11
12

DiscussionAre MGTOW's the real male feminists? (self.PurplePillDebate)

DrenzardBlackpill が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]wazzup987Black pill, you can beat me blue for it later 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

Well red pill is basically sex negative second wave radical feminism of the dworkin school

[–]TheGreasyPoleRed Pill Husband 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Ugh,

How can you spend so much time chatting to us and then go and say something so utterly wrong as this.

Apart from anything else... RP is sex negative ?!?! RP ?

Then you've got the whole "2nd wave feminists were trying to save the world" deal as against RP's "Fuck while the world burns" outlook.

THEN you have to start dealing with the fact that feminism was all about changing the minds and attitudes of other people...Whilst RP is all about changing yourself.

Opponents don't have to be mirror images of each other and you're falling into the fallacy of assuming they are.

The world is more complicated that that Wazzup.

All of this without noting... Your description would appear to be much more accurate for the MRA movement, your chosen identifier, than anything RP is.

[–]Anandya 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

You guys aren't sex positive. A lot of what you believe is personal pleasure rather than as a couple. The vaginas seem interchangeable in your movement because less is said about the people that own them

[–]TheGreasyPoleRed Pill Husband 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You guys aren't sex positive.

As far as I understand the term, we are...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_movement

The sex-positive movement is a social movement which promotes and embraces sexuality with few limits beyond an emphasis on safe sex and the importance of consent. Sex positivity is "an attitude towards human sexuality that regards all consensual sexual activities as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable, and encourages sexual pleasure and experimentation. The sex-positive movement is a social and philosophical movement that advocates these attitudes. The sex-positive movement advocates sex education and safer sex as part of its campaign."[1] The movement generally makes no moral distinctions among types of sexual activities, regarding these choices as matters of personal preference.

All of the wiki intro sounds like us. We're just not up-our-own-arses about it.

The vaginas seem interchangeable in your movement because less is said about the people that own them

There is nothing about sex positivity that says you have to treat vaginas as non-interchangable. If anything, doing so would cut slightly against sex positivity.

We think sex is fun, healthy and pleasurable. We encourage sexual pleasure and experimentation. We don't believe in placing any limits on peoples ability to make their own minds up about sex and do what they want to do. We are happy to encourage people to follow their own personal sexual preferences.

We're sex positive.

Methinks you have confused "Sex Positive" with "Being a Sex Positive Feminist/SJW/Bleeding heart liberal" .... We are only the consistently the former, not the latter.

[–]Anandya 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

The sex-positive movement is a social movement which promotes and embraces sexuality with few limits beyond an emphasis on safe sex and the importance of consent.

One of the things that a lot of TRP does is fuck around with consent. Hint? Consent under fear or coercion is not valid.

I repeat. Not one word from a TRP has come out about sexual pleasure and experimentation with regards to a couple. Just the guy. The woman's sexual experience is not mentioned. Just that she got sweet alpha dick.

[–]TheGreasyPoleRed Pill Husband 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, we don't fuck with consent.

We're VERY clear about consent. We're VERY clear you have to be on the right side of the current law. Which REQUIRES you to have consent or a reasonable belief she has consented.

We get hardass on the guys who fuck with that. Because thats how you go to jail, and there aren't any chicks in jail. Just guys called "Bubba" who like to ass rape sex offenders.

So we have no problems at all with consent. We're cool with that.

What we're NOT COOL with.... Is feminists attempting, constantly, to change the legal standard for consent to some other standard.

It is actually FEMINISTS who have a real problem "with the current status of consent law". They're the ones anti-current consent standards. We're pretty cool with them.

One of the things that a lot of TRP does is fuck around with consent. Hint? Consent under fear or coercion is not valid.

Yes, and we tell guys that. RP is all sexual strategy that works within the law. Violence, or the threat of violence, to induce consent puts you clearly outside the law. As does continuing when you "do not have a reasonable belief she is consenting".

Thats outside our it's gotta be legal rules, we don't advise that.

I repeat. Not one word from a TRP has come out about sexual pleasure and experimentation with regards to a couple. Just the guy. The woman's sexual experience is not mentioned. Just that she got sweet alpha dick.

