Sex, Girlfriends and Shit VII: "Power Moves For High Quality Women" - General

no. just clothes. sorry. those movies still suck and peter jackson is a fanboy hack

damnit charles

Rusty with good opinions would not be rusty

[QUOTE=Kirbyfactor;50969052]Update on this. As stupid as it may sound to you guys, I fought for her. I tried my fucking hardest to set things right because despite what she did, I loved her. And I know I'd live with regret if I didn't at least try. And I did, for a while I thought things would be okay again. But since a few days things went downhill again, and today she texted me saying she wants to talk face-to-face, and if she can't she'll just 'do it via text or something' So I'm pretty sure it's really over, this time I feel a lot sadder than the previous time[/QUOTE] We talked, somehow we fixed it. I was very suprised

is seduction considered manipulative? i'm not in to PUA redpill crap but i definitely think there are learn-able ways to become extremely seductive, that certain books document. ethical or unethical? what are your thoughts?

[QUOTE=Kirbyfactor;50976965]We talked, somehow we fixed it. I was very suprised[/QUOTE] so you think it'll work out? good on you for being real with her

Seduction in and of itself isn't manipulative, unless you're purposely trying to goad someone into bed who previously said no. But like Renegade said, no one technique will work on everyone. Using books for that sort of thing can only give you so much.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50978033]Seduction in and of itself isn't manipulative, unless you're purposely trying to goad someone into bed who previously said no. But like Renegade said, no one technique will work on everyone. Using books for that sort of thing can only give you so much.[/QUOTE] I personally think that reading body language is one of the best way to gauge interest, you can quickly get a feel if the person is actually interested or is just pretending to be.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50978033]But like Renegade said, [B]no one technique will work on everyone.[/B] Using books for that sort of thing can only give you so much.[/QUOTE] Uh, my flashing-my-ass-while-making-a-double-chin-looking-over-my-shoulder-move begs to differ. Gets 'em every time. :weeb: [editline]31st August 2016[/editline] JK I'm married I wouldn't know how to pick up any other women.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;50947458]Seriously every time someone comes in here and talks about feminist whores and how feminism is the problem it disgusts me to my core and i find it so hard to be patient the entire point is that there are so many disadvantages to being a woman that men just dont want to see and thats what misogyny comes down to and so many dudes just respond by saying yeah, well those problems dont exist, its just crazy bitches trying to take over society or whatever which of course just proves the need for feminism in the first place [editline]26th August 2016[/editline] And the thing that really shits me is that i treat this very seriously but as a guy more than once ive been labelled a white knight or beta for actually giving a shit about equal rights. I dont really care about the insults but the fact that simple human empathy can be a hierarchical disadvantage is ridiculous[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=killerteacup;50947515]and from the perspective where feminism is solely a a womans rights movement, the idea that being a male feminist is a contradiction is to me just a statement that men should only look after their own interests at the expense of others which brings us back to the idea of emotional labor in that it pigeonholes men into not being capable of real emotional connections formed on the basis of mutual understanding [editline]26th August 2016[/editline] Facepunch is such an awful forum for these discussions usually so im vomiting it all up at once[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, this is pretty old but I just couldn't not respond to this. It really rustled my jimmies. I'm an egalitarian, I'm all about that equality and helping each other business. Modern feminism is fucking insulting. To me, problem with feminism is that it focuses on the problems with being female. You can argue that it also tries to solve men's problems, and maybe sometimes it does, but in the big picture of feminism it's clearly nothing more than an afterthought. In some cases, certain groups of feminists have even derided and insulted any attempts to help solve men's problems, like that one privately run male abuse center that was started in Canada, the only of it's kind in the country, which garnered massive backlash from some groups of feminists. And how "Men's Rights Activist" is practically seen as an insult by now. Feminism at it's core is about woman's issues, and while that may have been a totally fine back when women literally had less rights than men, it's simply not right now. Legally men and women have the same rights as men in just about every developed western country, and they all have laws against discrimination. Culturally men and women are not "equal" in the sense that they're not the same, but they both have a slew of advantages and disadvantages. Being a woman has disadvantages compared to being a man, but the opposite also holds true. I don't think you can really say that one of them is objectively worse than the other. And with all that out of the way, what I'm basically getting at is that to me, being a feminist implies that either you don't think the problems men face are important, you don't think men have problems, or you think men [i]are[/i] the problem. All of which are varying degrees of insulting.

