Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating

Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating

If there are any MEN reading this – especially men over the age of 21 – you need to realize that some of you are just as bad in your online behavior, especially on dating sites and apps, as this 15 year old kid is.

See how obnoxiously persistent this teen kid is, how he keeps dragging this exchange on and on with the teen girl’s father? This is how 90% of you men over the age of 21 behave towards grown women online, especially on dating sites.

You men refuse to take “no” from women for an answer, or to choose to view a woman turning you down as the ultimate insult.

You men take rejection by women far too personally, and send negative, nasty, insulting comments to some women, all for merely politely turning you down on a site, for refusing to give you their number, or going on a date with you.

Women you don’t know (single women) don’t owe you squat in life – women don’t owe you a smile, flirtation, chit chat, their phone numbers, sex, emotional support, or dates.

You will be turned down as you go through life by various women you flirt with or ask on dates – it’s a reality. Get over it. Learn to let go, accept defeat graciously, and stop taking it so damn personally.

Learn to respect other people’s boundaries. If a woman or girl tells you “no” or “not interested,” just let it go. Don’t send the girl or woman nasty, insulting messages if or when she turns you down. Just move along.

Continue reading “Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating”

‘It’s Not Me, It’s You’: A Loser’s Guide to Dealing with Rejection by The Guyliner

‘It’s Not Me, It’s You’: A Loser’s Guide to Dealing with Rejection by The Guyliner

(Link): ‘It’s not me, it’s you’: a loser’s guide to dealing with rejection by The Guyliner

Excerpts:

Advances in technology, and the urge to express ourselves as loudly as possible, mean rejection has never been so easy to dole out. Swiping left on Tinder, blocking on Twitter, marching to the polling booth: a firm no is never far away, but the bitter sting never fails to shock.

We’ve witnessed an unusually high level of public rejection over the last few turbulent weeks, from politicians discovering their posses were lacking compadres and feeling their ambition turn to ash in their mouths, to the much-maligned EU, sadly opening its Dear John letter from 52% of the UK, all calls going straight to voicemail.

Rejection can teach you a lot about yourself and those around you. “No” may never be music to your ears, but you can learn to take it with dignity. Or, at the very least, store up ample fuel for your revenge.

….On a dating app

“Why don’t they love me?” I’d cry when I was single, throwing myself on to a fainting couch whenever someone I’d contacted didn’t reciprocate.

Continue reading “‘It’s Not Me, It’s You’: A Loser’s Guide to Dealing with Rejection by The Guyliner”

WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This

WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This

This story comes from NewsBusters, which is discussing a column written for Washington Post newspaper by columnist Kristen Page-Kirby about the new Ghostbusters movie.

The original Ghostbusters movie, released in the 1980s, contained four male leads. The reboot version of the movie, which was released July 15, 2016, contains four women leads instead.

Unfortunately, over a year or more ago, when news came out that there would be four women leads in the film, some of the sexist jerkwads who inhabit the internet started lambasting the movie all over You Tube, Twitter, and where ever else – not because the move was bad (it wasn’t even released yet), but because they were incensed that Hollywood was cramming some form of feminism down their throats.

Interestingly, I didn’t see as much backlash over the main character of the new Star Wars film, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” being a woman – Rey.

gbLogo
Ghostbusters Logo

At any rate, I will be discussing two or three different topics in this post that are related to this new film, or mentioned by the conservative essayist at the NewsBusters site.

This is another story where I am in the middle. I can’t say as though I’m completely on one side or another in regards to some aspects of this story, depending on what is under discussion.

I am currently a moderate right-winger (I used to be more to the right than I am currently. In the last few years, I’ve been reconsidering if some of my former political and Christian beliefs are wrong.)

I’ve been more open the last few years to hearing the criticisms and views of liberals and Non-Christians – which is not to say I agree with everything I see left wingers and Non-Christians espousing or arguing in favor of.

I sometimes think secular, liberal feminists have good points on some topics, but I normally disagree with them.

As far as the Ghostbusters film reboot is concerned, I do think some of the backlash against the movie does in fact stem from sexism. But then, I do think some people may honestly feel that the movie is genuinely bad due to having a poor story line, or what have you.

I have not seen the movie yet. I don’t go to movie theaters that much anymore.

I usually wait until movies air on cable television; I’m willing to bet that this Ghostbusters reboot will probably be shown on F/X channel, or SyFy, or some other cable network in the next two years, and I have cable television, so I don’t know if I want to invest my time and cash into driving down to a theater to see this, since it will eventually be on television.

I saw the original Ghostbusters in a movie theater when it was in theaters in the 1980s. I was a kid at the time.

The original was okay, it was quite enjoyable and plenty of fun, but it was no movie masterpiece, so to all the men online who were griping about the reboot featuring all women leads: get the hell over it already.

And yes, you were, or are, being sexist douche bags about it. I don’t buy for a moment that ALL male griping about the film is based on non-sexist reasons, like shoddy trailers, or supposed poor CG work.

The vast majority of the professional reviews (and I have read a ton of them) for the new Ghostbusters film have deemed it “okay.” -Not terrible. Not great. But just “meh.” It’s so-so, most reviews have said.

What I don’t appreciate is that the columnist for WaPo who was discussing male backlash about the movie is using virginity as an insult.

Continue reading “WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This”

Woman Burned To Death For Refusing Marriage Proposal

Woman Burned To Death For Refusing Marriage Proposal

And there are some whiny, cry-baby men who think THEY have single life harder – news flash, (Link): you don’t have it worse, men: men usually are not murdered by jealous women over turning down dates or proposals.

While I’d say that the root of this case involves a lot of misogyny and patriarchy, I think perhaps a small factor is an over-emphasis upon marriage.

Perhaps if cultures like this one were taught that being single and/or celibate are perfectly fine lifestyles to live, we wouldn’t see people feel so pressured to marry, and they would realize they can control their sexual urges. Therefore, women would not be killed for turning down dates, requests for sex, or marriage proposals.

You don’t have to be married, or have sex, to enjoy life or be happy and content. (I am not knocking a desire to be married, you realize, only saying if it does not happen for you, you will survive – and realize you can enjoy life without marriage or sex.)

Dollars to doughnuts that everyone in this news story was Muslim.

If so, I’d like to say again I see striking parallels between Islamic attitudes and behaviors towards women as I do from some gender complementarian or Quiverfull Christian groups, as well as sexist men and MRA (Men’s Rights Activists) groups – they all treat women like second-class citizens to be controlled by men and are considered to have value only in- so- far as they breed like rabbits and/or provide men with sex.

(Link): Pakistani woman dies after being set on fire for rejecting marriage proposal

  • By Azadeh Ansari and Sophia Saifi, CNN
  • Updated 11:47 AM ET, Thu June 2, 2016
  • Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN)- An 18-year-old Pakistani schoolteacher died Wednesday from injuries after her body was set on fire for refusing a marriage proposal, police said.
  • The perpetrators beat Maria Abbasi, then drenched her in petrol and set her body ablaze before leaving her for dead, her family members told CNN.
  • Continue reading “Woman Burned To Death For Refusing Marriage Proposal”

    Men Aren’t Entitled to Sex: Crybaby Guy Throws Racist Fit at Woman Who Politely Refuses to Hook up by R K Bussel

    Men Aren’t Entitled to Sex: Crybaby Guy Throws Racist Fit at Woman Who Politely Refuses to Hook up by R K Bussel

    It sure does seem that a lot of guys think they are owed sex.