But TRP ain't all of RP.... It's a single site. On MRP (the relationship site) one of our sidebar books, recommended as required reading for all posters, is all about increasing the pleasure of the woman as well as the man (The Sex God Method).

In addition the foundational work for relationship RP (MMSLP) has whole sections devoted to this too.

Which you wouldn't know, because you have no idea what RP is yet... Because you've just read some TBP outrage porn and clicked around on one of RP's many sites (TRP).

All of which is irrelevant.... Because "sex positivity" does not require in any way any particular stance on male/female/single/partnered pleasure. It JUST requires that you are open to pursuing your preferences, and are happy for others to pursue theirs as well.

You don't have "have the same attitudes towards sex that I consider the only valid attitudes to have" to be sex positive.... In fact, given how it's defined, you attempting to say "we can't be sex positive because we don't agree with what you think is the right way to talk about sex" is in itself a very sex negative statement.

In this conversation right now. RP is the sex positive one. You are the one running down others sexual choices and dividing them into "right" choices and "wrong" choices and telling people whether that qualifies them or not as being sex positive.

You're being the sex negative one.

[–]wazzup987Black pill, you can beat me blue for it later 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

How can you spend so much time chatting to us and then go and say something so utterly wrong as this.

Let go on walk with RPT:

Red pill theory asserts that sex necessarily damages women, a lot rp will also make the argument that lots of sex also damages men as well. RP theory will also assert that this modern age of sexuality and sexual freedom is some how toxic to the culture. Not only that but if you walk that dog out from the stand point what is best for society you would necessarily have to realize that not just sex but all intersexual relations are necessarily damaging to men and women. From the RP perspective a woman will always seek to exploit a man, and from the sex negative perspective a woman will always live in fear. there are more that list go go one for ages.

point is if you walk RPT all the way out it mirrors sex negative feminism.

No i i have seen RP say things that are parallel to this just whith out the feminism:

"“Sex negative,” on the other hand, tends to be ascribed to feminists who are critical of prostitution, pornography, strip clubs, burlesque, BDSM and, really, sex and sexuality as defined by patriarchy and men. The reason that feminists are critical of these things is because they want to work towards a real, liberated, feminist understanding of sex and sexuality, rather than one that sexualizes inequality, domination and subordination, is male-centered, and is harmful and exploitative of women. To me, that sounds far more “sex positive” (from a feminist perspective, anyway), than blind support for anything sex-related, because sex.""

http://www.feministcurrent.com/2014/04/11/the-divide-isnt-between-sex-negative-and-sex-positive-feminists-its-between-liberals-and-radicals/

So why does RP assert that men should fuck as many women as possible in light of their previous claim?

Because RP say embrace the dark triad, let the society burn and enjoy the decline, and look out for number 1. IF You believe RP and You believe your self to be at all altruistic you would necessarily have to be sex negative.

Then you've got the whole "2nd wave feminists were trying to save the world" deal as against RP's "Fuck while the world burns" outlook.

precisely

basically if 2nd waver sex negative feminists were misanthropes they would be RP.

Opponents don't have to be mirror images of each other and you're falling into the fallacy of assuming they are.

I am not assuming they are i am am observing the rhetoric and say yep this sound like sex negative 2nd wave feminism.

All of this without noting... Your description would appear to be much more accurate for the MRA movement, your chosen identifier, than anything RP is.

a 1/4 of the mrm is gay, we have shit loads of sex workers that are on board, a supersizing number of trans people who are sick of being a prop for SJWS and feminism and the movement is across the board pro sex and sexuality for every one save for a handful of tradcons and conservatives which no one takes seriously. MRM has at no point argued that sex is damaging to anyone.

You should go back to RPT first premises and walk that dog out some more but from a "what is best for society " stand point.

TLDR the difference between Sex negative feminism and RP is misanthropy.

[–]TheGreasyPoleRed Pill Husband 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Red pill theory asserts that sex necessarily damages women, a lot rp will also make the argument that lots of sex also damages men as well.

Well that depends on what you mean by damage.

If you count "Being less able to fixate sexually on another human monogamously" as damage... then, yes, they're "damaged".

I just wouldn't think a Poly would count that as damage so much as "being enlightened".

