Once in a while I think is okay to force a women to have sex, especially when one is young and hot.

When I was 25 and hot I pretty much forced a 45-year-old woman into bed.

She called me later for repeats.

So?

Reality? We don't need no stinking reality. We got our own delusional idea of how the world should work.

I've seen the comment from some women that you never know if you're going to end up dead at the conclusion of your date.

My thought was "if that's the way you feel about a given dude, how's this? don't go out with him?

Wasn't potential violence the argument used to justify "Grace" not giving Ansari a firm "no?" She was afraid of violence from the 120lb (soaking wet) comedian?

According to this argument, every man is one rejection away from being a serial killer? We're gonna need bigger basements.

I guess the coasts are full of psycho rapists. Maybe they all move there? Because leftist women sure seem to encounter a lot of them, and neither I nor anyone I know ever has. Ive met 1 or 2 guys that I got a weird vibe from and I-wait for it-stayed away from them. I didnt date them and go back to their place. WTF??!! If my daughters ever acted that helpless Id put them in a convent to be cared for for life.

Theres no need for self defense after a couple glasses of wine, because you shouldnt be drinking alone with someone You Dont Know. Sheesh. The "come up for a glass of wine" invite should only be accepted once you know the person and are open to sexual fun.

Even then, yeah, you can change your mind, say No, and leave. You wont get raped for it. Because You Know Them. (*serial killer sociopaths aside, but you cant live your life based on .00001% of the population.

The belief that men should "listen to women" is, along with its counterpart, "teach men not to rape", a wish for a utopia. Dunces who refuse to see this live in a fantasy world of their own construction, and while this is probably not terribly harmful to most people most of the time, their efforts to change the legal superstructure (particularly but not limited to rape law) are dangerous.

For the record, I feel much sorrier for Mel than for Hill, even If the resultant distinction is invisible to others.

> Once in a while I think is
> okay to force a women to
> have sex, especially when
> one is young and hot

Oftentimes I think "is" OK to ventilate the skullcap of a foolish man with a pistol, especially if he has repeatedly demonstrated a pattern of reprehensible sociopathy.

Such men are fortunate that most women, let alone most young and hot ones, do not concur. With me.

I am not sure that Amy is going deeply enough. The writer doesn't seem to be selling the idea of 'let's change men'. Because her tone seems to suggest that men are unchangeable.

Instead, she is trying to sell the idea (like many Feminists) that men are too dangerous, not telepathic enough and generally not worth the effort to form relationships without a MAJOR modification of that entire gender.

However, when an MRA activist says the same thing, it is characterized as a major act of cowardice, unattractiveness, sour grapes and probably sexual dysfunction.

Granted. For men who 'want nothing to do with women', they sure talk about them a whole lot.

So if the MRA is a coward with huge relationship difficulties and ridiculous demands...well...what is good for the gander is good for the goose.

One wonders at exactly what kind of boyfriends she had in her past.

"I'm unhappy and fearful and it's your fault. Maybe if I get a lot of attention I'll feel better".

Sounds like a plan. Good luck.

"One wonders at exactly what kind of boyfriends she had in her past."

I at least take responsibility for the assholes in my past, one of whom I write about in "Unf*ckology" ( http://amzn.to/2fFdl2c ). I had a copy of "Honoring the Self," by Nathaniel Branden. I stood by as he lit it on fire. Seriously!

I later read a copy of the fucking thing that had not been turned to ash -- and worked very hard to change myself into a person who really looks at who a man (or person) is and makes choices about who she allows into her life.

Note: "he" being the boyfriend (who lit it on fire), not Nathaniel, who later became a friend.

