"... and a lot of people think this stuff is normal when I don't think that it is."
Said Andrew Callaghan, quoted in "Andrew Callaghan Allegations: YouTuber Apologizes for 'Sex Pest Behavior'" (Newsweek).
That's a story from 2 days ago, which I'm encountering only because I happened upon his HBO documentary, "This Place Rules."
We watched most of it last night, and I had gone looking for some reviews of it.
Here's the trailer:
It's a pretty amusing collection of clips related to the January 6th incident.
Callaghan — who looks like a combination of Weird Al and Napoleon Dynamite — mostly lets other people speak. He finds a wide range of people to speak, and, frankly, nearly everyone sounds crazy.
There aren't too many reviews of the movie — for whatever reason — but the audience score at Rotten Tomatoes is 96%.
I don't know anything about the substance of the allegations against Callaghan (or whether anything about the movie motivated them), other than this description, from Deadline Hollywood: "Caroline Elise... claimed he lured her into a consensual sexual liaison... by wearing her down with requests."
Then I watched the strange apology video:
It seems as though he initially defended himself, perhaps with things that you yourself thought of when you read that the accusation is that "he lured her into a consensual sexual liaison... by wearing her down with requests."
But then, it seems, he had a problem with the way other people defended him — "so many young people—especially young men—rush to defend me." My hypothesis is that he could see this kind of defense was hurting him, and he needed to get distance between himself and those young men who wanted to be on his side. He thought of a perfect way to get this distance, accusing them of normalizing "sex-pest behavior." He wants to be the one to say "this stuff" is not normal.
He says that "for a long time," he has "behav[ed] in a way that I actually thought was normal":
I thought that going home from the bar alone made you a loser. I thought that persistence was a form of flattery and I thought that, if at first somebody was reluctant, they're playing hard to get. Just try harder. And if you think someone's feeling you, you know, make a physical advance and see if they go with it....
He's casting off that retrograde form of masculinity and, even as he's apologizing, he's setting himself up as a man who can lead other men out of sex pestilence:
And I think that I want to be fully responsible for not having a fluid understanding of consent and what enthusiastic, two-way consent looks like.
That being said, a lot of the things that have been said online about me are not true. A lot of things are missing really important contextual information that I think would change people's interpretation of a lot of these situations.
But I'm not here to invalidate anybody's lived experience. If you feel pressured, you know, that's just what it is.
I hope that young people, and young men in particular, can use my mistakes to learn and move through life with a better understanding of consent as far.
Andrew Callaghan does not want your defending his old sex-pest ways. He wants you to see him as the one who is demanding that you stop normalizing it and to move on to the project of fluidly understanding what enthusiastic, two-way consent looks like.
This is a good strategic move for him, so who knows how deeply he feels it? The most interesting part of it to me is how strongly he's rejecting camaraderie with those other men who want to use him as an occasion to celebrate aggressive sexual persuasion and to disrespect the women who say they consented because they felt pressure.
पोस्ट्स
७६ टिप्पण्या:
Humans and pretty much every other Earthbound animal species wouldn't exist unless males were sex pests and if females were not preoccupied with collecting and holding adequate resources to raise their offspring. We wouldn't have the hackneyed expressions: "The Facts of Life," "He's a bad boy," and "She said no no but meant yes yes" unless this was true. Etc.
Let's all watch a nature documentary on how, for example, wild female deer compete to mate with the alpha bucks who are the strongest, oldest, and who have the largest set of antlers. "Normalized" here actually means proven-to-be-sustainable in the mating world.
Or, this guy can apologize, keep quiet, step back, and watch the fragile Puritanical-Woke-Shakers go extinct as all females with this ideology pass childbearing age. They are on course to do so. University female Woke convents -> single life and nonbinary ID -> never-date-a-MAGA-or-a-conservative -> no offspring -> peaceful and solitary deaths.
Both dating and evolution are brutal. Shaker furniture is nice, but it's no longer made by the extinct Shakers.
I learned a new word today: sex-pest.
not having a fluid understanding of consent and what enthusiastic, two-way consent looks like.
