MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way, Thanks Feminism

a reply to: Xenogears

And some men are pricks as well but carry on whining about women if it makes you feel better lol

a reply to: Xenogears

www.bing.com...

It's about consensual sex turning violent and redefining if it's okay if the man can do whatever he wants during the act without asking permission, such as removing a condom.

Saying 'no' is 'no' no matter when - including during. This is the main point which should not get buried under this extremist act.

Matress girl got caught in a ton of lies. You know that!
As for you. You demand that you are always on top.
We get it!a reply to: InTheLight

originally posted by: bulwarkz
Matress girl got caught in a ton of lies. You know that!
As for you. You demand that you are always on top.
We get it!a reply to: InTheLight

You don't get it, that's why there are mattress girls out there.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Xenogears

And some men are pricks as well but carry on whining about women if it makes you feel better lol

Name me one group of men embedded in the mainstream media that will propagate lies and defamation about someone and won't correct course after the truth reveals them lying.

These are the kinds of things that can blacklist someone and stop them from getting any type of employment anywhere.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Xenogears

www.bing.com...

It's about consensual sex turning violent and redefining if it's okay if the man can do whatever he wants during the act without asking permission, such as removing a condom.

Saying 'no' is 'no' no matter when - including during. This is the main point which should not get buried under this extremist act.

A woman pricks the condom, which is almost equivalent to removing, and there is no issue. A woman takes the used condom and uses it to impregnate against the man's will, and there is no issue. Either case the man must pay child support and nothing illegal happened.

You see it is legal for the woman to effectively remove the condom against the man's will but if the man does anything similar it is illegal.

EDIT:

If that art piece is not a video of the actual FALSE ALLEGED RAPE, it matters not what she acted out in that video.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Xenogears

www.bing.com...

It's about consensual sex turning violent and redefining if it's okay if the man can do whatever he wants during the act without asking permission, such as removing a condom.

Saying 'no' is 'no' no matter when - including during. This is the main point which should not get buried under this extremist act.

A woman pricks the condom, which is almost equivalent to removing, and there is no issue. A woman takes the used condom and uses it to impregnate against the man's will, and there is no issue. Either case the man must pay child support and nothing illegal happened.

You see it is legal for the woman to effectively remove the condom against the man's will but if the man does anything similar it is illegal.

No still means No.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: bulwarkz
Matress girl got caught in a ton of lies. You know that!
As for you. You demand that you are always on top.
We get it!a reply to: InTheLight

You don't get it, that's why there are mattress girls out there.

Way far outside of mgtow, I have a discerning spirit.
I recognize you o daughter of jezebel

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Xenogears

www.bing.com...

It's about consensual sex turning violent and redefining if it's okay if the man can do whatever he wants during the act without asking permission, such as removing a condom.

Saying 'no' is 'no' no matter when - including during. This is the main point which should not get buried under this extremist act.

A woman pricks the condom, which is almost equivalent to removing, and there is no issue. A woman takes the used condom and uses it to impregnate against the man's will, and there is no issue. Either case the man must pay child support and nothing illegal happened.

You see it is legal for the woman to effectively remove the condom against the man's will but if the man does anything similar it is illegal.

No still means No.

But if the man says no it means yes if the woman wants to UNDER THE LAW.

And again you film an art piece simulating rape, after a false allegation, it doesn't make the false allegation right.

She was in love, and having consensual sex, having obsessive thoughts about the man, and one year after the relationship ends, because he didn't correspond her feelings, she becomes spiteful makes stuff up and some say has her friends make stuff up, and then the mainstream media goes on a blitz.

All evidence and communication shows, before, after, confirm the man innocent.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Xenogears

www.bing.com...

It's about consensual sex turning violent and redefining if it's okay if the man can do whatever he wants during the act without asking permission, such as removing a condom.

Saying 'no' is 'no' no matter when - including during. This is the main point which should not get buried under this extremist act.

A woman pricks the condom, which is almost equivalent to removing, and there is no issue. A woman takes the used condom and uses it to impregnate against the man's will, and there is no issue. Either case the man must pay child support and nothing illegal happened.

You see it is legal for the woman to effectively remove the condom against the man's will but if the man does anything similar it is illegal.

No still means No.

