MRAs: The real injustice is that men had to use Ashley Madison to cheat, while women just have to exist
MISANDRY in action?
Forget the reported suicides and all the ruined lives; the real tragedy of Ashley Madison is that men had to use the site in order to find women to cheat with, when all women have to do to get laid is to exist.
At least that’s the consensus of Men’s Rights Redditors in a recent thread.
The Reddit post in question links to an article in The Week asking “Why are we denying that women used Ashley Madison?” But the assembled MRAs are much more interested in discussing what they see as the real issue: how unfair it is that men have to sign up for dating sites to get laid while women, allegedly, can just fall into bed with whatever random dude is nearest to them.
The male tears flow freely as the Redditors set forth their case.
It’s MISANDRY, I tells ya!
As Palidin327 sees it, women not only don’t have to sign up for Ashley Madison; they can have sex delivered right to the door for free — without even bothering to order it in the first place.
If this is true, why aren’t horny men lining up around the block for jobs as mailmen and poolboys?
Meanwhile, Spolio repeats a familiar talking point:
Dudes, here’s the thing: YOU are also the gatekeepers of sex. You can also say no! Just because your standards are lower, or because you have standards you’re unaware of because you only really notice the women that you do want to have sex with and not those you dismiss as fatties and uggoes, doesn’t mean that (heterosexual) sex is always the woman’s choice, not the man’s.
You’re also forgetting that women don’t only screen guys for attractiveness, compatibility, or lack of ear hair; they screen for safety because, you know, men are afraid women will laugh at them, and women are afraid that men will kill them.
If women don’t want to sleep with you, maybe it’s because you’re a creepy, whiny, entitled Men’s Rights Activist.
Posted on August 25, 2015, in evil sexy ladies, men who should not ever be with women ever, misandry, misogyny, MRA, reddit and tagged ashley madison, dating, men's rights, misandry, misogyny, MRA, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 68 Comments.
The mentality of these idiots never ceases to amaze me.
Maybe if you treat her as a person she’ll want to sleep with you? Nah! That’s too hard! I’ll just whinge about her until it wins her over! Or rape her. Either or.
It’s almost as if the risk to reward ratio for women when it comes to sex is different or something. But that’s impossible, surely.
So, does this mean they’ve abandoned the narrative that loads of cheating wives will be publicly shamed by the Ashley Madison hack?
I’m finding this whole Ashley Madison scandal really horrible, I know cheating is wrong but it’s a private matter, and somehow I doubt the wronged spouses are enjoying this either. I think this is the closest we’ve gotten to revenge porn against men, I’ve seen comments gloating over the men who are alleged to have committed suicide over this.
I hope they do find the hackers responsible, and then someone sues Ashley Madison for their lousy security for good measure.
Because no men ever cheated before Ashley Madison.
The pussy pass is so real!
So…the guy who’s mad at women for cheating is (supposedly) sleeping with women who are in relationships. Cool morals, jackass.
And y’know, the worst criticisms I’ve heard about cisgendered heterosexual white men have come from cisgendered heterosexual white men. Never have I ever heard anyone else call them–as a group of individuals–such horrible names as they call themselves to provide “examples” of their “oppression”. The rest of the world is not responsible for your own self-talk, dudes.
Regarding “having to” use a site to find someone to have sex with – have they tried just not being repulsive for a moment?
Nooooooooo.
Men are REALLY the ones at risk! Haven’t you read any of the manosphere’s well-written and throughly documented articles regarding the phenomenon of sperm jacking? All those women and the calculated lust for random men’s liquid gold.
Between that and the rampant false rape accusations, it’s a wonder that any American man is left free to spread the word.
/s
and
/S
for good measure.
“The Ashley Madison debacle just goes to show how privileged women are, since they can just walk outside and ask any dude for sex and get it.”
“Is that dude in a relationship?”
“Doesn’t matter.”
“So… all dudes are horrifically unfaithful to their spouses?”
“Yes… wait, no, this is about women being bad. No, a dude in a relationship wouldn’t say yes.”
“So she couldn’t ask any dude for sex…”
“Yeah, she’d have to seek out single dudes, but there are plenty of those around.”
“So any dude not in a relationship would say yes?”
“Obviously.”
“And she could ask any single dude?”
“Right.”
“So women have no standards?”
“Rig… er… no, obviously they only go for hot guys. Women have an inflated sense of their own SMV, and only have sex with the alphas. 80-20 rule.”