    A lot of Christian men not only feel that they are entitled sex (once married), but both before and after marriage, they feel entitled to everything from women: they expect to have their egos stroked all the time, for instance.

    Do you Christian men who arrogantly expect women to uplift you and tell you how great you are, ever consider encouraging women in your lives, whether they are single or married?

    Women sometimes need or want some external validation, yet whiny men (including Christian ones) seldom consider giving any to women. They rudely assume God put women here only to meet men’s needs. Nope: it goes both ways.

    Women have needs too. Women have days or phases in their lives when they get tired, discouraged, worn down and could use a kind word or a helping hand.

    (Link):  Men Aren’t Etitled to Sex: Crybaby Guy Throws Racist fit at woman who Politely Refuses to Hook up by R K Bussel

    Excerpts:

    • Even if he buys her dinner, even if she asks him out, even if she flirts—there’s no excuse for this behavior
    • …That he turned on a dime to insult her should tell us that he only saw her as an object he wanted available for his pleasure, whether to stroke his ego or stroke other body parts. The moment she rejects him, even though she doesn’t say a single negative thing toward him, he interprets that as pretty much the worst thing a woman could do to him. Her not wanting sex automatically means, in his mind, she’s basically an evil bitch who’s wasted his time.
    • Another obvious statement: her not wanting to have sex with him doesn’t automatically mean she didn’t like him, or didn’t have a good date. Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t, but by treating sex as the one and only arbiter of success, he turned what could have been a fun night into a nightmare.

    Continue reading “Men Aren’t Entitled to Sex: Crybaby Guy Throws Racist Fit at Woman Who Politely Refuses to Hook up by R K Bussel”

    Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Relationship Lasting Guarantee Contra Comic Chelsea Handler

    Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Guarantee for a Lasting Relationship – Contra Comic Chelsea Handler

    The following blog post contains strong profanity in places and some frank sexual talk.
    —————————————–
    Not that I object to this editorial per se, but it’s being carried by the same site (a pro-life site) that (Link): usually denigrates female virginity – because they put too high a premium on people pro-creating, and if a woman is remaining chaste, she is, in their opinion, in sin, or error or some sort, for not having sex and making babies, because supposedly, a woman’s only purpose in life is to make babies (even though the Bible no where teaches this concept).

    But here is a guest editorial they are featuring where the author is defending a person’s right to sexually abstain, and it’ okay.

    (Link): Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin

    Excerpts:

    • by C. Martin
    • Our society is obsessed with talking about sex, regardless if you’re having it or not. Take for instance the recent March (Link): cover of People magazine, which featured the title, “Bachelor’s Sean & Catherine, Waiting for Our Wedding night.”
    • To make things a bit clearer, they added below the title, “No sex until ‘I do.’” The cover may intrigue those who scratch their heads, wondering in earnest why anyone would (gasp) wait to have sex.

    Continue reading “Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Relationship Lasting Guarantee Contra Comic Chelsea Handler”

    ‘When Women Refuse’ Proves Violence Doesn’t Usually Come With a Misogynistic Manifesto

    ‘When Women Refuse’ Proves Violence Doesn’t Usually Come With a Misogynistic Manifesto

    (Link): ‘When Women Refuse’ Proves Violence Doesn’t Usually Come With a Misogynistic Manifesto

      • Male violence against women who refuse sexual advances isn’t merely the domain of a college student suffering from mental health issues. It’s an epidemic that’s a troubling part of the fabric of America. That’s the message sent by (Link):

    When Women Refuse

      , a Tumblr blog created on Monday in response to Friday night’s horrific mass shooting in Isla Vista, Calif., near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

    The blog’s creator, feminist activist, author, and Lux Digital cofounder Deanna Zandt, told Think Progress that she was inspired to start the site because “we still don’t view gender based violence as a large cultural issue—we tend to think of these as isolated incidents.”

    In the aftermath of the shooting, media detailed the mental health challenges of the shooter, 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, who targeted women who had spurned his advances. Rodger killed six people before turning a gun on himself. Snippets of Rodger’s 137-page manifesto to friends and relatives have been published, and then there are the chilling videos he posted on YouTube.

    “I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it,” Rodger declared in one video just hours before he embarked on his shooting spree.

    In an effort to distance themselves from Rodger’s deadly misogyny, men took to social media with the hashtag #NotAllMen to post tweets like, “Dividing men into the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’ is short-sighted.” Zandt told Think Progress that she noticed that several guys in her social networks also shared the belief that Rodger’s actions were an exception. Then, after seeing writer Kate Harding sharing news stories on her Facebook page of men who’d used violence after being rejected, Zandt decided to launch the Tumblr to show Rodger’s actions weren’t an isolated incident.

    Anyone can submit a story of a woman who’s been the victim of violence because she rejected sexual advances. Scrolling through the When Women Refuse submissions shows that Rodger’s actions aren’t unique. There’s the story of a 16-year-old stabbed to death after refusing to be a guy’s prom date, and the tragic (and all-too-common) tale of a woman whose controlling ex couldn’t get over her and stabbed her, her mother, and her new boyfriend.

    ((read the rest))
    ————————–
    Related posts:

    (Link): Bitter, Frustrated 22 Year Old Male Virgin and Member of Men’s Rights / PUA Groups Kills Several Women Because He Couldn’t Get Dates – what an entitled sexist doof

    (Link): Female Dragonflies Are Pretending to Die in Order to Avoid Irritating Males

    (Link): Nice Guys: Scourge of the Single Woman

    (Link):   Dude Writes to Miss Manners Advice Columnist: “Miss Manners: No one Ever Replies to Me on Dating Sites”

    (Link): ‘It’s Not Me, It’s You’: A Loser’s Guide to Dealing with Rejection by The Guyliner

    (Link):  Nice Guys Aren’t So Nice After All: Men in the “Friend Zone” Often Have A Hidden Agenda, Say Psychologists (Daily Mail article)

    (Link):  Dudes, Stop Putting Women in the Girlfriendzone

    (Link): Testosterone-Deficient Gamma Male Whines About the ‘Friend Zone’ (post from The Other McCain) – AKA, Ugly, Fat, Weird, Awkward, or Poor Nice Guys Who Unrealistically Expect to Attract Rich, Pretty, Thin, Socially Normal Women

    (Link): Guy So Depressed Over Being Single He Cut Off His Own Penis (article)

    (Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

    The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off

    The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off

    ✮ From the liberal corner:
    (Link): Engagement rings are barbaric

    ✮ The conservative reaction:
    (Link): Engagement rings are barbaric because men are awful or something

    ✮ My reaction:
    This is another time the secular, left wing feminists are off their rockers (I sometimes agree with them, usually do not and this is one of those times, no, I don’t agree). I see no harm or inherent sexism in a freaking engagement ring.