But if the man says no it means yes if the woman wants to UNDER THE LAW.

And again you film an art piece simulating rape, after a false allegation, it doesn't make the false allegation right.

She was in love, and having consensual sex, having obsessive thoughts about the man, and one year after the relationship ends, because he didn't correspond her feelings, she becomes spiteful makes stuff up and some say has her friends make stuff up, and then the mainstream media goes on a blitz.

All evidence and communication shows, before, after, confirm the man innocent.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone else was there in the room with them, so we don't know squat.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Xenogears

www.bing.com...

It's about consensual sex turning violent and redefining if it's okay if the man can do whatever he wants during the act without asking permission, such as removing a condom.

Saying 'no' is 'no' no matter when - including during. This is the main point which should not get buried under this extremist act.

A woman pricks the condom, which is almost equivalent to removing, and there is no issue. A woman takes the used condom and uses it to impregnate against the man's will, and there is no issue. Either case the man must pay child support and nothing illegal happened.

You see it is legal for the woman to effectively remove the condom against the man's will but if the man does anything similar it is illegal.

No still means No.

But if the man says no it means yes if the woman wants to UNDER THE LAW.

And again you film an art piece simulating rape, after a false allegation, it doesn't make the false allegation right.

She was in love, and having consensual sex, having obsessive thoughts about the man, and one year after the relationship ends, because he didn't correspond her feelings, she becomes spiteful makes stuff up and some say has her friends make stuff up, and then the mainstream media goes on a blitz.

All evidence and communication shows, before, after, confirm the man innocent.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone else was there in the room with them, so we don't know squat.

We know based on facts that she lied though

originally posted by: bulwarkz

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Xenogears

www.bing.com...

It's about consensual sex turning violent and redefining if it's okay if the man can do whatever he wants during the act without asking permission, such as removing a condom.

Saying 'no' is 'no' no matter when - including during. This is the main point which should not get buried under this extremist act.

A woman pricks the condom, which is almost equivalent to removing, and there is no issue. A woman takes the used condom and uses it to impregnate against the man's will, and there is no issue. Either case the man must pay child support and nothing illegal happened.

You see it is legal for the woman to effectively remove the condom against the man's will but if the man does anything similar it is illegal.

No still means No.

But if the man says no it means yes if the woman wants to UNDER THE LAW.

And again you film an art piece simulating rape, after a false allegation, it doesn't make the false allegation right.

She was in love, and having consensual sex, having obsessive thoughts about the man, and one year after the relationship ends, because he didn't correspond her feelings, she becomes spiteful makes stuff up and some say has her friends make stuff up, and then the mainstream media goes on a blitz.

All evidence and communication shows, before, after, confirm the man innocent.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone else was there in the room with them, so we don't know squat.

We know based on facts that she lied though

She said she said 'yes' to sex but 'no' to violence and him removing his condom. This is a sticky wicket situation for women who have to deal with this type of sexual situation and some women consider it rape while others blame themselves for putting themselves in that situation.

The point is she picked him, and you guys picked the women you are whining about. So my advice would be to make better choices moving forward for her and all of you.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: bulwarkz

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Xenogears

www.bing.com...

It's about consensual sex turning violent and redefining if it's okay if the man can do whatever he wants during the act without asking permission, such as removing a condom.

Saying 'no' is 'no' no matter when - including during. This is the main point which should not get buried under this extremist act.

A woman pricks the condom, which is almost equivalent to removing, and there is no issue. A woman takes the used condom and uses it to impregnate against the man's will, and there is no issue. Either case the man must pay child support and nothing illegal happened.

You see it is legal for the woman to effectively remove the condom against the man's will but if the man does anything similar it is illegal.

No still means No.

But if the man says no it means yes if the woman wants to UNDER THE LAW.

And again you film an art piece simulating rape, after a false allegation, it doesn't make the false allegation right.

She was in love, and having consensual sex, having obsessive thoughts about the man, and one year after the relationship ends, because he didn't correspond her feelings, she becomes spiteful makes stuff up and some say has her friends make stuff up, and then the mainstream media goes on a blitz.

All evidence and communication shows, before, after, confirm the man innocent.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone else was there in the room with them, so we don't know squat.