“Ok, so women couldn’t ask any single dude.”
“Well, they could!”
“Could you ask for sex from someone you found extremely unattractive?”
“*blech* No. Ugh, fine. Alright, so a woman who wants to cheat could ask any single hot dude for sex and get it.”
“So single hot dudes have no standards?”
“Uhh…”
“Standards that you have even though you don’t have your pick of hot women?”
“Well, ok, she has to be attractive…”
“So any attractive woman could ask for sex from any attractive single dude and get it in order to cheat.”
“Yes… Yes, of course! Alpha fucks, Beta bucks! Women marry a poor shlub of a dude for his money but deny him sex, then go off and fuck all the hot dudes behind his back. Women are awful!”
“Could any attractive married man ask for sex from any attractive single woman and get it in order to cheat?”
“No! It’s easier for women!”
“Aren’t the attractive dudes the Alphas, the ones who sleep with all the hot chicks? Are the chicks coming to them or are they going to the chicks?”
“Obviously they can pick and choose. They’re Alphas!”
“So basically, it’s very easy for a conventionally very attractive person to have sex.”
“Yes.”
“And this makes women terrible.”
“Yes.”
“I see.”
Aside: I can’t vouch for everything on this site (haven’t plumbed its depths), but it seems like it’s having the conversations that I was hoping something calling itself the Men’s Right’s Movement would be having when I first started *shudder* researching:
http://goodmenproject.com/about/
Aaaaand it’s down in the 2 minutes it took me to write that response.
How are these women finding people to cheat with on Facebook? Wouldn’t men also be using Facebook to cheat easily in that aspect? Are there just lesbians using Facebook to cheat?
…
Are there?
Mockingbird: The Good Men Project is a mixed bag. It has some seriously sketchy stuff (it was one of Hugo Schwyzer’s main haunts), but on the other hand, our erstwhile Mammotheer Ozy also wrote there.
And if they don’t want to cheat, well, who cares what they want, they’ll get hit on anyway. Constantly. Or worse.
If this “All women want to cheat all the time!” garbage didn’t start as a half-assed justification for sexual harassment and rape, I’ll eat my 3DS.
What I find curious is that these guys talk about how they’ve been with women who are married or attached. Hello! Shouldn’t these guys be ashamed of that too? Why only condemn the women for cheating? These guys are part of it too. But no! It’s always just the women’s fault. (Not that I’m in any way excusing a woman who cheats.) I think both people who willingly enter in an affair where there is “cheating” involved are to blame and shouldn’t be proud of themselves. (I see ryeash has also covered this!)
I don’t know where else to ask this, but I’m curious. Has anyone else on this blog mentioned that there’s an online petition to get RooshV’s books off of Amazon? It is almost at the required 150,000 votes. I really want to see it succeed.
When women discuss the bad shit men do, it’s along the lines of sexual harassment, domestic abuse, rape and murder. When men discuss the “Bad shit” women do, it’s along the lines of being raped, speaking out against rape, having bodily autonomy, having agency, having sex, not having sex, voting and existing. I get that MRAs aren’t very good with nuance, but… That doesn’t even fucking count as nuance. o_O
Well we are the gate keepers? So we can decide what to do with our vagina, right? If no one gets hurt and all that…
But how dare a woman has Sex, evil slut….
I don’t understand them.
Men’s rights activists/Misognists/antifeminists logic:
Call women and girls Misognist slurs like s*uts, easy and wh*res when they wear certain clothes, flirt, slept with someone/likes sex etc and say they are disgusted with that and they should be more decent but hangs out with them anyway and watches those kind of women and girls in porn.
Later complain why its so hard to get a date/laid and why they should do all the work to impress women and girls.
I bet these are the same men who tell feminists/women to shut up about first world problems and think about the women and girls in other countries.
Linax5
“But how dare a woman has Sex, evil slut….”
But how dare a woman has sex And Not With Me, evil s*ut….
FTFY. It’s all about jealously and sexual insecurities.
In constantly harping on about the ‘gatekeeper’ thing these men are admitting what their real concern is.
By complaining that women can choose either to not have sex with men generally or, more specifically, with them they’re making clear that their real objection is the requirement for consent.
They might as well be honest and say “Women shouldn’t be allowed to say ‘no'”.
David I’m confused by one of the lines in your article. Wouldn’t homosexual sex also be the women’s or man’s choice? Why did you specify heterosexual sex?