This is horrible. Pushing this shit is why so many millennials are screwed up about relationships. It strips women of any agency or responsibility, and it sets up unrealistic expectations. He pestered you for sex, and you weren't willing to stand firm in your refusal, or leave. You gave in because it was the easy route. Stop turning it into some great tragedy.
Not every sexual experience has to be a whirlwind of life-changing orgasms. Maintenance sex is real, and important. The ability and willingness to have sex even when you're not in the mood is arguably the hallmark of a good relationship, because it emphasizes that sex is important and should be about meeting each other's needs, rather than just your own.
I thought that persistence was a form of flattery
Well geez, dude, was it or wasn't it? You were the one being persistent - don't you know?
I am SO GLAD to be an old married lady. What a minefield.
Quitting drinking is an interesting addition to his apology.
I guess he is not looking to attract the Andrew Tate crowd to his defense .... or be associated with him.
I guess he has interviewed enough young men to know better.
Are you afraid that "enthusiastic, two-way consent" will never happen? That it consigns us to abstinence? It should! Sex without enthusiastic, two-way consent should be not worth having. If it's worth it to you, you have a problem.
What sort of person wants to have sex with someone who doesn't freely and openly want to have sex with them? What kind of sex is that? It's on the rape continuum.
"Well geez, dude, was it or wasn't it? You were the one being persistent - don't you know?"
Did you watch the video? He clearly acknowledges that what he was doing is harassment.
@Althouse: "Sex without enthusiastic, two-way consent should be not worth having. If it's worth it to you, you have a problem."
Don't open a history book that addresses arranged marriage traditions that span thousands of years and numerous cultures. However if you do, start with the largest and/or most enduring cultures (e.g., China, India, African tribes), and then review the bridal-trade-and-capture patterns of small migrant groups and the later practice of trading princes and princesses for diplomatic ends (alliances; avoiding war). Finally, work down to the relative flash-in-the-pan enthusiastic "romantic love" marriages following the European Renaissance circa 1500.
Humans are animals and animals they remain. This gets ignored, glossed over, and disguised in wealthy, protected, and comfortable societies.
Isn't this "enlighten male perspective" an evergreen topic for opinion writers?
When my mom was around 70 we were on a road trip, just the two of us. We got onto the topic of sexual relationships. After an hour or so we settled on the truth, each generation believes they "discovered" sex, in a way preceding generations just didn't "get".
Oh, this goes both ways. I was pestered a lot,back in day. Dad in fact warned me about girls that intentionally planned to 'steal the seed', to get married into a better life. Something else not new at all.
I determined some years ago that the most important attribute of a sexual partner is enthusiasm. Implicit in that attribute is a complete willingness to engage in this behavior, also known as "consent".
How can you have the one (enthusiasm) without the other?
"What sort of person wants to have sex with someone who doesn't freely and openly want to have sex with them? What kind of sex is that? It's on the rape continuum."
Male feminists.
It's even more hard to have to relive the trauma that I endured every single day by seeing this man as a social-justice warrior, as someone who cares about human rights, get a platform,"
What sort of person wants to have sex with someone who doesn't freely and openly want to have sex with them?
Men?
What kind of sex is that? It's on the rape continuum
Oh sheesh. I’m for abstinence and against casual hookups (even oppose all extramarital sex, for that matter) but to deny that men having a strong appetite and need for sex is ridiculous. If you don’t deny that but still call it rape if they seduce women then maybe think about how unfair it is to call that rape when they are simply acting to meet their needs with women who DID consent even if they felt ashamed of themselves afterward. As another commenter pointed out, this denies that women have agency. If a woman can’t stand her ground, the fault is hers.
If women weren't all on birth control pills, they would have an extra incentive not to give in to a sex-pest.
That's an aspect of hook-up culture that's often ignored: the old ethical and moral issues around casual sex got pushed into the background because it's so easy to just do it.
Me: "Well geez, dude, was it or wasn't it? You were the one being persistent - don't you know?"
Althouse: Did you watch the video? He clearly acknowledges that what he was doing is harassment.
I did not. I was responding to his statement that he believed persistence was a form of flattery. Whatever he says now, apparently at some point he believed this was the case - so my question to him was, since you were the one doing the persisting, did you or didn't you intend it as flattery?
