another member shows a different opinion. They get butthurt. Have fun, don't be so angry or jaded. Guess what, I'm not perceiving any of that in my approach and I'm pretty successful. The moment anyone tells you to 'do this and you will be successful,' that's when you know they are full of sh!t. I can't give an M16 to an artist and expect him to kill people. Stick to your strengths and work on it.

 

[Soolaimon]

Woman thinking:

NO, the conversation ends at that point. She is removed from contender status.

I already told you this, but you ignored it, again.

The primary purpose of a boundary is to inform her of your expectations and the definition of exclusivity.

No, I am pointing out that women do not know what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship. This is why you must give your definition of exclusivity when she asks it of you

She must be reminded of this because a large number of women think they can date other men while being committed..

Women need to be taught what is respectful for a relationship.

Most girls have never been taught was is respectful in a relationship.

She doesn't know any better so when the time comes that she wants to, she will engage in behavior unacceptable for a committed relationship

No, I am pointing out that women do not know what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship. This is why you must give your definition of exclusivity when she asks it of you

How will she know what is and isn't acceptable when she has been conditioned by beta's to do as she pleases?

Because nobody had the discussion with them on what exclusivity means.

So YES, these need to take place because she simply does not know any better.

In a world bombarded by media creating AFC's and masculine women, what on earth makes you think she will automatically know what is expected of her?

It needs to be defined because so many women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters

All your many contradictions here in your own words to refute your lie above.

You lied and contradicted yourself again to save face.

The woman was just thinking and didn't tell Bob that if you can read.

According to you women don't know what is and isn't respectful and acceptable for an exclusive relationship.

You say you need to teach women what is acceptable and respectful.

The conversation doesn't end when a discussion of that nature is taking place when you are trying to teach women about exclusivity.

She is not being removed from contender status when you are trying to teach her.

Another contradiction!

If you are busy defining your terms to her, trying to teach her about exclusivity, explaining to her what exclusivity means, reminding her of what an exclusive relationship is, that is not ending the conversation right there and removing her from contender status.

You are taking your valuable time trying to teach an idiot that might not get it or care to follow "your terms" when she chooses not to when you finally commit to her. That is taking on a failed project.

You will have the same situation as Bob when she breaks the useless boundary she doesn't care about.

Your boundary is useless and does nothing but give you false hopes and a false sense of security.

How do you answer that?

 

[DemFeeelz]

All your many contradictions here in your own words to refute your lie above.

You lied and contradicted yourself again to save face.

The woman was just thinking and didn't tell Bob that if you can read.

According to you women don't know what is and isn't respectful and acceptable for an exclusive relationship.

You say you need to teach women what is acceptable and respectful.

The conversation doesn't end when a discussion of that nature is taking place when you are trying to teach women about exclusivity.

She is not being removed from contender status when you are trying to teach her.

Another contradiction!

If you are busy defining your terms to her, trying to teach her about exclusivity, explaining to her what exclusivity means, reminding her of what an exclusive relationship is, that is not ending the conversation right there and removing her from contender status.

You are taking your valuable time trying to teach an idiot that might not get it or care to follow "your terms" when she chooses not to when you finally commit to her. That is taking on a failed project.

You will have the same situation as Bob when she breaks the useless boundary she doesn't care about.

Your boundary is useless and does nothing but give you false hopes and a false sense of security.

How do you answer that?

You answer it with No Contact.

 

[Soolaimon]

First off, "Bob", if he was a man of value, would not argue on the definition of exclusivity with a plate.

It needs to be defined because so many women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters

Women need to be taught what is respectful for a relationship

Because I have value and I am therefore capable of setting my expectations and defining exclusivity when she requests it.

What a huge contradiction here!

According to this major contradiction of yours Bob has no value for defining his terms to a plate but you have value for defining your terms to a plate.

How can that be?

Bob is doing the same thing you are doing in your last quote. Setting his expectations and defining exclusivity when she requests it.

How can you have any value when you say Bob has no value for defining his terms when she requests it? You are doing the same thing as Bob did.

How do you explain that?

First off, "Bob", if he was a man of value, would not argue on the definition of exclusivity with a plate.

Men without value have no ability or backbone to filter or clarify what exclusivity means, because they do not have a line of women wanting to be with them.

First off, "Bob", if he was a man of value, would not argue on the definition of exclusivity with a plate.

Because I have value and I am therefore capable of setting my expectations and defining exclusivity when she requests it.

You sure contradicted yourself here again big time!

Do you guys see it too?

First you say Bob has no value cause he is defining his terms of exclusivity to a woman.

Then you contradict yourself saying you have value when you define your terms of
exclusivity to a woman.

Bob is doing what you are telling us to do and what you say you do with women.

DEFINING EXCLUSITIVITY.

But you say Bob has no value defining his terms to her. Why? Bob is doing what you do with women and what you are telling us to do with your own theory.

That means YOU have no value defining terms to a plate according to your first statement.

This is the main point I've been arguing with you.

You have no value. I've told you that many times.

Glad you finally agree with me!

First off, "Bob", if he was a man of value, would not argue on the definition of exclusivity with a plate.

Why? Because I have value and I am therefore capable of setting my expectations and defining exclusivity when she requests it

Men without value have no ability or backbone to filter or clarify what exclusivity means

Terrible contradictions here! You are all over the place!

Does anybody else see his glaring contradictions here?