    Here are excerpts from the Salon page, with commentary about it, by me, below it:

    (Link): Engagement rings are barbaric

      Sparkly rocks remind us of an age when women were considered a form of chattel
      by SHANNON RUPP, THE TYEE

      Unsavoury custom

      … The engagement ring is not, as diamond advertisers of the last 80 years or so have insisted, a symbol of love: it’s a sort of down payment on a virgin vagina.

      I’ve always thought giving engagement rings was a slightly unsavoury custom, given that it began in an era when women were chattel, more or less. It’s hardly romantic. The rings remind me of a time when women couldn’t own property because they were property. Well, except for widows. There’s a reason that Merry Widow of opera fame was so merry.

      As Scott Fitzgerald noticed in the 1920s, the rich are different from you and me, and the custom of laying down an engagement ring was something rich people did in an era when marriage was recognized for what it really is: a business contract. It was done to secure property (and political alliances among royalty and the aristocracy) and to ensure there would be an heir and a spare to inherit it all.

      That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. Pre-DNA testing, no one could be sure who the father was unless the bride was irreproachably chaste. And no one wants to see property going to bastards. Post-delivery of the requisite sons, everyone was free to go about discreet amusements, and the country weekend at the manor house came into vogue.

      … Then, engagement rings functioned as a sort of retainer — a lease-a-womb scheme, if you will. The unspoken part of the deal was that an engagement often allowed for a sampling of the goods.

      … Frances Gerety (who incidentally was a spinster) cleverly connected romantic love to diamond engagement rings, forever. She obscured their creepy origins as down payments on chattel, and diamond purveyors are still profiting from her sharp thinking.

      …That’s not a coincidence, and it’s not just the wedding industry ramping up. Apparently about half of couples were having premarital sex in the 1940s, and researchers believe that women were looking for some sign of commitment from a man before doing the wild thing. In an era of unreliable birth control, a ring was still seen as a down payment and a sort of insurance policy in the event the man bolted and left her holding the baby.

    Since when is a woman having a “virgin vagina” or entering into marriage with one, an “unsavory custom?”

    Is this another sign that secularists, left wingers, and others, are biased against adult virgins, or biased against the idea of a woman choosing to remain a virgin until marriage? Because it kind of sounds like it.

    As to this:

      That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. (etc)

    This is another dismissal of virginity, another tactic I have seen used not just by secularists and left wingers, but one I’ve seen used a time or two on Christian, or ex-Christian sites, especially by women who are red hot infuriated over “modesty” and “purity” teachings.

    Women who are opposed to virginity try to argue that the only reason any woman at any time in history has remained a virgin until marriage is due to patriarchal concerns about tracing the family tree, and at that, with monetary inheritance concerns.

    Continue reading “The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off”

    Follow Up Part 2 – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)

    Follow Up Part 2 – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)

    Original Post:

    Follow Up 1:

    More backlash:

    Note: as to this link below, at the LA Times, the section on the page entitled “It misleads women into thinking they have time” was actually quite sexist. I have chosen to not paste that part of the page in.

    That part was written by a Charlotte Allen who argues that all men will always favor 22 year old women over 42 year old women, mostly because most men want to have babies.

    I don’t know what rock that woman writer is living under, but women in their 40s still get their periods every month and conceive ((Link): read this page for starters – that is one but several pages I have on this blog noting that lots and lots more women are getting pregnant, some for the first time, over age 40).

    I personally never really cared if I had a baby or not, but I think it’s sexist to say that women over 40 are basically unvaluable (to men) because, in the writer’s opinion, they’re all barren (they are not, by the way. A lot of “oops” pregnancies happen to women over 40, because they go off birth control under the mistaken notion “I can no longer get pregnant, or not easily.”)

    (Link): What’s so offensive about Esquire’s praise of 42-year-old women?

    Excerpts:

      By ALEXANDRA LE TELLIER

      Women don’t need a writer dressed in feminist clothing to define her worth by his own narrow definitions

      Tom Junod set the social web aflame with his article praising 42-year-old women. Never did one think that Esquire, a men’s magazine that’s stayed above the lad mag fray, could enrage so many people. But that it did, with people accusing Junod of sexism.

      “Let’s face it: There used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman,” Junod begins. Now, he writes, “it may be said that the best thing that forty-two-year-old American men have going for them is forty-two-year-old American women.”

      It might sound like a compliment, but women aren’t buying it.

      … I asked some of our female writers for their thoughts, and here’s what they had to say.

      Where has Junod been?

      … And, men, you now have Esquire’s permission to objectify women in their 40s without being creepy to other men. (But, again, only if the women do Pilates and yoga.) This expands your potential ogling to hundreds, even thousands more women each year.

      Kidding aside, I find the whole premise of the piece to be completely outdated, if it was ever true to begin with. It’s as though Esquire and Junod have been cryogenically frozen for the last 20 to 30 years and woke up to discover this new creature in mass media called the Modern Woman. She’s independent! She’s empowered! She’s still sexy at 40!

      But my biggest complaint is that Junod and Esquire reinforce the sexualization of women in general — the idea that the value of a woman is how much she arouses a man.

      Continue reading “Follow Up Part 2 – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)”

    Father of Santa Barbara killer: ‘Part of me’ wishes my son was never born (Update)

    Father of Santa Barbara killer: ‘Part of me’ wishes my son was never born

    But Family Values!11!!! Family is the backbone of society!

    Being a parent automatically makes you more godly, loving, and mature! You won’t regret the kid when it’s YOURS. *rolleyes*

    All of that according to Christians, pro natalists, and my fellow social conservatives. But it’s not so.

    Family is not always a Norman Rockwell painting. Sometimes parents have children then regret having them.

    If his son had not made SEX into an idol, his son might be alive today. Sex is a luxury, not a necessity.

    What follows is sort of an update to my previous post,
    (Link): Bitter, Frustrated 22 Year Old Male Virgin and Member of Men’s Rights / PUA Groups Kills Several Women Because He Couldn’t Get Dates – what an entitled sexist doof

    Here’s the update:

    (Link) Father of Santa Barbara killer: ‘Part of me’ wishes my son was never born

    Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny

    Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny

    Some of the the myths the author describes in this are some of the same ones spread by conservative Christians.

    (Link): Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny

      Sorry, would-be pickup artists. There is no such thing as a “friend zone”

      by AMANDA MARCOTTE, ALTERNET

      This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

      Trading in myths and misinformation is the bread and butter of any reactionary movement, as is amply demonstrated by the various myths that prop up everything from gun nuttery to the anti-choice movement.

      Unsurprisingly, then, there’s a great deal of misinformation upholding the troubling trend of new misogyny that festers in everything from “men’s rights” forums to “pick-up artist” communities to the various rape apologists and two-bit woman haters that litter the right wing media landscape

      [Note from this blogger: the left wing also has woman-haters among them. Some of them have done things like made “rape jokes” against conservative, right wing, female politicians, such as Sarah Palin. Funny how liberal writers usually fail to acknowledge the sexism inherent in the LEFT WING].