Robjec
He meant specifically the straight men who are complaining about women being the “gatekeepers” of course men and women in homosexual relationships have the right to say no.
@kirbywrap
your doing it wrong. That conversation would involve using logic and recognizeing contradictions. :)
@Fruitloopsie
Ahhh ok. It just seemed weird to me to specify.
@Alan
But they’re probably also huge fans of the “Man’s home is his castle” thing. But only for them. The wind may enter, the rain may enter, but the king may not enter: hate to tell you lads, it applies to people’s bodies too. Even when the king is a returning one.
Alan
I find it infuriating they think that men and boys cannot say no becuase they are always ready for sex so they just erased male victims of rape. Way to go a-holes.
Hey, OT mind bleach. A guy belly dancing:
It’s super interesting, culturally enlightening and there’s body glitter.
That YouTube page is in, like, four different languages and I can’t figure out where the guy is from so it MIGHT not be culturally enlightening as I thought…
Too much logic from the commenters here. My head hurts.
They seem to forget that these heterosexual women they are so bitter over, who get sex so easily, are getting that sex on with… men. Men who are apparently finding sex with these women without the use of paid dating sites. I doubt this is a small pool of men for a large pool of women, either. At least, not significantly smaller. Which means that it’s a two-way street, and plenty of men ARE having sex, just not THESE losers!
Yyyyup.
“Women can gave sex any time they want! Heck, they can even have sex when they DON’T want! Women who fall unconscious in the presence of any dude [at least any dude who is anything like the speaker, and they assume this trait is universal] is going to get sex like, right away! What a huge privilege those [insert slur of choice here] have, getting sex handed to them without even asking for it (even though they’re totally asking for it, amirite fellas?)!”
Ugh. Writing that made me feel dirty.
The creaky Victorian in me fails to understand why someone should *set out* to be unfaithful to one’s spouse. It’s one thing to be married, then meet someone else you want to get close to (and wished to have met before your current spouse); it’s quite another to register on a website with the express intent of cheating with someone, anyone, as long as you’re cheating.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I must go and trim my sideburns.
All idiocy aside, I don’t get the point of AM site. Married people usually don’t seek out affairs, they just “happen.” Like “I never planned this, etc.” if you’re looking to screw or date outside of your relationship there’s many sites designed for hooking up. I just don’t see the appeal. You get married for the express purpose of staying with one person. Is it just me? Do you have to be a devious shitstain to understand?
Hidden assumption of MRAs: All women= white, thin, hetero, conventionally attractive.
Because it certainly is not the case that the rest of us can “get laid” any time, anywhere.
None of the rest of us count as women to these knuckleheads.
Whenever men do the “women can have sex with a man anytime they want” or “how can you complain about being catcalled, I’d love it!” I have to roll my eyes. Sure I could I find sex anytime despite being not an HB10 and past the wall at an ancient 35. But, with who? Can I have sex specifically with any man I find attractive anytime I want? Not so much. Could I pick up a skeevy and possibly dangerous creep from the internet or the bus stop? Sure! Only super conventionally attractive women are even visible to these men. So when they picture getting genitalia shots on OK Cupid, getting catcalled and being able to find a willing sex partner 24/7, they’re picturing their fantasy women throwing themselves at them. They aren’t gender flipping our reality. They’re conjuring up their wank material and getting mad it’s not their reality.
It all comes down to the usual manosphere complaint. That they don’t have an endless supply of thin, pretty, young virgins at their beck and call. This is somehow on the same level as being raped and abused.
Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on; the guy who claims every woman he’s ever slept with has been married is upset about being stereotyped as a “douchebag”?
So they want slut-nun-virgin-whores-man hungry-sex avoiders who will have sex with men that don’t wipe.
And they wonder why they’re bitter and alone.
@sn0rkmaiden
At least one of those things has already come true: just today Ashley Madison have been sued by five separate plaintiffs for a total of over $500 million, which should amount to about $15 for each stolen account. It seems a bit steep, but they’re probably hoping to settle out of court. I think it’s safe to say that AM won’t be recovering from this.
One of the things not being discussed is just how craptastic AM has been about security from the beginning. They didn’t (or at least some time) engage in account authorisation; so people who wanted to arrange harassment campaigns, could (and did) sign people up for accounts, so that they could then get pestered (or bombarded) with AM sourced mail.
A sort of Distributed Means Of Harassment, a la a DDOS attack.
So the data may all be from AM, and still be incredibly corrupted.