You have no idea what you are saying. You are a confused man.

First you say if Bob was a man of value he would not define the definition of exclusivity with a plate. That is the position that I hold cause boundaries are a waste of time.

Then you contradict yourself saying you have value cause you are able set expectations defining exclusivity.

You are doing the same thing Bob is doing. You are defining terms to a plate. So in your own words you have no value when you are teaching, explaining, defining terms to a plate. That is the position that I hold and what I have been telling you.

Then you say men without value have no ability or backbone to filter or clarify what exclusivity means.

That is a direct contradiction to your first statement saying that Bob has no value for defining his terms to a woman.

Hilarious!

Boundaries are useless and for low value men.

Thanks for proving me right again with your many contradictions!

 

[DemFeeelz]

What a huge contradiction here!

According to this major contradiction of yours Bob has no value for defining his terms to a plate but you have value for defining your terms to a plate.

How can that be?

Bob is doing the same thing you are doing in your last quote. Setting his expectations and defining exclusivity when she requests it.

How can you have any value when you say Bob has no value for defining his terms when she requests it? You are doing the same thing as Bob did.

How do you explain that?







You sure contradicted yourself here again big time!

Do you guys see it too?

First you say Bob has no value cause he is defining his terms of exclusivity to a woman.

Then you contradict yourself saying you have value when you define your terms of
exclusivity to a woman.

Bob is doing what you are telling us to do and what you say you do with women.

DEFINING EXCLUSITIVITY.

But you say Bob has no value defining his terms to her. Why? Bob is doing what you do with women and what you are telling us to do with your own theory.

That means YOU have no value defining terms to a plate according to your first statement.

This is the main point I've been arguing with you.

You have no value. I've told you that many times.

Glad you finally agree with me!







Terrible contradictions here! You are all over the place!

Does anybody else see his glaring contradictions here?

You have no idea what you are saying. You are a confused man.

First you say if Bob was a man of value he would not define the definition of exclusivity with a plate. That is the position that I hold cause boundaries are a waste of time.

Then you contradict yourself saying you have value cause you are able set expectations defining exclusivity.

You are doing the same thing Bob is doing. You are defining terms to a plate. So in your own words you have no value when you are teaching, explaining, defining terms to a plate. That is the position that I hold and what I have been telling you.

Then you say men without value have no ability or backbone to filter or clarify what exclusivity means.

That is a direct contradiction to your first statement saying that Bob has no value for defining his terms to a woman.

Hilarious!

Boundaries are useless and for low value men.

Thanks for proving me right again with your many contradictions!

Are you Dangers BPD ex?

You have oneitis. Bad.

 

[Octogonal]

What a huge contradiction here!

According to this major contradiction of yours Bob has no value for defining his terms to a plate but you have value for defining your terms to a plate.

How can that be?

Bob is doing the same thing you are doing in your last quote. Setting his expectations and defining exclusivity when she requests it.

How can you have any value when you say Bob has no value for defining his terms when she requests it? You are doing the same thing as Bob did.

How do you explain that?







You sure contradicted yourself here again big time!

Do you guys see it too?

First you say Bob has no value cause he is defining his terms of exclusivity to a woman.

Then you contradict yourself saying you have value when you define your terms of
exclusivity to a woman.

Bob is doing what you are telling us to do and what you say you do with women.

DEFINING EXCLUSITIVITY.

But you say Bob has no value defining his terms to her. Why? Bob is doing what you do with women and what you are telling us to do with your own theory.

That means YOU have no value defining terms to a plate according to your first statement.

This is the main point I've been arguing with you.

You have no value. I've told you that many times.

Glad you finally agree with me!







Terrible contradictions here! You are all over the place!

Does anybody else see his glaring contradictions here?

You have no idea what you are saying. You are a confused man.

First you say if Bob was a man of value he would not define the definition of exclusivity with a plate. That is the position that I hold cause boundaries are a waste of time.

Then you contradict yourself saying you have value cause you are able set expectations defining exclusivity.

You are doing the same thing Bob is doing. You are defining terms to a plate. So in your own words you have no value when you are teaching, explaining, defining terms to a plate. That is the position that I hold and what I have been telling you.

Then you say men without value have no ability or backbone to filter or clarify what exclusivity means.

That is a direct contradiction to your first statement saying that Bob has no value for defining his terms to a woman.

Hilarious!

Boundaries are useless and for low value men.

Thanks for proving me right again with your many contradictions!

Yeah, he was proven to be a fool.

 

[jurry]

Danger, yes that is what im saying about equal opportunity, keeping in mind the caveat about socioeconomic class. But all else equal, I think a man and woman from the same background now have pretty equal opportunity.

For the second part, yes she is able to claim rape, but claiming and actually winning a case are worlds apart. As I said I think these are extremely difficult cases to prove, and arent brought to court all that much. If there is evidence of large scale rape cases being brought and won against men id love to see it. But in as many cases as a woman brings the suit illegitimately, Id imagine theres a case where she did get raped but has no way to prove it. If a girl is passed out in a college dorm and some guy comes in and bangs her, theres no way in hell shed be able to prove it was rape.

 

[zekko]

That is one of my biggest pet peeves. Why is the woman able to claim rape when the man and the woman are equally inebriated? There is no question about the male being able to give his consent. But a girl has a few drinks and she is no longer able to give her consent, suddenly she is not responsible for her actions, but the man is. Makes no sense.