      The tragic shooting in Isla Vista, which was committed by a young but hardened misogynist named Elliot Rodger, has shown a spotlight on this weird but influential world where ugly myths about gender and sexuality flourish.

      Here are some of those myths, some of which influenced Rodger, and why they are so very, very wrong.

      1. Evoutionary psychology nonsense.
      While the more mainstream conservative movement embraces a religious form of misogyny, the new misogyny often prefers to pretend to have a “scientific” rationale for its negative attitudes towards women.

      Anti-feminist writer James Taranto, who is not a scientist, distilled this theory in the Wall Street Journal, positing that evolution made men and women’s sexual desires complete opposites, with men trying to get away with sex with as many women as possible and women being “hypergamous,” which is the new pseudo-scientific word for “gold digger.”

      His sole evidence for this theory was a long-discredited 1989 study that showed that men were more quick to say yes to sex with a stranger.

      None of them have stopped pushing the belief that women are disinterested in sex itself, (Link): but only use it as a commodity to trade with “high status” men, since pushing this belief allows self-appointed “pick-up artists” to sell dating books and classes to men who want to learn to fake being “high status” to get more sex.

      Nor do they stop pushing the idea that men are more promiscuous than women, a self-serving myth that allows them to demand chastity in female partners while excusing their own sexual dalliance.

      In reality, men and women have roughly the same number of sexual partners over a lifetime.

      Both sexes are interested in casual sex, but men more readily agree because they both feel less likely to be violently assaulted by a stranger and are more likely to expect the encounter to end in orgasm. Nor are women programmed to be gold diggers.

      As women’s ability to make their own money has increased, there has been a decline in women seeking richer husbands. Women aren’t preprogrammed to be gold diggers, because the second they’re freed from having to chase rich men, most are happy to date men more like themselves.

      Continue reading “Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny”

    George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)

    George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)

    I am right wing, a conservative, but sometimes, I realize other conservatives get things wrong, oh so very wrong. This is one of those times.

    I do think that, at times, liberals are guilty of hyping certain situations or instilling a ‘victim mentality’ in people, but not in the case of sexual assault, of rape. Will is way off base with his editorial.

    The following is from a site that tilts left, but this editorial criticizing Will’s views is right on the money:

    (Link): George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges”

      The Washington Post columnist thinks women are lying about sexual assault in order to get “privileges”

      Washington Post columnist George Will doesn’t believe the statistic that (Link): one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college. Instead he believes that liberals, feminists and other nefarious forces have conspired to turn being a rape survivor into a (Link): “coveted status that confers privileges.”

      As a result of this plot, “victims proliferate,” Will wrote in a weekend editorial that ran in the Washington Post and New York Post.

      Further compounding the crisis of people coming forward about sexual assault to stay de rigueur is the fact that “capacious” definitions of sexual assault include forcible sexual penetration and nonconsensual sexual touching.

      Which is really very outrageous, according to Will. It is really very hard to understand why having your breasts or other parts of your body touched against your will should be frowned upon.

      It’s not very surprising that George Will does not think that sexual assault on campus is a big deal. It’s also not very surprising that he thinks that definitions of sexual violence are somehow overly broad because they factor in forms of sexual contact other than penetration.

      But what is puzzling — about this editorial and the army of nearly identical pieces of rape apologia that find a way into national newspapers with some regularity — is how much one has to ignore in order to argue these points.

      Continue reading “George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)”

    Bitter, Frustrated 22 Year Old Male Virgin and Member of Men’s Rights / PUA Groups Kills Several Women Because He Couldn’t Get Dates – what an entitled sexist doof

    Bitter, Frustrated 22 Year Old Male Virgin Kills Several Women Because He Can’t Get Dates

    I bet this lunatic considered himself a “nice guy.” *Snicker.*

    One article says, regarding the gunman,

    In a YouTube video titled “Retribution,” the gunman, who was a student at Santa Barbara City College,

    expresses his frustration over being a virgin at 22 and the constant rejection from women.

    “For the last eight years of my life, ever since I hit puberty, I’ve been forced to endure an existence of loneliness, rejection and unfulfilled desires, all because girls have never been attracted to me,” he said.

    “In those years I’ve had to rot in loneliness. It’s not fair. You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls have never been attracted to me, but I will punish you for it.”

    —(end excerpt)—

    What a whiny cry baby.

    I’m a virgin in my 40s, female, had hoped to marry, am still single, have a healthy sex drive, and you don’t see me shooting at men. I do not feel as though men “owe” me dates or anything like that, geeze.

    By the way, this news story is spectacular evidence of how Christian culture has failed in teaching about celibacy, virginity.

    Christians mock and ridicule (or else ignore) virginity as much as secular culture does (I have a few links about that at the bottom of this post).

    Christians expend a lot of energy either ignoring adult singleness – in favor of endless pontificating about marriage and setting up ministries to meet the needs of married people – or some of figure heads within the faith insult adult singleness (see, for example, my posts on this blog about Al Mohler).

    Here are some more links about the guy who shot some women dead over frustration due to being single and a virgin – you will notice this sicko feels tremendously entitled to have a woman, and “beautiful” women at that:

    (Link): ‘Mountains of skulls, rivers of blood… tomorrow is the day of retribution’: Virgin gunman’s chilling video rant in full

    Partial transcript from one of his videos:

      I’m 22 years old and I’m still

    a virgin 

      I’ve never even kissed a girl.
  • I’ve been through college for two and half years, more than that actually, and I’m still a virgin.
  • It has been very torturous. College is the time when everyone experiences those things such as sex and fun and pleasure. In those years I’ve had to rot in loneliness.
  • It’s not fair. You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me but I will punish you all for it. It’s an injustice, a crime, because I don’t know what you don’t see in me.
  • I’m the perfect guy and yet you throw yourselves at all these obnoxious men instead of me, the supreme gentleman. I will punish all of you for it. [Laughs]
  • On the day of retribution, I am going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB [UC Santa Barbara]. And I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck up blonde slut I see inside there.
  • All those girls I have desired so much, they will have all rejected me and looked down upon me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them.
  • Continue reading “Bitter, Frustrated 22 Year Old Male Virgin and Member of Men’s Rights / PUA Groups Kills Several Women Because He Couldn’t Get Dates – what an entitled sexist doof”

    Women Hating Sites / Men’s Rights Sites Such as Moronic “Save The Males”

    Women Hating Sites / Men’s Rights Sites Such as Moronic “Save The Males”

    In a previous post, a reader asked me to check out and comment on the site “Save the Males.”

    Here is in part how she described that site and some of the views on the site:

      [Writers on the Save the Males site are] …. always talking down to women about how their position is at home with a husband and baby and specially the last article telling women to snatch a husband while in college.

      This women is pushing the one sided idea that if a women wants to get married all she needs to do is snap her fingers and the guy will instantly agree to tie the knot, when the truth is far from this.

      I will say it again most college guys will laugh at your face say if are thinking about marriage. They are focused on their career and or partying and see women as casual hooks or someone to avoid.

    Here was my response to the reader that I was going to leave as a reply but decided to put into a post of its own:

    Nothing has changed. I was a college student in the 1990s, and it was the same in the 1990s as it is now with the 20 something males.