My boyfriend, surely moments away from flipping out (taken by a documentary crew he was accompanying around in Miami). Somebody'd better tell this Bubbie she's in grave danger.

https://twitter.com/amyalkon/status/955179967779717121

The overwhelming amount of violence caused by men is on other men as part of their competition. The absolute safest class of people in the world is married white women. Their husband protects them.
As to domestic violence, I have seen reliable statistics that women hit their husbands more than the other way around, but that mostly their hitting is not able to hurt the husband. The problem obviously is physical strength: men are much stronger. A man (on average and my personal experience) can take getting punched by a woman because she is not strong enough to hurt him, but if he hits her something will break and she will need a doctor. So the fear women have is not totally irrational--they at some level know their husband COULD hurt them. Oh, and I don't care how much martial arts the average woman takes, she still won't be able to best the average man or probably even hurt him unless they become a pro martial artist, which most women are not going to do. But almost all husbands will do their utmost to endure their wive's anger and to protect them without losing their own temper. That is what a real man does.
Women with live-in boyfriends do not have such a good record of being safe because the boy is not committed. Women going home with strangers from bars or tinder dates likewise are not as safe. How about not doing stupid things?

Oh, no! Another complaint from a member of the group that is far and away the wealthiest, most politically powerful, most pampered, protected and privileged lot that has ever existed on earth. In every significant measure of social welfare, women have the advantage over men. At every point in the law where the interests of men and women are seen to diverge, women's interests are favored.

Men should just keep doing what they are told: invent, build and maintain virtually everything that makes civilization possible, while accepting denigration and disrespect. Continue to be the expected breadwinner. Oh, and continue being the group that is the ONLY net contributor to taxes -- the taxes that allow "Julia" and her spawn to lead a comfortable life from cradle to grave.

Ok. Got it.

BTW, Mizz Wright can stuff it where the sun don't shine until she acknowledges that, today, a man's risk from a woman's false accusation of assault is of FAR greater concern than a woman's risk of violence at the hands of a man. While she's at it, she can explain why lesbians have the HIGHEST rate of IPV.

One wonders if Ms. Wright is so afraid because she does, or would like to, respond to a come-on from an "unworthy" man with a rejection that is as cutting and belittling as possible. You know, the type of gal who attracts flies just so she can swat them -- after she slowly pulls their wings off.

Finally (and speaking as a 6th degree black belt and instructor for decades), if a woman has to resort to physical defense, it should be either fairly minimal (to clearly demonstrate objection, but without any real risk of inflicting pain that might trigger the kind of instinctive reaction that breaks peoples' faces), or balls to the wall -- a thumb jammed in an eyeball, and/or a hard knuckle punch to the throat. Then the groin kick, then run like hell. If minimal doesn't work, then option no. 2 is what's left.

Lesson? Don't get into that situation, or learn the art of feminine control!

Okay, I read the article and her call was (as Amy indicated) blatant fear mongering. It's there. It's a nasty slur. Got it.

But the call is for CONSIDERATION, which is not outside the bounds of civilized discourse.

Here is the problem: that 'nice date' that she wants...well, that is the case 99% of the time. If she wants to kiss in the apartment, you get to kiss. You make a move, she should say 'nuh uh!' and you back off. Maybe if the bond deepens, you try again, but again, she should be Woman enough to say 'no'.

WHEN Mr. Aziz's date said 'no', he stopped, called her a cab and left her on her merry way.

The 'communicative' gender needs to open their mouths and COMMUNICATE.

But the biggest thing is the change in morality. The 'default' setting of intergender sexual reactions was always set at 'no!'. The women didn't even need to annunciate it. If the guy tried for 'not no', he was automatically in the wrong.

But that was based in conventional (or should I say 'traditional' morality). Now the 'default' for women is 'maybe'. And the default response by men to 'maybe' is 'why not?'

This clearly puts that 'no' onus on the woman. They do not need a reason, per se, but they need to state it, because for a man 'maybe' means 'try'.

The DOJ put the domestic violence rate at 22 percent for women. One wonders, as previously indicated, how many of them were by 'boyfriends' and how many by 'husbands'. I am betting the difference is telling.

But women don't want to hear that their 'fun loving single status' might have a few drawbacks. To wit, angry husbands don't break stuff because they will have to fix things. Angry boyfriends can pack their shit and leave. So swing away!

@BOTU Welcome back???

@BOTU Welcome back???

Amy says:

"It hurts relations between men and women and it endangers women. Seeing all men as potential sources of violence keeps a woman from identifying which men might actually be violent."