We know based on facts that she lied though

She said she said 'yes' to sex but 'no' to violence and him removing his condom. This is a sticky wicket situation for women who have to deal with this type of sexual situation and some women consider it rape while others blame themselves for putting themselves in that situation.

The point is she picked him, and you guys picked the women you are whining about. So my advice would be to make better choices moving forward for her and all of you.

Who is whining?
You guys say that as some catch all. The truth is you read that somewhere and believe it enough to claim it irregardless of the facts.
You are projecting.
In your every post you are whining about men and it is you that chose this forum to whine your transference hoping for cheerleaders to say the same exact thing, but in transference.

a reply to: bulwarkz

"whining" is a catch all used by intellectually lazy people with a dismissive attitude or when they think they are above the poster

usually has nothing to do with objective analysis or effective exchange of ideas

originally posted by: bulwarkz

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: bulwarkz

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Xenogears

www.bing.com...

It's about consensual sex turning violent and redefining if it's okay if the man can do whatever he wants during the act without asking permission, such as removing a condom.

Saying 'no' is 'no' no matter when - including during. This is the main point which should not get buried under this extremist act.

A woman pricks the condom, which is almost equivalent to removing, and there is no issue. A woman takes the used condom and uses it to impregnate against the man's will, and there is no issue. Either case the man must pay child support and nothing illegal happened.

You see it is legal for the woman to effectively remove the condom against the man's will but if the man does anything similar it is illegal.

No still means No.

But if the man says no it means yes if the woman wants to UNDER THE LAW.

And again you film an art piece simulating rape, after a false allegation, it doesn't make the false allegation right.

She was in love, and having consensual sex, having obsessive thoughts about the man, and one year after the relationship ends, because he didn't correspond her feelings, she becomes spiteful makes stuff up and some say has her friends make stuff up, and then the mainstream media goes on a blitz.

All evidence and communication shows, before, after, confirm the man innocent.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone else was there in the room with them, so we don't know squat.

We know based on facts that she lied though

She said she said 'yes' to sex but 'no' to violence and him removing his condom. This is a sticky wicket situation for women who have to deal with this type of sexual situation and some women consider it rape while others blame themselves for putting themselves in that situation.

The point is she picked him, and you guys picked the women you are whining about. So my advice would be to make better choices moving forward for her and all of you.

Who is whining?
You guys say that as some catch all. The truth is you read that somewhere and believe it enough to claim it irregardless of the facts.
You are projecting.
In your every post you are whining about men and it is you that chose this forum to whine your transference hoping for cheerleaders to say the same exact thing, but in transference.

I'm not the one who started this thread to whine about the women I chose in my life. I made wise choices, so I don't have to whine about men. I do however see the need to educate many here on injustice and inequalities within our society. Whether you want to grow and move forward and deny ignorance or do what you are doing now, that being blaming women for your bad choices and playing the victim role, I will continue to try to 'project' the light.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Xenogears

And some men are pricks as well but carry on whining about women if it makes you feel better lol

Name me one group of men embedded in the mainstream media that will propagate lies and defamation about someone and won't correct course after the truth reveals them lying.

These are the kinds of things that can blacklist someone and stop them from getting any type of employment anywhere.

I don't really follow men issues movements so I can't. I only learned about MGTOW from this thread...but whiny blokes seems to be what it's about to me.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: bulwarkz

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: bulwarkz

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Xenogears

www.bing.com...

It's about consensual sex turning violent and redefining if it's okay if the man can do whatever he wants during the act without asking permission, such as removing a condom.

Saying 'no' is 'no' no matter when - including during. This is the main point which should not get buried under this extremist act.

A woman pricks the condom, which is almost equivalent to removing, and there is no issue. A woman takes the used condom and uses it to impregnate against the man's will, and there is no issue. Either case the man must pay child support and nothing illegal happened.

You see it is legal for the woman to effectively remove the condom against the man's will but if the man does anything similar it is illegal.

No still means No.

But if the man says no it means yes if the woman wants to UNDER THE LAW.

And again you film an art piece simulating rape, after a false allegation, it doesn't make the false allegation right.

She was in love, and having consensual sex, having obsessive thoughts about the man, and one year after the relationship ends, because he didn't correspond her feelings, she becomes spiteful makes stuff up and some say has her friends make stuff up, and then the mainstream media goes on a blitz.