[QUOTE=elowin;50978712]I'm sorry, this is pretty old but I just couldn't not respond to this. It really rustled my jimmies. I'm an egalitarian, I'm all about that equality and helping each other business. Modern feminism is fucking insulting. To me, problem with feminism is that it focuses on the problems with being female. You can argue that it also tries to solve men's problems, and maybe sometimes it does, but in the big picture of feminism it's clearly nothing more than an afterthought. In some cases, certain groups of feminists have even derided and insulted any attempts to help solve men's problems, like that one privately run male abuse center that was started in Canada, the only of it's kind in the country, which garnered massive backlash from some groups of feminists. And how "Men's Rights Activist" is practically seen as an insult by now. Feminism at it's core is about woman's issues, and while that may have been a totally fine back when women literally had less rights than men, it's simply not right now. Legally men and women have the same rights as men in just about every developed western country, and they all have laws against discrimination. Culturally men and women are not "equal" in the sense that they're not the same, but they both have a slew of advantages and disadvantages. Being a woman has disadvantages compared to being a man, but the opposite also holds true. I don't think you can really say that one of them is objectively worse than the other. And with all that out of the way, what I'm basically getting at is that to me, being a feminist implies that either you don't think the problems men face are important, you don't think men have problems, or you think men [i]are[/i] the problem. All of which are varying degrees of insulting.[/QUOTE] On the Internet most issues are anecdotal non-issues that just that one woman complains about like that one girl who said that men control the AC and it was too cold for her, and it's a sexism issue or mansplaining

I think all of those things are important and I still consider myself a feminist so idk man.

[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;50978026]so you think it'll work out? good on you for being real with her[/QUOTE] I'm not sure, but I'm willing to take the risk.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50978734]I think all of those things are important and I still consider myself a feminist so idk man.[/QUOTE] As a movement, feminism focuses primarily on feminist issues. Of course there are individuals within the movement who focus equally on both, but they're a minority just like the people who literally want to kill men. They're not really representative of what the movement as a whole accomplishes.

[QUOTE=elowin;50979263]As a movement, feminism focuses primarily on feminist issues. Of course there are individuals within the movement who focus equally on both, but they're a minority just like the people who literally want to kill men. They're not really representative of what the movement as a whole accomplishes.[/QUOTE] Who are you to say the feminists who care about both are a minority? Do you really think most feminists are one-note morons who are blind to every issue that's not their own? "Feminism" is such a broad ideology that anyone who believes in women's rights can identify as one. Even an all out lunatic who thinks men are straight up superior could be labeled a feminist if they believe there's a [I]slight[/I] bit more inequality than there oughtta be. It's true, there's some pretty deranged feminists out there. And their ideals are as relevant to feminism as a whole as your simplistic, uneducated worldview is to men's rights

Feminist issues and feminists should also be considerate of men and the affect that forced masculinity has on them which is why men can't get help with abuse, rape, mental health issues because of the societal expectation that they be mentally or emotionally detached from negative experiences. E.g., the whole "boys/men don't cry" stigma that many fathers and mothers pass down to their sons which only refreshes the cycle, ultimately stigmatizing traits that are considered more effeminate or weak. Which is what the basis of feminism should be based on and around. Internet/radical feminism does not (or rather, should not) represent true feminism as it should be defined. I consider myself a feminist because the stigma of lesser value on feminine or womanly traits by society as a whole needs to be eliminated, which would increase the amount of help men get for their issues, would increase a man's ability to win a child over in court, and a whole mess of other things. I mean, call that egalitarian if you want, but I still stand under the term feminism because I feel that it fits better.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50979406]Who are you to say the feminists who care about both are a minority? Do you really think most feminists are one-note morons who are blind to every issue that's not their own? "Feminism" is such a broad ideology that anyone who believes in women's rights can identify as one. Even an all out lunatic who thinks men are straight up superior could be labeled a feminist if they believe there's a [I]slight[/I] bit more inequality than there oughtta be. It's true, there's some pretty deranged feminists out there. And their ideals are as relevant to feminism as a whole as your simplistic, uneducated worldview is to men's rights[/QUOTE] Yes but that's exactly the problem. It's a movement about women's rights. It has a focus on general equality as well, but that's not what the movement is about at it's core. And like literally the person I was replying to was saying, most feminism and most feminists focus primarily on the problems women face, as if they are inherently more important than the ones that men face. Not surprising since it's, once again, a movement primarily for women's rights, not primarily for equality. There is a subtle difference between the two, even if they do overlap to a large degree.