I wasn't addressing whether he was being That Guy who doesn't know when to quit and takes it all the way to the bedroom (or the alley behind the bar, I suppose). I was addressing whether he is conscious of his own intentions, or is just a fricking replicant.
“Baby, it’s cold outside.” Seduction or sex pest?
Guys who are pests are that because their initial moves don't work. Nor do the next half dozen. If the guys were acceptable, they'd not need to be pests, whether that works or not.
I learned, later in life than would have been useful, that when I'm serious I look really serious. And, also later in life--about six times I think I can put my finger on--I recalled times women have appreciated me looking really seriously at one or another guy.
From which it would follow that pests are really, really unwelcome.
The dating advice is usually that being seen as needy is a worse buzzkill than untreated poor hygiene. In the latter case, there may be a random pheromone or two floating around.
I should think pesting works only when there is a perceived power issue.
Feminism is professional nagging and bitching.
Althouse, my general response to your lifelong attempts to improve men is: “Go fuck yourself.”
This constant prattling about what you think men should be and how they should act is an obnoxious facet of your personality.
Keep it to yourself.
Did his target women say yes to going out with him? Or did they rebuffed his advances at a bar and… later, as his influencer status appeared to rise and… I’m not getting enough information to form an opinion.
If they did consent to a date, here’s a video that might be relevant to the situations some young people find themselves in.
link to PsycHacks clip
The Cowboy’s quandary: If the milk is free, then why buy the cow. The question becomes whether asking about having a test drive with a cow is a serious attempt to buy that cow or is it just seeking a thrill ride?
Oh heck, just give the whole herd of cows a magnificent virtue signaling tour de force. That cover it. After all, a fool is born every minute.
But the Professor is right. When both really want the other, a long term beauty happens.
Why would you stay around someone who kept asking you for sex when you had no interest?
Did she just lay there for intercourse to show how coerced she was? Or was it more of an old time, "I just want to full around," no sex situation? Because if the latter, than I assume her consent was very enthusiastic. The option to leave is always the best option.
"I want other to learn from my mistakes"
It's a great scam--use your own bad behavior as a springboard to promoting yourself as morally superior.
It's like the dumb Aziz Ansari encounter, he asked if he could go down on you and you said yes...why did you say yes if you didn't want it? Just leave. Of course, then you're tail of having sex with a famous person is gone. The struggle is real.
Enigma said..."Normalized" here actually means proven-to-be-sustainable in the mating world.
I vaguely remember a sketch comedy many years ago in which an actor played Michael Jackson talking about dating: "I just go up to girls and say, 'hey girl, I wanna jump your bones.' Nine out of 10 times she slaps me in my face, but oh that 10th time!"
His behavior could’ve been wrong and disgusting, but it only rises to the level of deplaformation if he has a platform to begin with.
His mistake, going on the little information I have, was for him to attempt to cash in on the perks available to people who have already made it. That’s how good the taking is, for those who are worth having, the taking is that good, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation… or something.
Don’t act like you are somebody until you are.
Man approaches woman in bursts of spasmodic concentration. This gives him the delusion of temporary control of the archetypal mysteries that brought him forth. It gives him the courage to return. Sex is metaphysical for men, as it is not for women. Women have no problem to solve by sex. Physically and psychologically, there are serenely self-contained. They may choose to achieve, but they do not need it. They are not thrust into the beyond by their own fractious bodies. But men are out of balance. They must quest, pursue, court, or seize. Pigeons on the grass, alas: in such parkside rituals we may savor the comic pathos of sex. How often one spots a male pigeon making desperate, self-inflating sallies toward the female, as again and again she turns her back on him and nonchalantly marches away. But by concentration and insistence he may carry the day. Nature has blessed him with obliviousness to his own absurdity. His purposiveness is both a gift and a burden. In human beings, sexual concentration is the male's instrument for gathering together and forcibly fixing the dangerous chthonian superflux of emotion and energy that I identify with woman and nature. In sex, man is driven into the very abyss which he flees. He makes a voyage to nonbeing and back.