All evidence and communication shows, before, after, confirm the man innocent.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone else was there in the room with them, so we don't know squat.

We know based on facts that she lied though

She said she said 'yes' to sex but 'no' to violence and him removing his condom. This is a sticky wicket situation for women who have to deal with this type of sexual situation and some women consider it rape while others blame themselves for putting themselves in that situation.

The point is she picked him, and you guys picked the women you are whining about. So my advice would be to make better choices moving forward for her and all of you.

Who is whining?
You guys say that as some catch all. The truth is you read that somewhere and believe it enough to claim it irregardless of the facts.
You are projecting.
In your every post you are whining about men and it is you that chose this forum to whine your transference hoping for cheerleaders to say the same exact thing, but in transference.

I'm not the one who started this thread to whine about the women I chose in my life. I made wise choices, so I don't have to whine about men. I do however see the need to educate many here on injustice and inequalities within our society. Whether you want to grow and move forward and deny ignorance or do what you are doing now, that being blaming women for your bad choices and playing the victim role, I will continue to try to 'project' the light.

Agreed, it is just whining about women in this thread, bit of chest thumping 'I'm a real man' bull#, and silly labels for men who do not whine about women.
It's lame as #, but amusing though.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: bulwarkz

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Xenogears

www.bing.com...

It's about consensual sex turning violent and redefining if it's okay if the man can do whatever he wants during the act without asking permission, such as removing a condom.

Saying 'no' is 'no' no matter when - including during. This is the main point which should not get buried under this extremist act.

A woman pricks the condom, which is almost equivalent to removing, and there is no issue. A woman takes the used condom and uses it to impregnate against the man's will, and there is no issue. Either case the man must pay child support and nothing illegal happened.

You see it is legal for the woman to effectively remove the condom against the man's will but if the man does anything similar it is illegal.

No still means No.

But if the man says no it means yes if the woman wants to UNDER THE LAW.

And again you film an art piece simulating rape, after a false allegation, it doesn't make the false allegation right.

She was in love, and having consensual sex, having obsessive thoughts about the man, and one year after the relationship ends, because he didn't correspond her feelings, she becomes spiteful makes stuff up and some say has her friends make stuff up, and then the mainstream media goes on a blitz.

All evidence and communication shows, before, after, confirm the man innocent.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone else was there in the room with them, so we don't know squat.

We know based on facts that she lied though

She said she said 'yes' to sex but 'no' to violence and him removing his condom. This is a sticky wicket situation for women who have to deal with this type of sexual situation and some women consider it rape while others blame themselves for putting themselves in that situation.

The point is she picked him, and you guys picked the women you are whining about. So my advice would be to make better choices moving forward for her and all of you.

A claim made after a year of strongly seeking the guy, and sending him constant affectionate messages. Once her desire for commitment was spurned by the guy, she made the claim since he didn't reciprocate her feelings, out of spite.

You assume a claim made after a year is true, from someone that was constantly pleased and accepting of everything going in the relation and 'obsessively' wanting more from the other party.

When it all points to spiteful made up lies.

a reply to: Xenogears

So what?
One woman doesn't represent the entire gender.
But carry on whining about women though, it makes me chuckle.
Who are these women you MGTOW guys are attracting? I don't know any like you describe, never have. I love all the women in my life.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Xenogears

And some men are pricks as well but carry on whining about women if it makes you feel better lol

Name me one group of men embedded in the mainstream media that will propagate lies and defamation about someone and won't correct course after the truth reveals them lying.

These are the kinds of things that can blacklist someone and stop them from getting any type of employment anywhere.

I don't really follow men issues movements so I can't. I only learned about MGTOW from this thread...but whiny blokes seems to be what it's about to me.

The guy in the mattress girl case was harassed constantly and may even have been blacklisted in many industries.

There is reality, the laws are unjust, and pointing out injustice, is just pointing out injustice and advocating for caution when dealing with unjust situation.

You want people to blindly go to the gutter, and call those warning them, not to, whiners.

A person that took a "wise" decision, or is in a polyamory relation, may get off scot-free, or they could be years or decades away from being badly burnt.