It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So women who are feminists are somehow made that way because of playboy...
and therefore will only have sex with badboys when they really should be putting out for the "nice guys" because they already paid them in advance by being "nice" and being nice should be considered valid currency?
apparently we're all sluts and whores now.
Many feminists do NOT like porn as as a lot of it degrades women. Tieing it's existence to feminism is ridiculous as porn has always existed.
Originally posted by Edrick
PORN is not FOR women, OR the Feminist Movement.... it was Designed and Created by the Same people, for the Same PURPOSE as the Feminist Movement... but for a Different Audience. (Men)
PORN = Attack against men's Loyalty to Women.
FEMINISM = Attack against Women's loyalty to Men.
You see now?
The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy.
Yeah, that sounds A LOT more likely than women choosing not to be with socially inept men with chips on their shoulders, holding contempt for a society they've failed to integrate into. Lacking confidence, social etiquette, and generally being boring has nothing to do with it in the slightest.
No.... Playboy, and their like, are for the MEN, not the women.
Anyway, Edrick, my intention was not to offend you or anyone else who may feel they’ve been offended by my posts. Having said that, the “nice guys” are far from innocent in all this, and often don’t realize (don’t know if it’s intentional or not), that their self-importance and lashing out at members of society they don’t even know can be offensive, too.
Men are like that you know.. women are always getting offers from pretty much every damn guy they see. A woman certainly does not need to be perfect to be LOVED, and much less to even just get sex. A woman can look less than average, and still get something. She can have countless flaws, men will bow down to her.
However I have observed that a lot of “nice guys” seem to have a superiority-complex about them, a rotten attitude of being more intelligent, more just, and more deserving than members of the general public who they deem to be idiotic brutes lacking humanity or sheeple susceptible to the evil exploits of the mass media.
Of course, the “nice guys” are above all that, but apparently are not beyond unequivocally bashing women and men different from them. If that’s not attacking those they consider inferior to them, I don’t know what is.
Having said that, the “nice guys” are far from innocent in all this
Not Quite Edrick,
I disagree with you here..
No.... Playboy, and their like, are for the MEN, not the women.
Im going to post a definition of Pornography and it comes from Warren Farrell's definition.
Once you look at the world around you and its basic nature..where the illusion is more powerful and meaningful than the reality and that the RISK/RISKS in producing it can be shunted off to others by social defaults...you now indeed have pornography.
When you read these romance novels and look at much of the genre of women's magazines..steeped in fantasy ...you realize it is obscene and pornographic. Some catalogue this as soft porn..but I can assure you it is quite racy.
One look at Maxim magazine and I realized it was a male version of Cosmopolitan.
This is why it is so important to raise children in the public school system..away from the influences of both parents who might well grounded and substitute such obscenity based on consumerism.
Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
Now this is NOT even exaggerrating. It's not even 'complaining'.
It's just the damn truth. So for a woman to look down on us just because we might want, no NEED a little something, even if it's just non-sexual love, and say to us that we are being selfish? It's the least thing we can have if we are doing everything for them. They call us selfish? Women are getting free rides everyday.
We have already established that it is indeed whining.
You are being selfish if you are demanding women who do not even know you be obligated to give you love or sex just because you claim to NEED it.
Now you have the audacity to claim victim because women "look down on you" because they won't put out?
You call that loving?
Women also have a "thing" about being respected and it is painfully obvious going by your posts that you do not respect women at all so why would they want anything to do with you?
We are not responsible for your lack of coitus. You are.
You expect random women to gratify you sexually and emotionally yet you speak as though you shouldn't have to give anything in return as though they just OWE you cuz you're horny? How many pages ago did we say "go see a prostitute"?
MONEY would at least be something.. and at least if you went to a prostitute you would be being honest with her and with yourself. Right now you talk as though women are all prostitutes that should accept pity as currency so why not go all the way and just pay real money?
..and the (paraphrased) "even fat chicks can get some" comment was just disgusting.
That is NOT being a nice guy so your whole argument doesn't even apply to you.
My post was NOT directed at you... and just as I asked you not to call he "honey" earlier (which you ignored and did again) don't call me "woman" either. Your post is disgusting.. no-where have I claimed the world owes me anything just because for having a vagina but I will not tolerate women being told that they owe random self proclaimed "nice guys" pity sex. You are dragging ats through the gutter with your opinions on women.
I asked you not to call he "honey" earlier (which you ignored and did again) don't call me "woman" either.
I was referring to Skin Magazines, and you know it.
You really seem to be hung up on this whole "Nice guys deserve what they get because they don't take Risks" schpeel...
I too am not impressed with nice guys nor bad boys. It is highly overrated..both of them. I am not here to be either.
seriously.. if Nice guys didn't take RISKS, they would be like every other Bad Boy Loser out there... as the Television wants them to be.
There is no RISK in emulating the Social behaviors that the mass media shoves down our throats, There is no RISK in Western society for being a User and Abuser, a Narcasistic Self centered Jack[snip]...
The *RISK* lies in being Civil, in being Humble, in being... *GASP* YOURSELF!
yeah, I get you here... But as you well know, that is not what I was referring to.
Other than that, I have no disagreement.
Please tell me you were being sarcastic.
but I will not tolerate women being told that they owe random self proclaimed "nice guys" pity sex
Yes I was being sarcastic...
LOL LOL LOL Edrick. LOL LOL LOL..pardon me for levity at your expense but anyone versed in the genre knows that Cosmopolitan is a skin magazine.