RP theory will also assert that this modern age of sexuality and sexual freedom is some how toxic to the culture.

Well, again. You're going to have to get better at defining toxic here. I'm sure they don't like it much, being the guys who are getting cut out, but a lot is going to depend on what exactly you are talking about here.

Not only that but if you walk that dog out from the stand point what is best for society you would necessarily have to realize that not just sex but all intersexual relations are necessarily damaging to men and women.

No, not neccessarily... Because the damage we speak of is "Damage to your ability to monogamously fixate on another human being".... Clearly your first time out the blocks does NOT damage that.

I don;t even think RP claims your next 1-2-3-4-5-6 would seriously damamge that.

What they would say is that if your n count is something like 20 or 30+.... Then by that point you may have seriously damaged your ability to monogamously fixate on another human.

Whcih again, I don't think a POLY would count as damage... So much as "getting healthier sexually".

From the RP perspective a woman will always seek to exploit a man, and from the sex negative perspective a woman will always live in fear. there are more that list go go one for ages.

Yes, but you're not showing any paralells here.

This isn't sex negativity... It's pointing out the consequencves of having lots of sex.

So.... If I say.... Lots of sex with various partners puts you at greater risk of herpes, thats not sex negativity. Go ahead. It's your risk to take.

It' just a statement of an understood fact.

Everything you've discussed above are the same kind of factual statements that are not sex positive/negative unless you add to them and therefore you MUST NOT do this, thats a bad thing, and we should disapprove of people like you and stop you acting on your preferences.

point is if you walk RPT all the way out it mirrors sex negative feminism.

No, if you walk out your misunderstandings.... to the logical conclusion of those misunderstandings.... Then those misunderstandings are close to sex negative feminism, but not really a mirror image still.

If you listen to RP ? They're nowhere NEAR sex negative feminism.

If I could your chosen quote for a second..

"“Sex negative,” on the other hand, tends to be ascribed to feminists who are critical of prostitution, pornography, strip clubs, burlesque, BDSM and, really, sex and sexuality as defined by patriarchy and men.

Are RP critical of prostitution, pornography, strip clubs, burlesque, BDSM and sex and sexuality.

So if that describes sex negativity.... and we're the exact opposite of that this would make us sex _______

I'll mark it after class.

So why does RP assert that men should fuck as many women as possible in light of their previous claim?

They don't say they should.

They say "If thats what you want to do, here's how to do it" but also "If you want to do something else, here is how to do that too" (e.g. make a monogamous marriage work).

Because RP say embrace the dark triad, let the society burn and enjoy the decline, and look out for number 1. IF You believe RP and You believe your self to be at all altruistic you would necessarily have to be sex negative.

No, not at all. You're doing teh whole HSW thing of building these elaborate series of If A then B, If B then C, If C then D...And If Z then "Thats must mean you are this strange thing".

All the while ignorant to the fact that almost all the links in that chain are utterly broken and do not follow one from the other.

basically if 2nd waver sex negative feminists were misanthropes they would be RP.

No, because they wouldn't want to "fuck while the wolrd burns" they would want to "Stop people fucking so we can put the fire out.

I am not assuming they are i am am observing the rhetoric and say yep this sound like sex negative 2nd wave feminism.

TRP, primary complaint about it "You guys want to fuck too much. Back off already. Sheesh, ya freaks"..... are sex negative ?

Fucking hell. Go google the wiki page for Sex Positivity. The intro paragraph is basically a run down of all the things RP believes.

We're sex negative in about the same way that the Pope is a devout Muslim.

a 1/4 of the mrm is gay, we have shit loads of sex workers that are on board, a supersizing number of trans people who are sick of being a prop for SJWS and feminism and the movement is across the board pro sex and sexuality for every one save for a handful of tradcons and conservatives which no one takes seriously. MRM has at no point argued that sex is damaging to anyone.

Ah, so you seem to be about as sex positive as us. Good for you.

You should go back to RPT first premises and walk that dog out some more but from a "what is best for society " stand point.

You're not walking the RP dog.

You're walking your own weird cat thing... and telling me it's the RP dog.

TLDR the difference between Sex negative feminism and RP is misanthropy.

TLDR, thats laughably wrong and I can't believe the mental contortions you have engaged in to convince yourself otherwise.

[–]wazzup987Black pill, you can beat me blue for it later [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

If you count "Being less able to fixate sexually on another human monogamously" as damage... then, yes, they're "damaged".

You know damn well their are other go withs with that.

I'm sure they don't like it much, being the guys who are getting cut out, but a lot is going to depend on what exactly you are talking about here.

no one is getting cut out you game just sucks. Its not that hard to get laid.

No, not neccessarily... Because the damage we speak of is "Damage to your ability to monogamously fixate on another human being".... Clearly your first time out the blocks does NOT damage that.

keep ignoring the other go withs

What they would say is that if your n count is something like 20 or 30+.... Then by that point you may have seriously damaged your ability to monogamously fixate on another human.

most twerps i find say n counter higher than 5 is damaging

Whcih again, I don't think a POLY would count as damage... So much as "getting healthier sexually".

which is why poly isn't RP

Everything you've discussed above are the same kind of factual statements that are not sex positive/negative unless you add to them and therefore you MUST NOT do this, thats a bad thing, and we should disapprove of people like you and stop you acting on your preferences.

the studies RP links in regards to them are shakey at best, so facts is a bit of a stretch.

No, not at all. You're doing teh whole HSW thing of building these elaborate series of If A then B, If B then C, If C then D...And If Z then "Thats must mean you are this strange thing".

I believe its called logic

All the while ignorant to the fact that almost all the links in that chain are utterly broken and do not follow one from the other.

Go back to first premises

from the sex positive wiki

the importance of consent.

tell me of RP definition of consent?

The movement generally makes no moral distinctions among types of sexual activities, regarding these choices as matters of personal preference.

I have seen twerps go on moral tirades about sex and bdsm a lot.

No, because they wouldn't want to "fuck while the wolrd burns" they would want to "Stop people fucking so we can put the fire out.

you seem to have missed where is said sex neg feminsit who are *misanthropes *

We're sex negative in about the same way that the Pope is a devout Muslim.

i look forward to seeing the pope pray ti mecca 5 times aday as the increasing tide refugees take over the vatican

You're not walking the RP dog. You're walking your own weird cat thing... and telling me it's the RP dog.

No i am walking a dog you have yet to get your first meditations.

TLDR, thats laughably wrong and I can't believe the mental contortions you have engaged in to convince yourself otherwise.

you mean logic?

[–]TheGreasyPoleRed Pill Husband [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You know damn well their are other go withs with that.

Like what. A few RP males here and there might add plenty to that.

But we were talking about what RP as a theory says. That is it.

I can;t help it if some yahoo blows through the thread and yells "And it makes them cannibals !" and he's got a red flair.

I thought we were discussing RP theory.

no one is getting cut out you game just sucks. Its not that hard to get laid.

Some low SMV guys are getting cut out. The kind of guys that would have got a partner as we all matched off 1:1 ... Who now don't, because a significant percentage of women are "time sharing" the most eligable men.

keep ignoring the other go withs

What other go withs ?

most twerps i find say n counter higher than 5 is damaging

Well, fine. We'll make it 5 if you want.

The damage they talk about is an inability to monogamously fixate on another human being. That is what they say they are "losing" and if you regard "losing that" as damage... which I wouldn;t expect a Poly to do... Then thats the damage they are talking about.

the studies RP links in regards to them are shakey at best, so facts is a bit of a stretch.

It's not about studies. We believe from our experience of such girls that they are "damaged" in this manner.

Reporting on what we beleive to be true in terms of damage caused.... BUT NOT insisting you modify your behaviour, just informing you of the facts as we see them, is not sex negativity.

And frankly, from you're viewpoint, isn't even damage at all

I believe its called logic

And you know the rules of logic, yes ?

Including "Break one link in a logical chain and you can no longer draw the conclusion from that logical chain".

Only one link is enough. Frankly, in breaking ALL your links I was just showing off.

tell me of RP definition of consent?

That you should have a aquired a reasonable belief that she is consenting to the act in question.

Which is the same as the laws definition.

I have seen twerps go on moral tirades about sex and bdsm a lot.

But RP does not support those moral tirades. We're amoral. If they go an a moral tirade the rules of our subs are that they should be banned.

And guys very frequently get banned from RP subs, and their threads deleted, for going on moral tirades. You have personal experience of the same.

RP is amoral. There is really no place for morality within RP. It is about what works and what doesn't. Not about what you feel is moral and what you feel is not.

RP men may fail to sustain the ideal. But that is very much RP's ideal and is commonly defended as such.

you seem to have missed where is said sex neg feminsit who are misanthropes

Why would that make a difference ? If you were reversing the femininity.... and even making them misanthropes... Then it would still stand.

Saying "Lets fuck. I like fucking" is not being sex negative.

The feminists you identified are sex negative. Rp is not.

i look forward to seeing the pope pray ti mecca 5 times aday as the increasing tide refugees take over the vatican

Oh, really ? You;re another one of those yanks who has fallen prey to the idea that the EU is going to become "a cold and wet Middle East". Seriously. It's a massive case of wishful thinking on their part.

No i am walking a dog you have yet to get your first meditations.

You are not. Please feel free to "ping" as many RP males as you want, point them to this thread, and ask "Do you recognise the RP dog ?".

Just prepare to get laughed at once for each RP male you ping.

you mean logic?

No. because it's not logic when the logical arguments used in the chain are all broken. This sounds logical... It's expressed as a logical statement...

All Dogs have 4 legs. My Cat has 4 legs. Therfore my cat is a dog.

The problem with it is the links in it are broken. This breaks the logic chain. This means the conclusion cannot be said to be proven correct by the logic.

Thats more or less what you have done here. You need to understand how logic works before you use it.

Just making it look logical is not enough. It has to stand up as logic as well. And that means you need an unbroken chain from premise to conclusion.

You haven't got that chain.

[–]wazzup987Black pill, you can beat me blue for it later [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Oh, really ? You;re another one of those yanks who has fallen prey to the idea that the EU is going to become "a cold and wet Middle East". Seriously. It's a massive case of wishful thinking on their part.

i get my news from EU source becuase american media is corprate trash.

Also i go to the most distilled for RP i can find... mgtow. thats where get my RPT from not the reddit shit shows.

also every link in my logic chains is intact but you are disapproving of me coming in to you cave and telling you, you are just looking a shadows.

Saying "Lets fuck. I like fucking" is not being sex negative.

no but saying sex is damaging to the individual and society is in deed sex negative

[–]TheGreasyPoleRed Pill Husband [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Also i go to the most distilled for RP i can find... mgtow. thats where get my RPT from not the reddit shit shows.

Jesus Christ. Thats funny. I get all my knowledge from the most distilled source of Poly knowledge I know. RP.

I wonder if you're ever mis-represented there ? No matter. I won't go to the source. I'll go somewhere else and damn the torpedoes.

Why the fuck are you getting your RP knowledge from MGTOW's .... The very people who's defining characteristic (they have stopped fucking women) is so anti-ethical to RP's defining characteristic (men fucking women).

also every link in my logic chains is intact but you are disapproving of me coming in to you cave and telling you, you are just looking a shadows.

No it's not. You are trying to claim (for example) that RP is sex negative.... Despite your own source listing a series of "things sex negative people are against" that also happens to be a list of "things RP is for".

no but saying sex is damaging to the individual and society is in deed sex negative

No thats not what we are saying. And even if it were....No it isn't sex negative.

We did this.

If I say "Having lots of sex puts you at much greater risk of herpes compared to a man that is a virgin" I am not being sex negative.

To be sex negative I would have to say "I beleive people should not have sex and it's a disgrace they do because having lots of sex puts you at much greater risk of herpes compared to a man that is a virgin"

Thats sex negativity.

Imposing your personal sexual values on others, denying them the ability to pursue their preferences because they differ from your preferences.

No one at RP is telling women not to fuck. We like fucking them. That'd be like telling the goose not to lay any more golden eggs.

This is without pointing out for the millionth time that what you are calling "damage" is not actually damage to you. We're fucking these women to an enlightened state as far as any Poly would see it.

Hallelujah !

We are doing gods work.

Pass the condoms.