Through concentration to projection into the beyond. The male projection of erection and ejaculation is the paradigm for all cultural projection and conceptualization - from art and philosophy to fantasy, hallucination, and obsession. Women have conceptualized less in history not because men have kept them from doing so but because women do not need to conceptualize in order to exist..
- Paglia sexual personae (google books withholds page number: maybe an effect of kindle)
Vicki Hearne on the rejected male dog suitor : "It's been a minute. Maybe she's changed her mind."
He always accepts her "no," but persists. She does not call the dean's office about it.
a fluid understanding of consent
Yeah, but when the fluid backs up and reverses course from yesterday, that's when the river ride is insane. And unnatural! I don't know if consent should violate the rules of physics. That time-traveling consent. That consent that's flying around like a bird, waving at you while you're in handcuffs.
"Look, officer, the consent! It's right behind you, flying around. Turn around!"
"I don't see any consent."
"It's right fucking -- oh shit, it disappeared again."
Idk, it sounds “normal” to me, the sex pest thing. The woman who’s home he stayed in- she should have shown(showed?) him the freaking door. In a world of hook ups and app associates, why an expectation of a high bar? I read the article, but didn’t watch the video.
Totally agree on the maintenance sex requirement. Men have needs.
Maybe "fluid" means alcohol.
Yeah, yeah, he said he wanted to sleep with you. But that was alcohol consent!
All those men who run away while she's sleeping. What if tomorrow they run away while she's sleeping and head to the police station and charge her with sex-without-consent. "He doesn't love you and he wants you in prison." That's a harsh world, I think.
I also think a better term is conquest sex- I agree w/the power dynamics angle of this guy’s thought process. Conquests are real. Winner take all…
How to deal with a "sex pest": Just say "No".
Comparing it to rape (that will eventually occur because of pestering)? Jesus. Massive cringe take. That reduces the terrible crime of rape.
Poor women are HELPLESS because they can't say "no" and HAVE to give in to a man "pestering" them to have sex.
What a crock.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
Some of the women I've had relations with were fairly enthusiastic the first few times but it tapered off. Something about my technique I guess. My personal hygiene was exemplary, and I always wore clean underwear. Anyway there's an ebb and flow in sexual attractions. Passion and etiquette are uneasy bedfellows.
It was always a bad idea to make rape a talking crime.
"He said he was David Bowie and I believed him!"
"She said she was on the pill. It was a lie!"
Leftists push to have more and more behavior made illegal. Simultaneously, they want "discretion" to decide which people should be punished and which ones should run free.
Look, everyone knows its cucky to just stop after the first no. But at some point
"no" really is no.
Women need to be taught to be brutal towards men who are bothering them. If some guy is pestering you, and you really truly don't like it, tell him to fuck off. In strong language. And if he doesn't "take the hint" contact the police/authorities.
I don't see this as a man problem but more as a female problem. Stop being nice to these kinds of men. Be strong. THese kinds of pests are banking on you, being "nice" and eventually just giving him. They don't really care about your feelings. Stop caring about theirs.
The post and comments refer to a problem without a solution.
It is irrelevant whether a man is a sex pest or not, or whether a woman gives more or less enthusiastic consent, or whether men should recognize women's tender sensibilities better, or whether women should understand men's needs better.
What matters now is that any woman can say about any man, after the fact in any situation, that he was a pest or harassing or worse. A date suggests sex twice? Pest! Regrets about allowing Aziz to go down on you? Assault! Spread the word through social media. Etc.
This is far too complicated an issue to simply boil it down to a sex pest and his victims, and his subsequent apology tour.
The dude is a Social Justice Warrior filmmaker? Now can I think of any women, say of a particular type, say looking for the social advancement of their status by hanging out with this gnarly dude? Right. I have not a single doubt that the kid is a sex pest, and that women were offended by it, and that some women gave into his persistence, against their better judgment. But: Why did they?
There are too many motives circulating around this cesspit of human behavior to settle on any one of them.
Everyone knows that restraining orders are just a test of your love. . . . .
Man: "Judge, she made a youtube video about how she wants to have sex with me. It's time-stamped! On youtube. If you would just look at my phone."
Judge: "Why should I do that, young man, while she's right here in front of me, in the flesh and blood. Did you consent, young lady?"
Woman: "No."