    By the way, you are not going to be in your 20s forever. You will turn 30, then eventually 40, and you will grow to deeply resent how the culture and churches fawn all over 20 somethings and cater to their every concern while ignoring yours.

    If you are a single woman past age 35, you rarely will get any articles, editorials, or advice about being single.

    Most preachers (and many secular authors) tailor all their singleness sermons, blogs, and books, and articles to a 20 something audience. People are very ageist in this regard.

    If you think being single is bad now, just wait until you reach age 35, 40, and older and are still single – it gets 100 times worse, in several regards. (In some ways, it gets a little better, but that is another topic for another time.)

    Also, it’s not just men in their 20s who are like what you were describing in your comments.

    A lot of older men, men ages 30, 40, and up, are also reluctant to marry.

    Continue reading “Women Hating Sites / Men’s Rights Sites Such as Moronic “Save The Males””

    Divorce Rates in America Decreasing But Divorce Rates on Increase Among Southern Baptists

    Divorce Rates in America Decreasing But Divorce Rates on Increase Among Southern Baptists

    I would encourage you to read the Istoria Ministries blog for this:
    (Link): The Increasing Divorce Rate Among Southern Baptists (by Wade Burleson)

    In that page, he references this other page (on Huffington Post):
    (Link): Divorce Rates Declining In The U.S. (Interactive Map)

    (Link): The Increasing Divorce Rate Among Southern Baptists (by Wade Burleson)

    Here is just an excerpt or two from the page, but I would encourage you to visit it and read it in its entirety:

      by Wade Burleson

      … Sometimes I am perplexed by the logic of Southern Baptist assemblies. Rather than boycotting Disney World at our business meetings, we might want to consider a corporate course or two in logic. How can the divorce rate in every state in the union be declining while at the same time the Southern Baptist divorce rate is accelerating, but we Southern Baptists are said to be “accommodating culture”?

      … Think. If we Southern Baptists were accommodating culture, we’d see fewer divorces in our churches. Unfortunately, the divorce rate is accelerating among Southern Baptist churches.

      I believe I know the reason…

      The leaders of our Southern Baptist Convention have been strongly promoting a doctrinal error called The Eternal Subordination of the Son.

      …when you go to a church led by a Southern Baptist pastor who promotes it, the emphasis of the teaching will be on “the authority of the husband” and “the subordination of the woman to her husband” (just like Jesus is allegedly eternally subordinate to the Father). When the emphasis in any Christian environment (home, church, marriage, etc…) is on authority, a breach in relationship is ripe.

    Again, please (Link): visit the page to read the entire explanation.
    ——————————-
    Related posts this blog:

    (Link): Study: Conservative Protestants’ divorce rates spread to their red state neighbors

    (Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

    (Link): Horny Celibacy – Another Anti Virginity, Anti Sexual Purity Essay – Also discussed: Being Equally Yoked, Divorce, Remarriage

    (Link): American Christian Divorce Rates Vs Atheists and Other Groups – throws a pall over Christian Fairy Tale Teachings about Marriage

    (Link): The Nauseating Push by Evangelicals for Early Marriage

    (Link): A Response by Colon to Regnerus Re: Misguided Early Marriage Propaganda

    (Link): The World Does Not Need More Marriage Sermons – They Don’t Stop Divorce or Get People Married

    (Link): Remarriage rates plunge as divorced Americans have doubts – and about Christian culture and divorce and remarriage vs singleness

    (Link): Utah lawmaker targets women with new divorce barriers so men aren’t ‘surprised’ – Alabama Also Considering It

    (Link): Married Preacher Sends Nude Photos to Married Woman, Hits On Her, Tells Her to Divorce Spouse, Has Sex With Woman In Church Building – Married People Are Sexual Deviants, Not Singles

    (Link): Pat Robertson: Humans Have Sexual Drives of Animals and Twice Divorced People are “Losers” (ie, they are not marriage material, they keep picking losers)

    Dudes, Stop Putting Women in the Girlfriendzone (editorial)

    Dudes, Stop Putting Women in the Girlfriendzone

    I’ve had this happen to me plenty of times – guys I was not interested in romantically would put me in the “girlfriend zone.”

    Many men mistake politeness or platonic chit chat from a woman for flirtation. I’ve not yet deduced if this behavior is due to severe social ineptitude, or incredible ego.

    via Jezebel

    (Link): Dudes, Stop Putting Women in the Girlfriendzone

    by ERIN GLORIA RYAN

      on JEZEBEL

    Many an internet whine has been wailed over women who, for some ungodly reason, do not reward the men who are nice to them with sex. It’s because girls only do sex with Bad Boys, reason the complainants, and they’re always putting Nice Guys in the ~*friendzone*~, a terrible space where these hapless, lovestruck Nice Guys wonder, over and over again, Why won’t this stupid bitch fuck me? I’m such a nice guy! I did the Nice!? Now where is my Sex? Now, thankfully, the days of the friendzone may be numbered.

    Enter the girlfriendzone, a clever way some Redditors have discovered to turn the grating “friendzone” label on its head. To understand fully what the girlfriendzone is, one must first grasp what the friendzone is.

    The most popular Urban Dictionary definition of the “friend zone” is,

      // What you attain after you fail to impress a woman you’re attracted to. Usually initiated by the woman saying, “You’re such a good friend”. Usually associated with long days of suffering and watching your love interest hop from one bad relationship to another. Verb tense is “Friend-ed”. //

    Other crowd sourced definitions don’t gloss over the Hurt Feelings as much, describing the friend zone as “a very frustrating and shitty place,” and a “myth” girls tell their “ugly male friends” to spare their romantic feelings.

    Examples of the famously Friend Zoned include Ron Weasley (although he eventually “escaped,” and by “escaped” I mean tongue kissed Hermione), Duckie from Pretty In Pink, Toby from The Office, and the dude from Love, Actually with the signs who kisses his friend’s wife and we’re all supposed to feel good about it.

    Friend zoning, is, in broader terms, something bad that a guy who is not getting laid decides that the woman won’t fuck him is doing.

    It’s an incredibly self centered and self-pitying way to externalize one’s own mistakes or shortcomings, to blame the complex mystery of fickle human attraction on a woman’s agency, and makes about as much emotional sense as showing up to pick up your dry cleaning at 3 am and becoming so enraged that they’re not open that you throw a brick through the window.

    But should something that originates 100% in the feelings of a man (note: women can be “friendzoned” too, but, according to The Internet, this happens much less often) perception be attributed to a woman? Probably not.

    That’s why, months ago, the ladies of Reddit came up with (Link): “girlfriendzoning” in the first place — it’s when guys “only see a girl as a potential girlfriend and not as a friend (or a human, really, in my opinion).”

    Girlfriendzoning is not when a man is interested in a woman and is disappointed when her interest is not reciprocated; that’s a normal human way to respond to rejection.

    It’s the word for the pining blame men place on women for their own unrequited feelings, or for how some men completely lose interest in women as people once it’s clear she’s not interested in them sexually.

    It’s something done by a man who was never interested in anything but a sexual relationship in the first place, and tried to use faux friendship as a way to achieve sexual ends.

    Will “girlfriendzoned” get the traction it deserves?

    It seems like there’s a little momentum in spreading the word, as noted by Cooper Fleishman at The Daily Dot.

    Now, Reddit threads where guys lament their inability to level up with the women they’ve decided they’re perfect for but just don’t know it are occasionally peppered with fiery responses from women chastising the dudes for projecting things onto their girl friends that the girl friends didn’t ask for.

    But this concept has a much wider application than Reddit. This should be a word at the disposal of any lady who feels guilt tripped by a male friend who was never really a friend to begin with.

    It should be the rebuttal for any woman accused of leading someone on for going to lunch with a coworker, or by studying for a mutual final in a classmate’s dorm room, or accepting a friend request from a new acquaintance on Facebook. It’s the word we’ve needed but never said. Use with impunity.

    ——————–
    Related posts:

    (Link): Why Nice Guys Don’t Get Picked by Women (podcast)

    (Link): Female Dragonflies Are Pretending to Die in Order to Avoid Irritating Males

    (Link):  Actor Supposedly Too Self-Absorbed to Get or Keep a Girlfriend

    (Link):   Dude Writes to Miss Manners Advice Columnist: “Miss Manners: No one Ever Replies to Me on Dating Sites”

    (Link):  Romantic Comedies: When Stalking Has a Happy Ending (from The Atlantic) / Men Who Mistake Platonic Friendliness For Flirting – So Annoying 

    (Link):  Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating

    (Link): Nice Guys: Scourge of the Single Woman

    (Link):  Nice Guys Aren’t So Nice After All: Men in the “Friend Zone” Often Have A Hidden Agenda, Say Psychologists (Daily Mail article)

    (Link): ‘It’s Not Me, It’s You’: A Loser’s Guide to Dealing with Rejection by The Guyliner

    (Link): Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men

    (Link): Follow up: BITTER GUY Replies to ‘It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys’

    Interesting Thoughts About Christian Views on Sex and Gender Roles at Sunshine Mary blog – also some obnoxious, totally wrong views

    Interesting Thoughts About Christian Views on Sex and Gender Roles at Sunshine Mary blog – also some obnoxious, totally wrong views

    Please understand that I do not always completely agree with all views of every blog or site I link to, and that would be the case here.

    I do not have an irrational hatred or suspicion of secular feminism, for example, and that this Sunshine Mary person links to the Vox Popli blog, suggests that she might – but she has a few points in some posts I related to.

    I am not a secular feminist, btw, and disagree with some of their views, eg,

    As I’ve discussed before on this blog, Christians claim to be alarmed at the deficit of marriage among Christians.

    Conservative Christians claim to support sexual purity and virginity, but in reality, they do not (see my prior blog post: (Link): No, Christians Do NOT Support or Idolize Virginity and Celibacy, they attack both)

    I, like “Sunshine Mary,” do not understand why so many Christians keep maintaining stereotypes and views that are either untrue, stupid, or counter-productive to values Christians say they support (such as marriage and procreation).

    Here are thoughts on this by Sunshine Mary:

    ✱ (Link): Why do Christian women perpetuate myths about attraction?

    In that post, Sunshine Mary discusses attending class at her church where the people in the class gave the usual Christian stereotypes about sex and marriage:

      This past week was rough because the topic was sex. I just could not believe that all the things we joke about Christians saying were actually said.

      For example, one young woman actually used the women-are-like-a-crockpot crock of crap.

      This is not true, in case anyone has not figured it out yet.

      It does not take a woman, Christian or otherwise, eight hours to become sexually aroused.

      The idea that a man needs to spend eight hours giving her tender kisses, helping with the laundry, telling her how much he loves her, and bringing her flowers just to turn her on is wrong. She may like all those things very much, they may be nice things to do, but they will not make her sexually aroused.

      Why do Christian women keep telling men this? It’s like we’ve all succumbed to mass delusion.

    I don’t support Sunshine Mary’s implication that because some survey or another she read says that males who do more housework get less sex than males who do not, that one should conclude from this that this necessarily means males should be permitted to abdicate from housework, or that it makes such males more desirable: sorry, Sunshine Mary, not in my universe.

    Sunshine Mary goes on to say,

      Why do Christian women perpetuate these myths about attraction, thereby assuring themselves and their husbands a frustrating sex life? It’s certainly not Biblical.

      We could be really jaded and say they are just lying, but I don’t think that is the reason.

      It’s more that we hear this over and over again – that we want men who are always tender, gentle, and sensitive, that we need a deep emotional connection, lots of intimate conversation, and plenty of sweet romance before we can feel sexual attraction.

      This advice is pervasive: it’s on every Christian website, in our movies, magazines, sermons, and books, and thus we just come to believe it.

    Given that Sunshine Mary talks about swallowing red pills (and that she links to Vox’s blog), I take it that she is supportive of the sexist “men’s rights” groups. She writes,

      I seem to have picked up a lot of new readers as of late, and if you are new around this corner of the web, you may have seen the phrase “the blue pill”. What this means is believing lies and choosing to ignore the truth because society has deemed the truth inconvenient or unacceptable for some reason.

    Visit (Link): THE BLUE PILL on Reddit for an anti-dote to the men’s rights bull shit; they satire the Red Pill, ‘wah wah, society is so unfair to men, and feminism is at the root of all evil in the world, waaah!!!!’ groups.

    Sunshine Mary writes,

      We are attracted to men who are leading and who quash challenges to their leadership.

    It depends on what she means by that.

    I personally would not want to be in a relationship with a man who falls on too far either side of the spectrum:

    I don’t want a doormat (which is what she seems to be describing, but I don’t want to date a stoic, only cares about himself and what he wants never considers my feelings and needs Marlboro Man, either.

    Sunshine Mary writes,

      Donalgraeme explains what women are attracted to: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status – in other words, women respond with sexual attraction to men who demonstrate some degree of physical and social dominance.

    Who the fuck is Donalgraeme and why should I care what he thinks?

    Sunshine Mary writes,

      Just as teaching the lie of mutual submission in the marital hierarchy does not help us, so too teaching lies about what generates attraction between spouses does not help us.

    Oh, Sunshine Mary wants to be dominated by her man, kinky – but that’s what SHE wants. I don’t want that.

    Sunshine Mary must totally be into Doug Wilson, who wrote (in a criticism, or shall we surmise, bubbling- under- the- surface- frustration- and- jealousy, of Christian wives’ fandom of the Fifty Shades of Grey erotica novel):

      (by Doug Wilson):
      When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants.
      A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

    By the way, that is the same idiotic Doug Wilson who believes people, including Christians, cannot go without sex for three minutes:
    (Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re Celibacy

    See also:

    From Sunshine Mary’s page,
    ✱ (Link): Feminism and the Progressive Principle: Christian edition

    According to Sunshine Mary’s comments on that page, the Bible forbids women from teaching or preaching, as in all women, for all time – no, it does not.

    Anyway, what I did find interesting on that page were these comments (I’m not saying I necessarily agree with all these views, only that I find some of them interesting):

      (by Sunshine Mary):

      Now let’s consider the elite covert Christian feminists.

      Men:
      Alpha male pastors, usually of mega-churches, like Mark Driscoll, who aren’t intentionally feminist but who enable feminism by training a legion of Christian White Knights to save women from suffering any temporal consequences for their terrible life choices.

      Also, some alpha male pastors, though it may not have been their original plan to do so, end up cultivating a nice little harem for themselves within their churches, if the number of pastors who eventually get caught in sex scandals is any indication.

      Women:
      These women are truly wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are often pro-life themselves, usually married mothers, but they are eager to remove from women all stigma associated with sexual sin.

      I’ve noticed many of these women are professors at Christian colleges (example: Karen Swallow Prior, a Christian professor, explains that God’s purity standard is impossible to meet and calls for a more “realistic” (i.e. slutty) definition of purity than virginity).

      They masquerade as conservative or traditional women, but they are not. Additionally, some mega-pastors’ wives who like their cushy lifestyle and high status might fit here.

    The Driscoll commentary was just interesting, to suggest that a Cave Man such as Driscoll is aiding feminists in some manner.

    Where Sunshine Mary does get things (partially) correct is under the second section, where she opines that even conservative Christians today don’t really support sexual purity.

    Sunshine Mary also has a long section farther down that page pointing out how churches support unmarried women who are fornicating and having multiple children out of wedlock, while the single women who are remaining chaste are being hosed by the whole system -that is most certainly true and a point I’ve raised on my own blog in months past.

    Continue reading “Interesting Thoughts About Christian Views on Sex and Gender Roles at Sunshine Mary blog – also some obnoxious, totally wrong views”

    How American Christians Were Influenced by 1950s American Secular Propaganda to Idolize Marriage and Children and Against Singles and the Childless -and how over-emphasis on “family” and lack of respect for singleness started a backlash against both – [both = marriage, having kids] (excerpts from ‘Pornland’ book)

    How American Christians Were Influenced by 1950s American Secular Propaganda to Idolize Marriage and Children and Against Singles and the Childless -and how over-emphasis on “family” and lack of respect for singleness started a backlash against both (excerpts from ‘Pornland’ book)

    Excerpts from Pages 2- 5 of Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality by Gail Dines – read it for free on “Google Books.”

    (Below this long excerpt are a few observations by me):

      For a magazine [Playboy] to clearly state that it was not “a family magazine” in the 1950s was close to heresy.

      According to social historian Stephanie Coontz, it was during this period that there was an unprecendented rise in the marriage rate, the age for marriage and motherhood fell, fertility increased, and divorce rates declined.

      From family restaurants to the family car, “the family was everywhere hailed as the most basic institution in society.”

      The mass media played a pivotal role in legitimizing and celebrating this “pro-family” ideology by selling idealized images of family life in sitcoms and women’s magazines, while demonizing those who chose to stay single as either homosexual or pathological.

      The most celebrated sitcoms of the period were Leave It To Beaver, Father Knows Best, and The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet. The ideal family was white and upper middle class, with a male breadwinner whose salary supported a wife and children as well as a large home in the suburbs.

      The primary roles for men and women were seen as spouses and as parents, and the result was a well-run household populated by smart, well-adjusted kids.

      The print media also got in on the act, carrying stories about the supposed awfulness of being single. Reader’s Digest ran a story entitled “You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are to Be Marred,” which focused on the “harrowing situation of single life.”

      One writer went so far as to suggest that “except for the sick, the badly crippled, the deformed, the emotionally warped and the mentally defective, almost everyone has an opportunity to marry.”

      In the 1950s, “emotionally warped” was a coded way of saying homosexual, and indeed many single people were investigated as potential homosexuals and by extension Communists, since the two were often linked during the McCarthy years.

      This pressure on men to conform not only to the dictates of domestic life but also to the growing demands of corporate America had its critics in the popular media. Some writers pointed to the conformist male as a “mechanized, robotized caricature of humanity… a slave in mind and body.”

      According to Barbara Ehrenreich, magazines like Life, Look, and Reader’s Digest carried stories suggesting that “Gary Gray” (the conformist in the gray flannel suit) was robbing men of their masculinity, freedom, and sense of individuality.

      While pop psychologists criticized the corporate world for reducing American males to “little men,” it was women in their roles of wives and mothers who were essentially singled out as the cripplers of American masculinity. As Ehrenreich has argued, “the corporate captains were out of the bounds of legitimate criticism in Cold War America,” women were the more acceptable and accessible villains.

      Described as greedy, manipulative, and lazy, American women were accused of emasculating men by overdomesticating them.

      Continue reading “How American Christians Were Influenced by 1950s American Secular Propaganda to Idolize Marriage and Children and Against Singles and the Childless -and how over-emphasis on “family” and lack of respect for singleness started a backlash against both – [both = marriage, having kids] (excerpts from ‘Pornland’ book)”

    Men Also Worried About Being Really, Really Ridiculously Good Looking (article)

    Men Also Worried About Being Really, Really Ridiculously Good Looking

    Farther below: links to articles at Jezebel, Daily Mail, etc

    Now, I know if you are a conservative Christian man, you think your looks don’t matter to women, not only because secular culture tends to let men off the hook in the physical appearance department, but because you never, ever heard your male preacher tell the males in the audience to get off their flabby asses and work out at the gym to look physically attractive.

    Oh no, my friend, the male preachers reserve that kind of commentary in their sermons, pamphlets, radio shows, and blogs for single female women, and sometimes for the married women.

    Then you hear your preacher tell you during marital sermons that all women care about is emotional intimacy and cooking recipes in crock pots and other girly pursuits.

    Women – at least the married ones – you are told, in many a sermon or books and blogs about dating and marriage by Christians, are depicted as being completely uninterested in sex or in what a man looks like.

    You may also hear your pastor man tell the wimmin folk to look for a “godly” man to marry, one who will be a ‘spiritual leader’ in the home and in marriage.

    So, you think, as long as you are a pious guy, carry a Bible around, love Jesus, that it’s fine and dandy if you are going bald, and you assume you can continue eating Doritos, pizza, and deep fried foods day in and day out, until you become overweight, because you will still attract a 5 foot five inch tall, big breasted, small waisted, 120 pound Megan Fox movie star look-alike.

    She will, you assume, based on all the Christian sermons you’ve ever heard on gender and marriage, overlook the disgusting, flabby, limp arms, the big beer gut, the ghastly pale chicken legs, and fall head over heels in lust and love with you.

    No, no my Christian male pal, she will not.

    Put down the beer, the fried chicken, and go to the gym, and go there regularly. Go to the dentist and get some work done if your teeth are gross.

    Get some Rogaine. Maybe visit a tanning booth once in awhile.

    Women are not attracted to uglies or fatties any more than men are.

    I am a single woman, and yes, I am comparing you to the likes of buff, built, full- head- of- hair Hugh Jackman (as he looks now, in photos like (Link): this one, or try this link). Oh yes I am.

    Here is another article about male physical appearance.