@Nitram
I thinkthat their appeal to married people is that they’re supposed to offer a much larger degree of privacy and security to their users, so they don’t get found out by their spouses. It’s also easier to keep things secret if the person you’re having an affair with knows that you’re married from the start, rather than finding out afterwards.
Amazing. Here I’ve merely existed for more than four decades, and somehow managed NOT to have any cheaty-ass affairs. What the hell am I doing wrong???
I am so so SO beyond sick of this MRA fantasy that women can have sex on demand without having to do anything. It’s so obvious that they don’t consider non-“HB10” women to exist (they don’t think women are human to begin with). It goes hand in hand with the “women never experience rejection” bullshit – since men “have” to make the first move women have NO IDEA how haaaaard it is to risk that rejection nevermind the 4 billion other forms of rejection that exist.
I know a lot of women who aren’t having sex. I know a lot of women who have been rejected, brutally, by someone. I really just want this fucking meme to die.
John mcafee claims this is by a women because of the emotional words used.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/john-mcafee-ashley-madison-database-stolen-by-lone-female-who-worked-avid-life-media-1516833
Off topic, but I’m so relieved somebody besides me saw the trailer for No Escape and thought “wow, that’s racist as fuck.” I pretty much had a rage stroke when I first saw the trailer but didn’t see anything about it anywhere else and wondered if it was just me.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-theres-no-escape-from-hollywood-racism/
Speaking of racist trailers
Holy crap, what the fuck? Eli Roth really needs to bungee jump into a pit of Legos anytime now.
@wwth
Oh, I saw an article about No Escape, I think, on Cracked.
@WWTH
I… I have no words. Has the idea that anyone not from a “civilised” western civilisation is some kind of murderous cannibal deity worshiping “savage” STILL not died out? In 2015? And that these people live in the fucking rain forest?
weirwoodtreehugger, The defense I’ve heard is that the point of the movie is to pick on the “White Saviour Complex”. These kids in knowing nothing of what’s actually happening. I don’t think people are buying that defense, but that is what I’ve seen trotted out.
I think that would hold more weight if it was their own stupidity and ignorance that got them in trouble instead of man-eating Peruvian savages.
Also is it just me or is anyone else interpreting the critic quotes in the trailer as though they’re not actually frightened by the movie but rather by the horrific racism and cultural insensitivity on display.
lightcastle,
I suppose it’s possible. But you’d think if that’s what the movie was going for, that would be clear from the trailer. If someone needs to be a mind reader to pick up on the satire, you’re doing satire wrong.
Of course the comments on the Cracked article are full of people whining about how mean the SJWs are to white people. If the people who defend your movie are the types of people who think anti-white racism is a thing, again, you’re doing something wrong.
But I’m sure people will buy that defense because that’s what they want to believe.
Oh. I think I responded to lightcastle with the wrong movie in mind. Whoops!
There’s a lot of xenophobia in Eli Roth movies. It’s kind of hard to buy the defense if you’ve seen Hostel and Aftershock.
“No Escape has a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes,” I say, trying to find the trailer and being unsure if that’s the same movie or not.
“Because no men ever cheated before the internet.” FTFY.
And no, you weren’t the only one who saw the trailer for No Escape and thought it was racist as hell, I did too. It didn’t sit right with me when I first saw it, because it smacked of American Sniper’s issue of “White Male Victim”.
There’s a lot of xenophobia in Eli Roth movies. It’s kind of hard to buy the defense if you’ve seen Hostel and Aftershock.
Which is the main reason I think people aren’t buying the defense. He doesn’t have a lot of good faith to fall back on.
What the hell is happening in this movie? Is there a civil war going on or something? What is this?
The Green Inferno can’t be a real thing.
Is Will Farrel in the cast? It might be something like “The Spoils of Babylon.”
The picture that it’s frozen on before it plays looks like something out of “The Spoils…”
My brain won’t let me believe that that’s an actual, meant to be taken seriously, movie.
I’m going to choose to believe that The Green Inferno trailer is one for a bait-and-switch comedy film that features the well-meaning but incredibly ignorant white college kids crashing their plane in the jungle and getting their asses yanked out of the fire by a passing native tribe, who took them in to provide medical care. But since the white kids can’t speak anything other than English, they have no idea what is going on and are freaking the hell out completely unneccesarily.