Judge: "Case closed! And before you wail at the injustice, young man, I want you to think about where you are on the rape continuum. Did you track her enthusiasm? Did you even look for her clitoris? How many orgasms? Answer me that."
Man: "She had an orgasm, I swear!"
Judge: "Did you have an orgasm, young lady?"
Woman: "No. I had to fake it."
Judge: "Oh, the indignity. She had to fake her orgasm, sir. Our of fear! She was afraid of you and your capacity for male violence."
Strange new entries today in my Word Power file:
“Sex pest.”
“Rape continuum.”
I feel as if I have wandered into a seminar on subatomic particle physics.
Ann Althouse said...What sort of person wants to have sex with someone who doesn't freely and openly want to have sex with them? What kind of sex is that? It's on the rape continuum.
This is either a motte-and-bailey fallacy or begging the question, but in either case it's not really addressing the problem. Does "freely and openly" include all possible retroactive reconsideration? If after the fact someone decides they only consented because of pressure does that mean the act, at the time, was "on the rape continuum?"
Everyone pretty much agrees you should only have sex with someone who freely and openly wants to have sex with you--the point of contention is what "free and open" means.
If you ask the other person twice does that show they didn't give free and open consent (since you had to ask again/were turned down the first time)? If they consent and you think everything is fine but months later they say they felt pressure and now regret it should you consider yourself a sorta-rapist?
"Only have sex with people who freely and openly want to have sex with you" is a fine, workable rule. "Only have sex with people who will never change their appraisal of you and any sexual interactions you have after the fact" doesn't seem like a very useful rule for single adults (especially young people).
I'd say "save it for marriage" but I'm certain "being married" could be cast as creating some obligation or pressure that'd suffice to make any interactions less than "free and open" if someone later recasts/reconsiders a past encounter with their spouse.
The beau ideal is Warren Beatty. My guess is that most of the ten thousand or so women he hooked up with were enthusiastic partners. Women are the biggest phonies about this. They don't object to power imbalances when it comes to good looks If more men took the trouble to look like Warren Beatty, many of these sex pest issues would go away.
William @ 9:23: “… If more men took the trouble to look like Warren Beatty, many of these sex pest issues would go away.” Dammitall, man! Where were you with this world-changing advice back when I was moping at the mixer?
20th century: "No means no!"
21st century: "No flows into yes, and yes flows into no..."
What matters now is that any woman can say about any man, after the fact in any situation, that he was a pest or harassing or worse. A date suggests sex twice? Pest!
Yes, so what? Why is rude behavior acceptable because you're begging for sex?
And Please stop with the "women will accept any kind of behavior if its from a handsome alpha male". Men are no different. They'll do almost anything to hop into bed with a good-looking woman. And then ignore ugly women. That woman who weighs 400 lbs wants you to ask her for a date. Why don't you?
"I think that... and a lot of people think this stuff is normal when I don't think that it is." Said Andrew Callaghan
Rather conspicuously, and tellingly, Callaghan left out of the "sex pest" discussion...
You might think.
This story reminds me of CAT PERSON —the 2017 New Yorker story by Kristen Roupenian that went viral. A young female college student feels coerced into a sexual relationship with an older male who actually repulses her but she goes along to get along. The story struck a chord with women everywhere who cannot find their voice to say NO.
“My personal hygiene was exemplary, and I always wore clean underwear.“
Characteristic of sex pests everywhere.
in my life, the Most "enthusiastic, two-way consent", i've EVER experienced.. ONLY came after,
wearing her down with requests.
The first several times i asked her out, she said NO
No to Dating
No to a date
No to lunch.. until i swore that it was NOT a date
Then
yes to lunch
Yes to a date
YES! to Dating
and then YES!!! to much more.
As i said, it was "enthusiastic, two-way consent"..
But, it only came After i wore her down... Was it worth it? HELL YES
Consent is a tricky concept, not susceptible to catechetical formulae. Certainly all of my encounters have been prototypical instances of enthusiastic two way consent. But literature is rife with instances of mercy sex, revenge sex, transactional sex, and all of these sorts of encounter fit most people's definition of consent, despite the enthusiasm deficit.