    (Link): Men Also Worried About Being Really, Really Ridiculously Good Looking

      According to a survey of 1502 men by British menswear company Jacamo, twenty percent of men are anxious they’ll feel fat in a bathing suit, and one fifth of men go on a diet before vacation. Men, they really are just like us! Unfortunately!

      Naturally, the survey found that slightly older men were more comfortable with their bodies — those 55 and over were the most comfortable (forty-four percent vs. twenty-eight percent of 16- to 24-year-olds). If you have ever had a father who believes that a speedo is appropriate pool party wear, those numbers feel very possible.

      Obviously, men feeling bad about exposing flesh is crap, because every body is a beach body, and it sucks for anyone to feel insecure about it. Wear whatever you want whenever you want and then shake nature’s bounty all over this great planet of ours. Done and done.

    (Link): Do men now worry more than women about feeling fat on the beach? 20 per cent feel self-conscious about their body on holiday

    • 10% of men spend more getting ‘beach ready’ than on actual holiday

      20% spend £300 on training and treatments; average man spend £112

      Preparations often start two months before jetting off
      14% of men more body-conscious than their partners

    • By MARTHA DE LACEY
      PUBLISHED: 06:51 EST, 7 October 2013 | UPDATED: 06:51 EST, 7 October 2013

      It’s not just the girls who feel self-conscious about stripping down to their bikinis on holiday, worried about flabby bits, wobbly bits and crinkly bits: men feel nervous about baring all in front of the beach-bound public, too.

      In fact, 20 per cent of the boys are anxious about feeling fat in their trunks, and one in 10 are nervous about baring (nearly) everything in public.

      As a result, men are spending more money and time than ever getting ‘beach-ready’ before they jet off; one in 10 are spending more on pre-break treatments and training than on their actual holiday.

      And nine per cent even admit having cancelled or simply avoiding holidays because of concerns about the way they look.

      The average man is spending out £112 on training and treatments, according to the survey by menswear retailer, Jacamo, with 12 per cent spending £300 and starting preparations two months before they jet off.

      And 14 per cent – more than one in eight – now spend longer on getting their body ready for the beach than their female partner.

      One fifth of men surveyed put themselves on a strict pre-holiday diet, and one in 20 even pop into their local tanning shop to ensure they have a bit of pre-break base colour. More common is getting a trim: 60 per cent visit the barbers before turning on their out-of-office.

      Choosing the right wardrobe is another essential. One in ten men asked said they had spent more than £200 on holiday clothes, with most men splashing out £108 on new gear.

      Quizzed about the reasons behind the new trend for beach body planning and spending, men say they are just as self-conscious as women when it comes to baring all, and many feel nervous about stripping down even if they have been working out.

      More than half of men who took part said they spent time training and having treatments to make sure they could be confident on the beach and enjoy their trip, while a quarter were planning ahead to avoid embarrassing their partner.
      And despite usually having the best figures, it seems that the younger generation are actually the most insecure.

      The survey of 1502 men found those aged 55 and over were the most comfortable with their beach body (44 per cent were happy in swimwear), compared to just 28 per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds.

    ————————-
    Related posts at this blog:

    (Link): Superman, Man Candy -and- Christian Women Are Visual And Enjoy Looking At Built, Hot, Sexy Men

    (Link): Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

    (Link): Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’”

    (Link): Women Are Visually Oriented Too – Reminder 1

    (Link): New study: Average American man is ugly and fat – And yes, men, you should panic because American women DO judge you based on your looks

    (Link): Women Are Visual And Like Hot Looking Men (Part 1) Joseph in Genesis Was A Stud Muffin

    (Link): The Annoying, Weird, Sexist Preoccupation by Christian Males with Female Looks and Sexuality

    (Link): Article: Scientists: Why penis size does matter [to women]

    (Link): Married Women Engage in Sexual Sin – and most men in denial particularly Christian conservatives

    (Link): More ‘Men Are Visual’ Baloney, Discussed at Another Blog

    (Link):Conservative Christian Sexist Immature Imbecilic Pressure on Women to Look Pretty and Skinny and to Put Out Sexually

    New study: Average American man is ugly and fat – And yes, men, you should panic because American women DO judge you based on your looks

    New study: Average American man is ugly and fat – And yes, men, you should panic because American women DO judge you based on your looks contrary to what Christian propaganda tells you

    The following page has several computer generated images of what this study says the typical American man looks like. The study says the average American male is getting shorter and fatter.

    As to most American women, we prefer Mr. Tall, Dark, and Handsome with a buff body and full head of hair…

    Contrary to you all who sit in pews every week where your male preacher and Christian dating advice blogs tells you “only men are visually stimulated and women don’t care about looks or sex, they only care about emotional stuff.”

    Christian preachers and dating advice gurus need to be lecturing the single males if they want a date or a wife, they better get off their flabby, lard butts and start running, and watch the carbs and calories.

    Christian women will NOT be attracted to you solely on your bank account or “spiritual walk” or great sense of humor.

    (Link): This Is the Average Man’s Body

      Graphic renderings of modern males

      by J Hamblin
      Oct 2013

      Click here to View computer generated image of “Todd” who represents the average American male

      Todd is the most typical of American men. His proportions are based on averages from CDC anthropometric data. As a U.S. male age 30 to 39, his body mass index (BMI) is 29; just one shy of the medical definition of obese. At five-feet-nine-inches tall, his waist is 39 inches.

      Don’t let the hyperrealistic toes fool you; Todd is an avatar. I gave Todd his name, and gave his life a narrative arc, but he is actually the child of graphic artist Nickolay Lamm as part of his Body Measurement Project.

      Todd would prefer perfection—or at least something superlative, even if it’s bad—to being average. But Todd is perfect only in being average. With this perfection comes the privilege of radical singularity, which is visible in his eyes.

      Though in his face this reads lonesome, Todd does have three international guyfriends. They met at a convention for people with perfectly average bodies, where each won the award for most average body in their respective country: U.S., Japan, Netherlands, and France. The others’ BMIs, based on data from each country’s national health centers, are 23.7, 25.2, and 25.6.

      I named them all Todd, actually, even though it could be confusing, because not everyone’s name is a testament to their cultural heritage.

      [omit computer generated images of average males from USA and various other nations]

      Most people look better from their left, but Lamm rendered the Todds from their right, just because he can. To these men, Nickolay is God.

      Avatars of various ethnicities are important, because obesity depends on culture and genetics. The weight of every person’s destiny is equal, but some countries are fat, and others are not. The World Health Organization cares about that, because understanding the differences should help to explicate causes.

      So does history. Fifty years ago, American Todd would not have been round. The trend is not unique to men, either; Lamm just chose to work with white male renderings. The same CDC data puts the female BMI in this age group at 28.7.

      [omit chart]

      Americans are also losing ground in height. For most of two centuries, until 60 years ago, the U.S. population was the tallest in the world. Now the average American man is three inches shorter than the Dutch man, who averages six feet. Japanese averages are also gaining on Americans’. Anthropologists tie these recent changes primarily to diet and lifestyle, as we’ve turned habitable wilderness into excess.

      Continue reading “New study: Average American man is ugly and fat – And yes, men, you should panic because American women DO judge you based on your looks”