[QUOTE=elowin;50979558]Yes but that's exactly the problem. It's a movement about women's rights. It has a focus on general equality as well, but that's not what the movement is about at it's core. And like literally the person I was replying to was saying, most feminism and most feminists focus primarily on the problems women face, as if they are inherently more important than the ones that men face. Not surprising since it's, once again, a movement primarily for women's rights, not primarily for equality. There is a subtle difference between the two, even if they do overlap to a large degree.[/QUOTE] Why is it that we only see this type of rhetoric with feminism? Wouldn't it sound ridiculous to you if someone went up to an organization of advocates for african-american rights and said they aren't upholding the rights of white people? The difference between the two is that, even if black people were 100% equal to everyone else, legally and socially, there's no guarantee that the same would be true for hispanics. Or asians. Or middle easterners. On the other hand, feminism's ultimate goal of reducing the importance of gender roles to a healthy extent is beneficial to everyone. If you break down gender roles and make 'masculine' women less likely to be ostracized for not falling in line, that line becomes blurrier - for both sides. Thus men who don't fit the ideals of masculinity (or women who don't fit the ideals of femininity, since it works both ways) are less likely to be ostracized as well, since those ideals have already been made less limiting in general. Fact is, there's [I]literally nothing wrong[/I] with focusing on the rights of a specific group. The problem is trying to uphold that group's rights [I]over[/I] everyone else's rights.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50979407]Feminist issues and feminists should also be considerate of men and the affect that forced masculinity has on them which is why men can't get help with abuse, rape, mental health issues because of the societal expectation that they be mentally or emotionally detached from negative experiences. E.g., the whole "boys/men don't cry" stigma that many fathers and mothers pass down to their sons which only refreshes the cycle, ultimately stigmatizing traits that are considered more effeminate or weak. Which is what the basis of feminism should be based on and around. Internet/radical feminism does not (or rather, should not) represent true feminism as it should be defined. I consider myself a feminist because the stigma of lesser value on feminine or womanly traits by society as a whole needs to be eliminated, which would increase the amount of help men get for their issues, would increase a man's ability to win a child over in court, and a whole mess of other things. I mean, call that egalitarian if you want, but I still stand under the term feminism because I feel that it fits better.[/QUOTE] I don't think that's the full extent of problems that are faced by men.

[QUOTE=elowin;50979674]I don't think that's the full extent of problems that are faced by men.[/QUOTE] It's not but I'm not about to sit here and write a novel about it.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;50978106]It can also easily be misleading if you look too far into it. As far as body language goes, your brain will automatically know whats happening. If you actively look for it, you'll over-analyze. Like "if she points her toes at you, she is into you" stuff is not something to take seriously.[/QUOTE] Yeah i wasn't really going for going [I]that[/I] far, i just mean simple things like does she maintain eye contact or does she keeps looking away, apparently a lot of people ignore very obvious signs when someone does not wish to continue a conversation

[QUOTE=elowin;50979558]Yes but that's exactly the problem. It's a movement about women's rights. It has a focus on general equality as well, but that's not what the movement is about at it's core. And like literally the person I was replying to was saying, most feminism and most feminists focus primarily on the problems women face, as if they are inherently more important than the ones that men face. Not surprising since it's, once again, a movement primarily for women's rights, not primarily for equality. There is a subtle difference between the two, even if they do overlap to a large degree.[/QUOTE] The argument you're making is very narrowminded. So [I]what[/I] if the concept of feminism is one that focuses primarily on the issues impacting women? It's not to the [I]detriment[/I] of men, at least not outside the rhetoric of radicalized ideals. It is a similar field of study. It's not a zero sum game. A victory for feminist issues is not a loss for men's issues. A person who is more alert towards issues facing women is not necessarily a person who thinks that men deserve to face those issues instead. You claim to be for "equality," but your argument seems more in favor of "stagnation," because it is essentially demanding that no individual specialize in any one particular field of study. Like, is a person who primarily studies the cultural issues affecting children committing the same sin as feminists, in your perspective, for not devoting similar attention to the study of issues facing geriatrics? When you see somebody write an opinion regarding the troubles that developing children face, are you inspired to write a rant about the woes of elders? Do you demand that every sociologist devote the same attention to issues affecting all ages of people, or do you accept that people work more efficiently when they specialize in particular subjects?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50979669]Why is it that we only see this type of rhetoric with feminism? Wouldn't it sound ridiculous to you if someone went up to an organization of advocates for african-american rights and said they aren't upholding the rights of white people? The difference between the two is that, even if black people were 100% equal to everyone else, legally and socially, there's no guarantee that the same would be true for hispanics. Or asians. Or middle easterners. On the other hand, feminism's ultimate goal of reducing the importance of gender roles to a healthy extent is beneficial to everyone. If you break down gender roles and make 'masculine' women less likely to be ostracized for not falling in line, that line becomes blurrier - for both sides. Thus men who don't fit the ideals of masculinity (or women who don't fit the ideals of femininity, since it works both ways) are less likely to be ostracized as well, since those ideals have already been made less limiting in general. Fact is, there's [I]literally nothing wrong[/I] with focusing on the rights of a specific group. The problem is trying to uphold that group's rights [I]over[/I] everyone else's rights.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50979872]The argument you're making is very narrowminded. So [I]what[/I] if the concept of feminism is one that focuses primarily on the issues impacting women? It's not to the [I]detriment[/I] of men, at least not outside the rhetoric of radicalized ideals. It is a similar field of study. It is [I]not[/I] a zero sum game. A victory for feminist issues is not a loss for men's issues. A person who is more alert towards issues facing women is not necessarily a person who thinks that men deserve to face those issues instead. You claim to be for "equality," but your argument seems more in favor of "stagnation," because it is essentially demanding that no individual specialize in any one particular field of study. Like, is a person who primarily studies the cultural issues affecting children committing the same sin as feminists, in your perspective, for not devoting similar attention to the study of facing issues facing geriatrics? When you see somebody write an opinion regarding the troubles that developing children face, are you inspired to write a rant about the woes of elders? Do you demand that every sociologist devote the same attention to issues affecting all ages of people, or do you accept that people work more efficiently when they specialize in particular subjects?[/QUOTE] There's no group focusing on the rights of the other group, and any attempt at creating one is looked down upon because feminism already exists, despite feminism focusing primarily on women's rights. As I said before, being a Men's Rights Activist is practically considered an insult by now. Feminism focusing primarily on women's issues would be fine if it did not claim there is no need for a movement focusing on men's issues, then they would be simply two sides of the same coin, both working towards equality from two standpoints. But that's simply not the case.

[QUOTE=elowin;50979876]There's no group focusing on the rights of the other group, and any attempt at creating one is looked down upon because feminism already exists, despite feminism focusing primarily on women's rights. As I said before, being a Men's Rights Activist is practically considered an insult by now. Feminism focusing primarily on women's issues would be fine if it did [B]not claim there is no need for a movement focusing on men's issues[/B], then they would be simply two sides of the same coin, both working towards equality from two standpoints. But that's simply not the case.[/QUOTE] Citation needed

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;50978106]It can also easily be misleading if you look too far into it. As far as body language goes, your brain will automatically know whats happening. If you actively look for it, you'll over-analyze. Like "if she points her toes at you, she is into you" stuff is not something to take seriously.[/QUOTE] No, but if you do something like move your hand and "accidentally" brush her leg by reading her body language then you can know what might be a good/bad idea

Since this conversation on feminism has basically fuck-all to do with the actual topic of the thread, and because it seems clear that it's just going to keep going in circles, I'm calling it. Argument time of death: August 31st, 15:34, central time zone. [highlight][B]Do Not Resuscitate.[/highlight][/B]

Yes, BDA. Of course I will stop arguing about feminism. You're the boss!

Uh Despite BDA killing the topic, I never said that there should not be a movement focusing on men's issues lmfao. Just what [I]I[/I] consider myself because of what [I]I[/I] think feminism [I]should[/I] be about. Putting words in my mouth doesn't help your case, my guy.

I said stop please why doesn't anybody ever listen to me :saddowns:

because listen I wanna argue