“OH GOD WHAT ARE THEY DOING TO US?!?!” They scream as their rescuers pop dislocated joints back into place and start setting bones before strapping the idiot kids down to some hastily-made stretchers. They would normally not be so rude but these people seem very insistent on trying to run into the jungle alone without any necessary supplies to get hopelessly lost and likely killed by something. Just hold on until we can get you to a hospital, okay? Jeez, they just won’t stop screaming.
Wow, the Green Inferno trailer was just, wow. But I guess having a bunch of privileged white 20somethings just run afoul of law enforcement of the country they’re “saving” or giving a real anti-Colonialist message just wouldn’t be as good cinema as having them eaten by savage indigenous cannibals. Ugh. Such a bullshit reason to have such a regressive plot.
@Catalpa I would love that movie! That sounds like such a good movie, and it would be genuinely funny, too.
So, it’s the plot of Wicked kind of?
The book that is. I haven’t seen the musical.
I’ve got you beat, because I have never read the book OR seen the musical!
I might pick it up if that’s the plot though,
One) The Spoils of Babylon was great.
Two) The Green Inferno HAS to be bait and switch. There’s no why they’re play it up as the most terrifying movie. And the Amazonian tribe didn’t seem that scary? I mean, if they were gonna make them scary, they’d go all the fuck out and make them seem terrifying, right? That’s what trailers do.
And The Green Inferno is a stupid name. What the fuck does that even mean?
I will be pissed if it’s genuinely a scary movie.
@Catapla
Yeah, would pay to see that. And I usually just wait for DVDs to show up free at the library.
@ColeYote
Yeah, but you see, if the married women weren’t *sluts*, then he’d never have slept with them, so it’s all their fault, really.
@Pandapool
I swear to god that I saw this episode of south park a long time ago.
Maybe Parker and Stone will get it pulled for copyright infringement.
When a woman discusses the horrible things that men can do society calls it “insight, empowerment, and a step towards equality.” When a man discusses the horrible things that women can do society calls it “sexism, misogyny, and mansplaining” (i.e. “shut up you whiny fucking loser!”).
What is even the horrible thing women are doing here? Not using Ashley Madison? Sorry. I was busy having sex with my husband.
It’s always fascinating when these guys make up fake quotes insulting them, and then make up faker quotes of the even more insulting things those fake quotes would secretly mean if they weren’t fake.
I’ve now read the Cracked article about No Escape. I think my main takeaway was “But… but that idea has so much potential!” As in, clueless Western tourist finds himself caught in a foreign country during a revolution; has absolutely no idea of what’s going on or why. Oh God the panic.
Clearly, they didn’t go for that.
Let us note that I would dearly like to see a movie with that scenario where it’s a Japanese person stuck in ex-Yugoslavia in the 90s, or African person stuck in Tibet when the Chinese move in, or very confused Mongolian in 1960s Mississipi.
PLEASE YES
… I want that movie so bad.
So bad.
Me want.
Catalpa,
Wicked is a dark and gritty type prequel to The Wizard of Oz. The Wicked Witch of the West isn’t actually evil but the Wizard and Glinda tell Dorothy and friends she is and they believe it because, hey, she’s all green skinned and ugly. Misunderstandings ensue. The Flying Monkey’s were sent to help them but are interpreted as hostile for example. I didn’t actually like the book very much, but it was pretty popular.
I’m a lifelong fan of the Oz books and I kind of hate the idea of a dark retelling of Oz. The story was meant to be a fairy tale that wasn’t dark and scary like all the popular children’s stories were at the time. A dark adaptation can’t be done because it entirely misses the point of the series. I’m in no way opposed to dark stories. I’m a fan of horror. Game of Thrones is my favorite show and I love the books too. But, you can have substance without being dark and the Oz series did. There was a lot of pro socialism symbolism. Baum mocked the military brass and he mocked popular culture. And he did it all while still keeping his stories kid friendly.
So I’m probably not the best judge of Wicked. I just have too much invested in the original story and I’m a little touchy about adaptations. Even the 1939 movie, which I love, gets some criticism from me. Mostly due to the poor handling of the female characters. Baum was pro feminist and his characters often reflected that. The movie turned Dorothy into a simpering whiner when in the books she was tough, smart, and optimistic. Their adaptation of Glinda was even worse. Book series Glinda was similar to Galadriel. She was stately, imposing, elegant. Not a sentient bolt of pink tulle like in the movie. Glinda was also both the wisest and most powerful being in all of Oz. That doesn’t come through in the movie.
Now I’m in serious teal deer territory. Sorry about that! Once I get going on this topic, it’s hard to stop. And I’ve had wine.