I'd go further in that it also keeps men who might otherwise step in to help stay away.

Look at what all the claims of men being potential child molesters has done - it is rare for single man in North America who will, nowadays, step in if he sees a child alone. God forbid he try to help and be accuse of trying to abduct the kid.

So, the same will come of this - men will NOT step in to help a woman who needs his help because he could very well be putting himself in danger of false accusations.

Those women who always find fault with all men have not only done a disservice to themselves; they have also tainted the relationships between good men and good women.

The writer doesn't seem to be selling the idea of 'let's change men'. Because her tone seems to suggest that men are unchangeable.
_____________________________________

Good point, FIDO. Also, while I know you weren't talking about this, MRAs sometimes talk as though violent/psychopathic men ARE hopeless cases once they reach their teens, so it's the victims' fault if they get in their way from then on. As if parents and teachers can do nothing and shouldn't have that responsibility. Would anyone say the same if we were talking about racist violence - or drunk driving? Whether the criminal is male or female?

No one assumes that children who steal or bully after the age of ten are unchangeable just because they should have learned to be completely civilized in those areas by the age of five. What makes other crimes any different? What's so surprising about the fact that kids change greatly, year to year?

(Hint: Kids simply don't get as closely supervised after they turn ten unless they get caught in the act, which is why parents of young kids have to start BELIEVING teachers and other adults who accuse them of breaking the laws, and stop acting like the kids' angry lawyers instead. Kids misbehave because they have free will, not necessarily because the parents did anything wrong beforehand, so parents have to stop taking things so personally.)

And, from this thread in December:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2017/12/25/jodie_foster_es.html

Haven't we all heard of "good" teen boys and girls who love, respect and fear their parents, but who also fear being unpopular TWICE as much - so, they shoplift, under peer pressure, time and again? Or "good" teens who steal even when alone because they have NO friends and need to fill the void? I.e., even teaching kids not to STEAL is not as simple as parents want to believe.

And yet according to nearly all sociological research women commit over 60% of all physical violence in domestic relationships and an even higher percentage of emotional violence and controlling behavior

lujlp,

I was in a Krav Maga class. I was 6'2" tall, weighed in at 200 or so.

During a practice, a female class mate flailed away at me for 15 seconds until she was close to exhaustion. Now, she didn't work out and she was 5'3" (about the size of my wife actually). I did not have a bruise on me later.

How many blows do you think it would take for me to bruise her? That size disparity is a 'thing'.

So it's like a tree falling in the woods: if there are no bruises, was there domestic violence?

That is why traditionally women used frying pans and rolling pins. Leverage is your friend.

Ahh, but FIDO, feminist dogma tells us DV isnt about inflicting damage, but about CONTROL

Meaning it is immaterial how much damage a woman fails to/inflicts on a man.

So a single instance of a woman smacking a man upside his head with the flat of her hand is just as wrong as a man throwing a woman down a flight of stairs

Just as, according to the MeToo/TimesUp movement has taught us, Ansari asking for verbal consent to a blow job is the exact same thing as decades of rape by Weinstien

"Look at what all the claims of men being potential child molesters has done" Example: I was taking a walk. I encounter a 2 yr old out on the sidewalk. No adults anywhere. I guessed that there is a ladies group get together at a house nearby, and go up to the door while keeping an eye on the kid. I was correct and the mom freaked out (not at me). In the old days I might have picked up the kid before trying to find which house, but not anymore. Good thing there was no traffic.

cc
There was a case in England some years ago where a guy driving a delivery truck saw a girl near a pond. Not wanting to be prosecuted, he continued--he said later--when he discovered the little girl had drowned.

And it was a good thing too Richard. The primary school teachers upon discovering the girl missing didnt call the cops, spent hours wandering around looking for her, and when they stumbled upon the girls parents while looking LIED to them about what they were looking for (a dog)

Given they refused to call police, the parents, and lied to the parents about the girl being missing, FOUR HOURS - I have no doubt had he picked her up they would have said he kidnapped her