@Martha wrote: " The story struck a chord with women everywhere who cannot find their voice to say NO."
Then the women didn't say NO at all. Instead, this should strike a chord in how they interact with other people and males especially. However, years later some dust off this and cry 'rape' or 'date rape' when the male involved had no possible awareness of any imagined/wished but unsaid "NO."
Only a couple generations ago society managed male/female relationships with separate Boys schools and Girls schools. Mothers and fathers and teachers and preachers routinely warned girls that boys were different. Fathers would interview and inspect the boys who wanted to date their daughters. Young men would ask fathers for permission to marry their daughters. So, society clearly recognized that women often struggled to voice "NO."
The old way was a double-edged sword as it locked women into a narrow range of behaviors, jobs, and social interactions. It's also unclear how effective it was, as the US also had higher rates of unplanned teenage pregnancies. Still, I'd love to compare the mental health rates of the old versus new eras. Many women today are sexually/romantically shutting down contact with males in conjunction with the constant pressures and anxieties of social media. Many of the new issues might be mitigated by bringing in or updating a set of clear and workable male-female rules. That's not gonna happen as long as the LGBTQA+ edge cases suck all the air from the room...while the big boring average middle flails about in confusion and desperation.
I have a friend in the theater world. Not the one which is called "show business" and not the one which will produce '"Sound of Music" or "South Pacific" in large venues.
It also includes professional teaching for various institutions, a pretty good example of a gig economy.
What is probably clear to the inhabitants but not to me is the constantly differing power relationships--or potential for such--as one person's travels through the complexity relate to another's. Person A is directing.... Person B is teaching and has half a dozen actors Person A could use. Next fall...Person C will be producing something Person A might use as a teaching tool.....Everybody needs a break. Nobody is immune to negativity from others.
It's not as straightforward as Hollywood, nor as predictable.
Person M, finding that Person A is on the outs--this semester--with the rest of the first half of the alphabet takes pains also to be seen as on the negative board, figuring he'll find what it's all about eventually.
From which, it could be presumed that yielding to a sex pest is a good career move just now, or perhaps if it's not, then it's money in the bank.
Are you ready for the sex-pests?
The not hot, body-shot, real sex-pests?
Are you ready for the sex-pests?
The not right, what-a-sight, wound tight pests?
They got eyes on the prize, so you better get wise
They can talk about love, know what money can buy
They are people without any ties…
Wow, are we really going to pretend lots of women don't enjoy keeping an attentive sucker on the line while they wait for Mr. Right to arrive?
Beer goggles have just as much affect on women as they do on men. Morning after regret does not make it rape or "harassment".
Wow, this thread is like a herd of hobby horses and rented mules.
Social liberalism: open relationships, friends with "benefits", casting couches, grooming sessions... deny your dignity, your agency, lean into your negotiable commodity.
I blame the soy based panties the gals are wearing these days.
The reluctant female being touch/kissed into a fever is an old Hollywood trope and a contributor to jazzed-up males believing 'they want it; they just don't know it yet.' Sure, nothing ventured, nothing gained - but - a good hard slap will usually break up the daydream.
HoodlumDoodlum, +1
There used to be another word for being a sex-pest.
Courtship.
Granted, it was a slow-motion kinda thing that would likely have been far less annoying for women, and it was also socially constructed with at least a few boundaries, especially the one that said the default answer for women was NO which gave men a reason to move on after a few tries. It was a recognition that if women were the gatekeepers of sexual activity, then men were the gatekeepers of commitment. It's not really a matter of agency but more of reciprocity. All of the 'enthusiastic consent' language is intended to make up for the fact that birth control (in various forms) has largely short-circuited this reciprocal bargain. While this has certainly been a situation exploited by the outliers in the upper tiers of both male and female desirability (who would have been able to circumvent any set of sex and courtship rituals), it has left the vast majority of people in the middle with a muddled set of conventions that make very few people satisfied.
The trailer was fun, but I only watched a few seconds of his whingebragging soyboy apology.
I don't wear women down with my persistence, I wear them out.
“ Althouse, my general response to your lifelong attempts to improve men is: “Go fuck yourself.”
Dude, honestly—quit hitting on my girl.
I remember that poster from the 1970s. It was at Spencer's Gifts. A guy and girl in the back of a convertible. Guy is being shall we say "forward". First panel, she says "Please". Second panel, she says "Don't". Third panel, she says "Stop". Fourth panel, in tight embrace, she says "Please don't stop". It was the Boomer joke of the decade.
And there would be few '80s comedies without the hapless "sex pest". Take Mathew Modine in 'Private School' whose girlfriend Phoebe Cates gives into her passion in the end. Or in 'Gross Anatomy' which is even more on point where working class med school student pursues driven fellow student 'Daphne Zuniga. She resists not wanting to derail her medical career by falling in love. See, in 1989, women who fell for men put their futures at risk. I remember because, once she does "consent" the camera zooms into her face as she rolls over and curses herself.
The culture might need to change, but that means canceling 99.9% of Hollywood, television and even novels. And women need to learn they will be asked once and only once. Playing hard to get will mean not being got. Except for the Andrew Tates who will not abide by these rules but will get the women
Meade @ 12.10pm
Very funny. You won't have to pester Ann tonight. A light touch will do.
Now explain the popularity of Bodice-rippers... Harlequin Romance has made a fortune for decades off of peddling soft core coerced sex.
And of course we all know that no woman would ever have sex for any reason other than desire...amiright?
He's a 25 year old heterosexual male.
Everything he does is directly or indirectly related to getting laid.
Everything. Including this.
The very first word a certain woman said to me was "No".The following sentence was "Whatever it is you want, you can't have it."
We recently had our 37th anniversary.
If a person repeatedly asks their spouse to take out the trash is that on the slavery continuum?
“Sex without enthusiastic, two-way consent should be not worth having.“
I suspect that if that dictum were universally adopted the population of the world would be a lot smaller. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
It's all very simple, really. All these contretemps are due to the feminist-led destruction of monogamous marriage and the controls that it placed on men's bodies. Feminists didn't heed the warning that liberating women's bodies would also liberate men's. Now women want to put those previous controls on men without putting them on women.
And it's not going very well.
As a male, you can't really win. If you persistently approach women, you are a pest. If you don't, and wait for them to approach you, then you're not "assertive" or "manly" enough, and it's your damn fault for being flawed.
The idea that women are generally sending mixed and very confusing signals in the social scene never occurs to most of them. The first thing they do, whether it's too much attention or not enough, is to blame the males on the scene.
Women say they want one thing, then demonstrate that they actually want another thing entirely by the behavior they demonstrate. Not least in the males they choose to reward with their company and sexual access.
Ask a woman what she wants from a man, and then keep an eye on her to note what she actually responds to in real life. I can almost guarantee that if you take her word for what she wants, you're going to suffer significant cognitive dissonance trying to square the circle for her actual choices out in the real world. That's just the way it is, and good luck trying to game out what the hell they really want.
And, at one and the same time, also note how detailed that "list of wants/desires" is, when talking about the sort of men they want to interact with. Right down to physical appearances so thoroughly laid out that the odds of finding the "perfect man" possessing all of them is literally a one-in-a-million prospect.
Of course, in the event? She'll probably be charmed by some other set of attributes in the event, ones that weren't even mentioned. Try to talk to her about it, after the fact; you'll likely wind up going quite mad, attempting to square the circle of her desires.
Just remember one thing: It's all a man's fault, somehow.
Strange new entries today in my Word Power file:
“Sex pest.”
“Rape continuum.”
Add to that list chthonian. Had to look it up. As chthardin pointed out, it was Paglia's answer to why the chicken crossed the road. The poor little fella was focused on the task at hand to understand the immutable power of the feminine. "Hens are not capable of doing this-their minds do not work that way."
- Krumhorn
"sex without enthusiastic, two-way consent should not be worth having."
OK, what about threesomes?
Salesman informed me "no is just an evasion" and that average person will say no seven times before they give in.
He’s a Rapest.
Sometimes, for fun, or if I am in an impatient mood,I scroll down all of the comments and HUSR read the first line. The first line is the one that invites you to read more, so there's that.
His channel All Gas No Brakes is an incredible feat of absurdist gonzo journalism.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा