Young South Korean Men Revolt Against Feminism in South Korea

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
1,976
642
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
There's a reason I said "sexual predation", and not rape. Sexual abuse of various kinds, including manipulation and other abusive behaviour, is studied and measured. You widen the definition, and men still make up the overwhelming majority of cases.
Do they measure things like when someone is going on a date with someone in whom they have no interest just to get a free meal out of em? 
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,459
3,074
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's an example. Hence the bits about NISVS, Mary Koss and how we talk about teachers preying on students depending on gender later. If you define and systematize things in a way meant to exclude certain results or certain perceptions of results, it is unsurprising that you don't find those results.
This is a valid argument as far as it goes. But the preponderance of current evidence in one direction is overwhelming. The overlooked data would have to be monumentally enormous to overcome that.

Besides which, even organisations which do make strenuous efforts to include female-on-male abuse and otherwise overlooked forms of abuse still find male-perpetrated abuse far, far more common.

Do they measure things like when someone is going on a date with someone in whom they have no interest just to get a free meal out of em?
Not really worth replying to, for obvious reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thaluikhain

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,368
991
118
Country
United Kingdom
This is turning out to be more fun than the actual topic, so down the rabbit hole we go.

Context matters. You entirely decontextualized the killing and has adventures as if they existed in a vacuum.
Yeah, I did.

I did that on purpose though, because I don't think it matters all that much. James Bond is fictional, and a fiction writer has complete control over the context.

Being told that a character had to kill people to save his family might change the emotion you feel, but at the end of the day a writer created that family, a writer chose to put that family in danger and create a situation in which the character in question had to kill to save them, and they did it for you (the audience) because they thought you would find that story entertaining. The family is just a convenience put into this story to create a situation where this character is "allowed" to kill.

The fact that James Bond only kills people to save the world isn't really significant to the argument I was making. The world never had to be in danger at all, the writer chose to put the world in danger to create a situation where James Bond would have to kill people to save it because that's what you wanted to see. You didn't want to see James Bond save the world by giving an impassioned speech to the UN about the impact of climate change. You wanted to see him kill and fuck, and to have it be okay because it's saving the world.

Like, there's a bunch of stuff in any story that you're not really meant to think too hard about, because it gets in the way of the fantasy. You're not meant to think about whether the people James Bond kills have their own lives, or whether they have their own hopes and dreams or whether they have people who love them or depend on them. You're not meant to think too hard about whether any of the women James Bond has sex with have any of their own desires or expectations of this relationship, or when the topic of contraception comes up in these encounters, or whether the implied massive age gap is going to pose any kind of problem. Parodies like Austin Powers and the early seasons of Archer built recurring jokes out of simply pointing out the aspects of James Bond that you're not supposed to think about.

It's what makes him even better, he's not only the best field agent but he's also irresistibly charming. Who wouldn't want to be charming and attractive?
So this is a fun aside... What features of this character would you say are charming?

He tends to be played by moderately good looking actors, but so are most people in these films. The film industry is full of good looking men.

But the character himself, as someone who doesn't like these films, is comical. To me, it's like that one guy you played D&D with who had absolutely no social skills but rolled a bard with really high charisma and persuasion and proceeded to try and seduce every female NPC by rolling dice.

But I find that really interesting, because you're absolutely correct. We're meant to believe that this guy is incredibly charming, that he has some special skill or ability. This is often emphasized in the narrative by having the women he meets seem initially indifferent or hostile. What's being said here is that the ability to have sex with women is a technique. James Bond is just so good at being charming that he inevitably wins all the women he meets over into having sex with him despite a complete lack of emotional intimacy. It's the logic of pick-up artistry, which is worrying because pick up artistry is far less about being "charming" as it is about being psychologically manipulative.

In reality, of course, women are people whose sexual attraction is based largely on their own preferences. You can't just make every woman you meet want to have sex with you. It doesn't matter how charming you think you are, it matters what that person wants and is looking for. For some reason, our culture seems to have a particular problem wrapping its collective head around the idea that women consenting or not consenting to sex is not an achievement or failure on the part of men, it's a choice women make for themselves.

If you don't think a masculine fantasy and propaganda for authoritarian policing are two different things you need to get your head out of the gutter.
They're not the same thing, which is why I used two different terms to describe them. There is considerable overlap between them, however, and I think you could make a compelling historical argument that they have a shared point of origin.

And i am not necessarily saying that every message sent out by James Bond movies is good, one can indeed have complaints about how it idealizes the MI6 and what it does. But that doesn't change the fact people don't idealize James Bond just because "he kills and has sex" and that you cannot leave out the most obvious virtue James Bond has; that he fights for good and saves the world.
Of course I can, because I don't think it's relevant. You said it yourself, MI6 in Bond films is not the real MI6. The fact that James Bond fights for good and saves the world is a contrivance put there by the writer, if not a deliberate form of propaganda. It relies on us not thinking about a bunch of stuff that we absolutely would have to think about if James Bond was a real person. The context in which James Bond is allowed to kill and fuck his way around the world while still being a cool awesome good guy is artificial, it was created specifically to allow that to happen.

I'm hesitant to make this comparison because I know people are going to read too much into it, but if we look at a rape revenge film like I Spit On Your Grave, you could come away with the conclusion that it was an anti-rape film. However, we all kind of know that's not true. We know that this film exists because people (men specifically) wanted to see a woman being raped. That's why the film spends so long graphically showing the rape. The revenge part, the murder of all the rapists, is a convenience so that the men watching the film don't have to feel bad about enjoying watching a woman being raped. It provides a moral context in which it is okay to watch that, because we're acknowledging on some level that rape is bad (even if we want to watch it).

And I think you're reading all this as a criticism (and okay, in the case of rape revenge films it absolutely is, that shit's fucking creepy) but ultimately, films have no responsibility to cater to our highest and most worthy impulses. Films can be a way of dealing with stuff that we don't want to admit or acknowledge that we feel. My personal favourite films are all horror films, films that are specifically based on triggering an empathetic reaction to situations that would be horrible if they actually happened. As someone who has lived a life that is in some ways traumatic and horrifying in its own way, film can be a way of dealing with difficult emotions through the medium of fantasy.

The fact that James Bond is a masculine power fantasy, the fact that he reflects views that men sometimes have about violence, sex and relationships that are kind of dodgy if you really think about how they apply to reality is not in and of itself a criticism of the films, if anything it's a reflection of the psychology and fantasies of the audience and the culture that produces them. Even as someone who doesn't like Bond films, I find them weirdly fascinating for exactly that reason. I think they're deeply insightful, and they are providing an outlet for something that a lot of people actually feel on some level. That is why I bring them up, and it's also why I deliberately chose to ignore the elements that make that fantasy feel comfortable and safe, because at the end of the day none of that changes what it fundamentally is. None of it changes what is actually being shown on the screen.
 
Last edited:

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,363
1,670
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
This is turning out to be more fun than the actual topic, so down the rabbit hole we go.



Yeah, I did.

I did that on purpose though, because I don't think it matters all that much. James Bond is fictional, and a fiction writer has complete control over the context.

Being told that a character had to kill people to save his family might change the emotion you feel, but at the end of the day a writer created that family, a writer chose to put that family in danger and create a situation in which the character in question had to kill to save them, and they did it for you (the audience) because they thought you would find that story entertaining. The family is just a convenience put into this story to create a situation where this character is "allowed" to kill.

The fact that James Bond only kills people to save the world isn't really significant to the argument I was making. The world never had to be in danger at all, the writer chose to put the world in danger to create a situation where James Bond would have to kill people to save it because that's what you wanted to see. You didn't want to see James Bond save the world by giving an impassioned speech to the UN about the impact of climate change. You wanted to see him kill and fuck, and to have it be okay because it's saving the world.

Like, there's a bunch of stuff in any story that you're not really meant to think too hard about, because it gets in the way of the fantasy. You're not meant to think about whether the people James Bond kills have their own lives, or whether they have their own hopes and dreams or whether they have people who love them or depend on them. You're not meant to think too hard about whether any of the women James Bond has sex with have any of their own desires or expectations of this relationship, or when the topic of contraception comes up in these encounters, or whether the implied massive age gap is going to pose any kind of problem. Parodies like Austin Powers and the early seasons of Archer built recurring jokes out of simply pointing out the aspects of James Bond that you're not supposed to think about.



So this is a fun aside... What features of this character would you say are charming?

He tends to be played by moderately good looking actors, but so are most people in these films. The film industry is full of good looking men.

But the character himself, as someone who doesn't like these films, is comical. To me, it's like that one guy you played D&D with who had absolutely no social skills but rolled a bard with really high charisma and persuasion and proceeded to try and seduce every female NPC by rolling dice.

But I find that really interesting, because you're absolutely correct. We're meant to believe that this guy is incredibly charming, that he has some special skill or ability. This is often emphasized in the narrative by having the women he meets seem initially indifferent or hostile. What's being said here is that the ability to have sex with women is a technique. James Bond is just so good at being charming that he inevitably wins all the women he meets over into having sex with him despite a complete lack of emotional intimacy. It's the logic of pick-up artistry, which is worrying because pick up artistry is far less about being "charming" as it is about being psychologically manipulative.

In reality, of course, women are people whose sexual attraction is based largely on their own preferences. You can't just make every woman you meet want to have sex with you. It doesn't matter how charming you think you are, it matters what that person wants and is looking for. For some reason, our culture seems to have a particular problem wrapping its collective head around the idea that women consenting or not consenting to sex is not an achievement or failure on the part of men, it's a choice women make for themselves.



They're not the same thing, which is why I used two different terms to describe them. There is considerable overlap between them, however, and I think you could make a compelling historical argument that they have a shared point of origin.



Of course I can, because I don't think it's relevant. You said it yourself, MI6 in Bond films is not the real MI6. The fact that James Bond fights for good and saves the world is a contrivance put there by the writer, if not a deliberate form of propaganda. It relies on us not thinking about a bunch of stuff that we absolutely would have to think about if James Bond was a real person. The context in which James Bond is allowed to kill and fuck his way around the world while still being a cool awesome good guy is artificial, it was created specifically to allow that to happen.

I'm hesitant to make this comparison because I know people are going to read too much into it, but if we look at a rape revenge film like I Spit On Your Grave, you could come away with the conclusion that it was an anti-rape film. However, we all kind of know that's not true. We know that this film exists because people (men specifically) wanted to see a woman being raped. That's why the film spends so long graphically showing the rape. The revenge part, the murder of all the rapists, is a convenience so that the men watching the film don't have to feel bad about enjoying watching a woman being raped. It provides a moral context in which it is okay to watch that, because we're acknowledging on some level that rape is bad (even if we want to watch it).

And I think you're reading all this as a criticism (and okay, in the case of rape revenge films it absolutely is, that shit's fucking creepy) but ultimately, films have no responsibility to cater to our highest and most worthy impulses. Films can be a way of dealing with stuff that we don't want to admit or acknowledge that we feel. My personal favourite films are all horror films, films that are specifically based on triggering an empathetic reaction to situations that would be horrible if they actually happened. As someone who has lived a life that is in some ways traumatic and horrifying in its own way, film can be a way of dealing with difficult emotions through the medium of fantasy.

The fact that James Bond is a masculine power fantasy, the fact that he reflects views that men sometimes have about violence, sex and relationships that are kind of dodgy if you really think about how they apply to reality is not in and of itself a criticism of the films, if anything it's a reflection of the psychology and fantasies of the audience and the culture that produces them. Even as someone who doesn't like Bond films, I find them weirdly fascinating for exactly that reason. I think they're deeply insightful, and they are providing an outlet for something that a lot of people actually feel on some level. That is why I bring them up, and it's also why I deliberately chose to ignore the elements that make that fantasy feel comfortable and safe, because at the end of the day none of that changes what it fundamentally is. None of it changes what is actually being shown on the screen.
That's a really long assumption on why people like James Bond movies. Like...have you ever actually asked people why they like James Bond movies? This isn't nearly as insightful as you think it is.

edit: I'll bet if you asked people to name the things they enjoy most about James Bond movies "gadgets" and "interesting villains" would be way higher on the list than "he bangs a lot of chicks."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
I would like to point out that mandatory military service for men and not women isn't "pro-feminist" and actually goes against the basic tenents of feminism, which is equality between men and women.

Saying that Korean men hate feminism because of mandatory military service actually doesn't make any sense, because a society that was pro-feminism would not have sex/gender-based mandatory military service, and would have military service for both men and women (sort of like how the IDF does it).
I always find it odd when anti-feminist types go for the "military service!" whataboutism. Save for conservative feminists (depending on your particular brand of feminism I guess) I would wager that most self identified feminists (weather people out and about or those actually in that acedemic sphere) are against military service of all kinds. Like who do they think runs the military? its not women for the most part.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
13,375
3,988
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
I always find it odd when anti-feminist types go for the "military service!" whataboutism.
It's a lovely Catch-22 they can use to try to shut down arguments.

"Feminists say they want equality, but you won't ever see women getting drafted!"
"But feminists are arguing that women should be allowed to serve in the military equally and be drafted!"
"Women don't belong in the military!"
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,078
1,472
118
Country
Ireland
I always find it odd when anti-feminist types go for the "military service!" whataboutism. Save for conservative feminists (depending on your particular brand of feminism I guess) I would wager that most self identified feminists (weather people out and about or those actually in that acedemic sphere) are against military service of all kinds. Like who do they think runs the military? its not women for the most part.
I've seen a Jordan Peterson clip doing the rounds where he "destroys" the argument that the world is male dominated by pointing out that more men are homeless, more men are in prison etc. And like, yeah dude, who's largely running the institutions responsible for all those things ya fucking dingus.

It's funny, Peterson would actually have largely gone under my radar until he started advocating for the carnivore diet. So my initial experiences with him were him being insanely wrong about a thing he is not qualified in. I hate these modern day "intellectuals"
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,277
5,647
118
It's funny, Peterson would actually have largely gone under my radar until he started advocating for the carnivore diet. So my initial experiences with him were him being insanely wrong about a thing he is not qualified in. I hate these modern day "intellectuals"
That's not the weirdest thing about Peterson. I think his wife was stuggling with a potentially lethal illness (cancer?) and his was suffering from severe anxiety, so he ended up on benzodiazepines. These are effective but problematic drugs for abuse risk, and he duly became addicted. He couldn't kick them, and ended up going for some sort of medically unsafe and scientifically unverified radical detox in Russia - and I mean unsafe because it can kill you, which is why most countries don't allow it. And this brings in his daughter, who appears to be deep in quack Wellbeing influencer territory. (Her husband is Russian, hence maybe why they were aware of the treatment). I cannot help but wonder if she was exerting a lot of influence over him, particularly perhaps when he was psychologically struggling.

It's not a good look for someone preaching self-reliance and science.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,078
1,472
118
Country
Ireland
That's not the weirdest thing about Peterson. I think his wife was stuggling with a potentially lethal illness (cancer?) and his was suffering from severe anxiety, so he ended up on benzodiazepines. These are effective but problematic drugs for abuse risk, and he duly became addicted. He couldn't kick them, and ended up going for some sort of medically unsafe and scientifically unverified radical detox in Russia - and I mean unsafe because it can kill you, which is why most countries don't allow it. And this brings in his daughter, who appears to be deep in quack Wellbeing influencer territory. (Her husband is Russian, hence maybe why they were aware of the treatment). I cannot help but wonder if she was exerting a lot of influence over him, particularly perhaps when he was psychologically struggling.

It's not a good look for someone preaching self-reliance and science.
I remember reading about that. If I'm not mistaken it involved going into a medically induced coma to get through the withdrawals which is also not a great look for someone preaching self reliance.

There's also a fantastic video of him actually wearing a fedora and complaining that women only date assholes.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,097
309
88
I always find it odd when anti-feminist types go for the "military service!" whataboutism. Save for conservative feminists (depending on your particular brand of feminism I guess) I would wager that most self identified feminists (weather people out and about or those actually in that acedemic sphere) are against military service of all kinds. Like who do they think runs the military? its not women for the most part.
Ok, that counterargument is not good either.

First it should be time to acknowledge that female defense ministers are not actually a rare thing anymore. Nor are female heads of state or heads of gouvernment.
Second this argument assumes conflates women and feminists.
Third, last western country to reinstate draft was Sweden and the people responsible would probably take offense to be called unfeminist.

In general, feminism has little to do with draft or not. The peace movement is a different thing. What feminists did regularly fight for as a genuine feminist cause was women being allowed to serve in the military, in combat roles and even in special forces. Because that actually is about gender equality. And while feminists might be divided on draft itself, they generally did prefer it to be equally applied. Which is a far better counterargument.

This is turning out to be more fun than the actual topic, so down the rabbit hole we go.
Ok, let's do this as a lighthearted sidetrack. Otherwise i would have ignored it as irrelevant.

Being told that a character had to kill people to save his family might change the emotion you feel, but at the end of the day a writer created that family, a writer chose to put that family in danger and create a situation in which the character in question had to kill to save them, and they did it for you (the audience) because they thought you would find that story entertaining. The family is just a convenience put into this story to create a situation where this character is "allowed" to kill.

The fact that James Bond only kills people to save the world isn't really significant to the argument I was making. The world never had to be in danger at all, the writer chose to put the world in danger to create a situation where James Bond would have to kill people to save it because that's what you wanted to see. You didn't want to see James Bond save the world by giving an impassioned speech to the UN about the impact of climate change. You wanted to see him kill and fuck, and to have it be okay because it's saving the world.
Deadly fighting and deadly peril is just a cheap way to up the stakes. It is significantly harder to get viewers to care about little details of daily life than about whether the people on screen live or die. That is why this is extremely common in fiction and even in non-cfighting scenarios you often get farfetched reasons why survival is on the line.
With fighting you also can easily cram in punishment for the bad guys which just always feels good as long as you don't think to much about appropriateness.

Like, there's a bunch of stuff in any story that you're not really meant to think too hard about, because it gets in the way of the fantasy. You're not meant to think about whether the people James Bond kills have their own lives, or whether they have their own hopes and dreams or whether they have people who love them or depend on them. You're not meant to think too hard about whether any of the women James Bond has sex with have any of their own desires or expectations of this relationship, or when the topic of contraception comes up in these encounters, or whether the implied massive age gap is going to pose any kind of problem. Parodies like Austin Powers and the early seasons of Archer built recurring jokes out of simply pointing out the aspects of James Bond that you're not supposed to think about.
Honestly, suspension of disbelief can be a fickle thing and it is far from guaranteed, There wouldn't be so many parodies if those things didn't bother people deep down.

But the character himself, as someone who doesn't like these films, is comical. To me, it's like that one guy you played D&D with who had absolutely no social skills but rolled a bard with really high charisma and persuasion and proceeded to try and seduce every female NPC by rolling dice.
Maybe to defend JB we need to find someone who likes him first ?

In reality, of course, women are people whose sexual attraction is based largely on their own preferences. You can't just make every woman you meet want to have sex with you. It doesn't matter how charming you think you are, it matters what that person wants and is looking for. For some reason, our culture seems to have a particular problem wrapping its collective head around the idea that women consenting or not consenting to sex is not an achievement or failure on the part of men, it's a choice women make for themselves.
Or at least someone who likes this aspect of the films ? For me it was always contrieved, nonsensical and tedious. And, as said, if the world really were in danger, such an elite agent should not find time to flirt around.
The fact that James Bond is a masculine power fantasy, the fact that he reflects views that men sometimes have about violence, sex and relationships that are kind of dodgy if you really think about how they apply to reality is not in and of itself a criticism of the films, if anything it's a reflection of the psychology and fantasies of the audience and the culture that produces them.
It is a power fantasy from the early fifties that is kept afloat by nostalgia alone. I don't think it provides much insight in our cultural attitudes. People know it is silly and full of oldfashioned tropes. Laughing about how ridiculous it gets is half of the appeal.


As for JB and masculinity : Would the films actually feel different if one would flip the sex and gender of protagonist and their sex partners ?
 
Last edited:

XsjadoBlayde

Intersectional Multidimensional Pansexual Alliance
Apr 29, 2020
2,226
2,137
118
Britannialand
I remember reading about that. If I'm not mistaken it involved going into a medically induced coma to get through the withdrawals which is also not a great look for someone preaching self reliance.

There's also a fantastic video of him actually wearing a fedora and complaining that women only date assholes.
Should see the latest shit he's been waffling off about, he is positively unhinged by this point, just gone, hollowed out like a dark souls NPC;

 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,612
2,735
118
Australia
Ok, that counterargument is not good either.

First it should be time to acknowledge that female defense ministers are not actually a rare thing anymore. Nor are female heads of state or heads of gouvernment.
Second this argument assumes conflates women and feminists.
Third, last western country to reinstate draft was Sweden and the people responsible would probably take offense to be called unfeminist.
I think he's talking about senior, as in the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, military officers rather than their civilian bosses.


As for JB and masculinity : Would the films actually feel different if one would flip the sex and gender of protagonist and their sex partners ?
Uhhh, the ending of Goldfinger (the novel) would feel very interesting indeed if absolutely nothing else. So would parts of Skyfall - mainly anything to do with Solange - and I won't lie the ending of No Time to Die would need more than a few drastic re-writes. And anything in GoldenEye to do with Xenia would become deeply uncomfortable.

Going off the top of my head.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
First it should be time to acknowledge that female defense ministers are not actually a rare thing anymore. Nor are female heads of state or heads of gouvernment.
Second this argument assumes conflates women and feminists.
Third, last western country to reinstate draft was Sweden and the people responsible would probably take offense to be called unfeminist.
Those are some fair points. I don't think it contradicts mine though. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a self identified feminist who is in favour of the draft AND wants it only for men. As you said plenty of women believe that service should be open to women as well, even if they are (or aren't) against compulsory service. I'm against it on principle but if you HAVE to have it it should be open for all genders.

I've seen a Jordan Peterson clip doing the rounds where he "destroys" the argument that the world is male dominated by pointing out that more men are homeless, more men are in prison etc. And like, yeah dude, who's largely running the institutions responsible for all those things ya fucking dingus.
Even if we assume gender parity in "the powers that be" (ie people who make and implement policy) then that doesn't detract from actual issues that affect women (ie: implicit sexism, reproductive rights and sexual violence) like if somone is making the argument "well actually women aren't opressed because more men are homeless" its like OK do you WANT to have a conversation about homelessness? cause that's an issue that goes beyond women's rights. we can talk about the structural issues that cause and perpetuate homelessness because lord there's a lot to talk about!-
but then strangely enough they aren't interested anymore.

I've never understood this thing with peterson. He appeals to a very specific type of person and I don't want to mock ayone who genuinly was having a hard time and found something in his "advice" but damn I do not for a moment give him any "credit" where any is apparently due. Its very tempting to get some schadenfreude about the dude preaching one thing and very clearly trying the other...but addiction is rough and doesn't reflect ones character.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thaluikhain

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,368
991
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's funny, Peterson would actually have largely gone under my radar until he started advocating for the carnivore diet. So my initial experiences with him were him being insanely wrong about a thing he is not qualified in. I hate these modern day "intellectuals"
The best statement I've ever heard about Peterson is that he has somehow made a career out of being an uneducated person's fantasy idea of an intellectual, in much the same way that Trump made a career out of being a poor person's fantasy idea of a rich person.

It's very clear when you dig into him that Jordan Peterson had some kind of nervous breakdown early in his career, which I can empathize with. Academia is basically mental athletics, and just like a physical athlete it's very easy to injure yourself. I find his work always reminds me a little bit of Fredrick Nietzsche. Nietzche was a man who spent most of his sad, lonely life slowly dying of syphilis, and yet his philosophy constantly emphasizes the value of strength, of overcoming adversity, of loving life even when life hurts you. It's not hard to see what's going on. It's a philosophy of wish fulfilment, it's a very sick, miserable man trying to find value in his existence.

Peterson seems to have done the same thing with order and chaos. His entire canon of work can essentially be summarized as "order is good, chaos is bad. Everything I like is aligned with order, everything I don't like is aligned with chaos". Again, it's a philosophy of wish fulfilment. Even before the benzo addiction, this is a guy who struggled to get through a lecture or stream without breaking down in tears. He never came across as a person who was well.

They're also similar in that they both seem to have become idolized by Nazis.
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
1,976
642
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
Not really worth replying to, for obvious reasons.
It is not manipulative to intentionally tantalize with the promise of booty that you are in no way considering to offer, in order to extract dinners where the guy pays for your food in hopes of accessing said booty? Or is it not the sort of manipulation you had in mind in particular? If so, how do they differ, and why does such a hypothetical difference even matter at all in the first place? Isn't manipulation just, bad, in general.


(also, you did in fact reply lol, just not productively)
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,459
3,074
118
Country
United Kingdom
It is not manipulative to intentionally tantalize with the promise of booty that you are in no way considering to offer, in order to extract dinners where the guy pays for your food in hopes of accessing said booty? Or is it not the sort of manipulation you had in mind in particular? If so, how do they differ, and why does such a hypothetical difference even matter at all in the first place? Isn't manipulation just, bad, in general.


(also, you did in fact reply lol, just not productively)
Perhaps I should have said, "Not worth putting effort into a reply". But that was kind of predicated on the reason being obvious, and apparently it isn't.

Among the many, many reasons this is a bullshit equivalence: going out with someone, and acting flirtatious, is not a "promise" of fucking anything. Dinner is all it is. That woman doesn't owe that man a damn thing. And it's not "manipulation" if the man made a fucking enormous assumption, or idiotically thought that he was purchasing sex.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan and Kwak

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,678
1,322
118
At the bottom of page 11 is a post made by me:

And to add to that, it's not just the rapists. Lots of "normal" people when hearing about a rape will find it doesn't fit their idea of rape and thus doesn't count. They had consensual sex in the past, the victim consented to some stuff, the rapist took the victim out to dinner and was owed sex, they were married etc.
Not a million miles away from what's being discussed here. Now, Dreiko can say they aren't talking about rape, but when one person believes they are owed sex and the other person doesn't want to have sex...
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,097
309
88
It is not manipulative to intentionally tantalize with the promise of booty that you are in no way considering to offer, in order to extract dinners where the guy pays for your food in hopes of accessing said booty? Or is it not the sort of manipulation you had in mind in particular? If so, how do they differ, and why does such a hypothetical difference even matter at all in the first place? Isn't manipulation just, bad, in general.


(also, you did in fact reply lol, just not productively)
3 Things :

- Attending a dinner date is not a promise for sex and is even less a transaction for sex. Assuming otherwise is wrong, so incredibly wrong that it does not even come close to an honest mistake. Also so wrong that a manipulation to give that improssion is not credible.

- If there is an indirect "promise" in a dinner date (still some stretch), then at best it is a promise to be open to courtship. Whether this courtship will be successfull or not is never included.

- Only in barbarian backwater countries the man still pays for the date as if it were his role to be the provider of a family.
 
Last edited: