Young South Korean Men Revolt Against Feminism in South Korea

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,046
1,402
118
Country
Ireland
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)
Okay fine. Why don't you ask? When you ask someone on a date ask them if they'll fuck you if you pay for dinner. If it's so obvious as to be assumed that buying someone dinner means they owe you sex just ask. If they say yes and they don't they lied to you and then you're point about being misleading stands. So why don't people just ask? If women get upset/offended and say no then you have saved yourself time and money. Obviously that assumption being such a normal thing it should be no problem just asking.

Secondly, if all you want is sex as a transaction there are women who will do that for you.

Seriously just because you took someone out on a date you still need to convince them that you're not some weird fucked up chode and maybe even go out on multiple dates which you are perfectly entitled to expect them to pay for some of. Like they can go on the date and because you come across as a desperate horny weirdo who thinks the early bird special entitles him to a first class ticket to pund Town they might decide that they don't want to have sex with you.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,063
5,441
118
Secondly, if all you want is sex as a transaction there are women who will do that for you.
A message some men might be wise to consider, given their complaints often seem to amount to thinking it's really annoying that women have minds of their own.
 

Chimpzy

Professor of Monkey Business
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
9,178
3,826
118
Secondly, if all you want is sex as a transaction there are women who will do that for you.
While true, the kind of men who expect a woman owes them sex because they paid for dinner, also have a higher than average chance of not turning out the best customers for a sex worker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agema and BrawlMan

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,948
540
118
A message some men might be wise to consider, given their complaints often seem to amount to thinking it's really annoying that women have minds of their own.
Why do there need to be humans attached to vaginas though?
 

Chimpzy

Professor of Monkey Business
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
9,178
3,826
118
Why do there need to be humans attached to vaginas though?
I suppose that's what realdolls are for. Tho I can't really imagine that'll be anything other than very sad and very disappointing sex.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,063
5,441
118
Why do there need to be humans attached to vaginas though?
Because sex is combined with other things. Creaming one's fluids into an inanimate object doesn't give one the same sense of intimacy / love / dominance / ownership / achievement / ego / bragging rights.

I mean, unless you maybe had to run a 10km obstacle course whilst under live ammo fire to get to the rubber doll, although I suspect at that point the sense of achievement doesn't really need the orgasm.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,063
5,441
118
You think the sex these weirdos manage to get is fulfilling?
I cannot help but think that if you can't get a partner, you're just wasting money on what your own right hand and imagination are perfectly good for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister Mumbler

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,912
531
118
Country
United States
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;

"The appalling ideology of diversity, inclusion and equity is demolishing education and business"

I agree with diversity, and inclusion, but not equity, and before anyone definition trolls me as many of you like to do.

Here's my definition.

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.


What happened to equality of opportunity, why the fuck are we doing equality of outcome. I don't agree with equity, but I agree with equality. equity means Asian American test scores get ranked less than a non-Asian POC test score. I don't agree. Yeah, there is non-progressive discrimination of Asians with "leadership a subjective trait that is desirable, and that's not okay either. This is blatant discrimination against Asians, and equity has led to people like Bill De Blasio not using test scores but using a lottery system to determine who gets into good high schools in NYC which assaults Asian American communities in NYC despite for example Chinese Americans being poorer than almost all demographics including almost all other POC. But since Bill De Blasio has liberal/progressive racial favoritism in spite of the data.

If I perform better than someone in a job I should get paid more, and if I perform the same I should get the same amount all else being equal. Equality of outcome is bad.

Also if you argue they are linked, yes, and no. Social safety nets are good, but equality of outcome is not.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,297
904
118
Country
United Kingdom
Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.
Jordy P has a bit of a thing about the concept of equity.

One thing that came out of his debate with Zizek is that Peterson hasn't actually read any Marx except the communist manifesto. This is relevant because Jordan Peterson thinks that Marxism is fundamentally about the pursuit of equity. That seems to be his main issue with it. The problem is, he's just wrong, just straight up wrong in a way that should surprise noone because he openly admits he hasn't read anything. If he wasn't up against another useless hack old man who for some reason decided to treat him with a wholly undeserved civility, he'd have been comprehensively taken apart for that nonsense.

What you're talking about, and what Peterson likes to ramble incoherently about, has little to do with equity. It has far more to do with meritocracy. We all kind of think that we want to live in a meritocracy, we want to live in a world where people who do good things are rewarded. The problem is that people like Jordan Peterson think that we already live in a meritocracy. He thinks that neoliberal capitalism is a meritocratic system that intrinsically rewards merit or virtue, and that anything that seems to contradict this fact must be the result of some evil conspiratorial force, the dreaded postmodernism or cultural Marxism (although I think even he is too smart to actually use that term).

So here's the thing, you say Asian Americans are being discriminated against in testing. I could apply the same logic to that as Peterson does to other forms of discrimination and just say "Well, work harder. Stop indulging an ideology based on bitterness and grievance. Why are you spending your time worrying about whether other people have it easier than you? Just accept that whatever disadvantages you face your ability or inability to achieve whatever you want is entirely within your control." Is that convincing? Does that make you feel better?

Because in effect, that's what you're saying to other minorities who are disadvantaged within the education system. "Sure, the history of redlining has resulted in you being trapped in a segregated school system with less resources. Maybe if you stopped making excuses for yourself that wouldn't be a problem." "Sure, maybe you grew up in a culture that has developed a scepticism or mistrust towards education due to intergenerational experiences of discrimination, but you still have the same opportunities as everyone else so just get over it."

This is how you think when you think you live in a meritocracy, but we don't live in a meritocracy. If you removed affirmative action or programs designed to help underprivileged minorities, the world would not magically become a meritocracy.

Think about what you're actually saying. You're saying that living in a world where your educational outcomes and standard of living being determined in large part by your race is fine, in fact it's good, because some races (Asians and presumably white people) are just better than everyone else. You're saying that the ability of people to work hard and act in ways conducive to their own success is not based on their circumstances, it's an intrinsic property of their race. Because that's the only way you can look at the world we live in and believe that everyone has the same equality of opportunity.

At the end of the day, there isn't a magic separation between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome because, much as the right likes to claim otherwise, most people are for the most part fundamentally very similar to each other. Asians are not a superior race who are intrinsically better at education. The fact that Asians are more likely to value education than many other minorities, and the fact that they are more likely to be accepted in academic environments and viewed as academically able because of racial stereotyping, is not the result of anyone's individual merit. This decontextualized notion of merit does not exist, because we are all the product of an environment we do not fully control.

There are many reasons to be disappointed in existing affirmative action programs. They are imperfect solutions based on compromise, and sometimes they're extremely imperfect solutions. But if you're going to claim that everyone would have "equal opportunities" without them, then where is your evidence?
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
1,913
624
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
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.
I think dating is in broad terms "courtship", or the modern equivalent. So it is implied but not said in order to be classy, that there is always a possibility of sex. Not a promise, of course, but a non-0% possibility. So while you're obviously not entitled to sex, if someone already has ruled you out entirely before agreeing to be courted by you, they indeed ARE manipulating you by behaving as though you have a chance with them. An honest person would refuse a date and instead ask to hang out as friends when the offer comes up if they're not into someone.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
May 2, 2020
1,681
1,127
118
Country
4
I think dating is in broad terms "courtship", or the modern equivalent. So it is implied but not said in order to be classy, that there is always a possibility of sex. Not a promise, of course, but a non-0% possibility. So while you're obviously not entitled to sex, if someone already has ruled you out entirely before agreeing to be courted by you, they indeed ARE manipulating you by behaving as though you have a chance with them. An honest person would refuse a date and instead ask to hang out as friends when the offer comes up if they're not into someone.
And very often 'the date' is the time to make that decision.
 

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,948
540
118
I think dating is in broad terms "courtship", or the modern equivalent. So it is implied but not said in order to be classy, that there is always a possibility of sex. Not a promise, of course, but a non-0% possibility. So while you're obviously not entitled to sex, if someone already has ruled you out entirely before agreeing to be courted by you, they indeed ARE manipulating you by behaving as though you have a chance with them. An honest person would refuse a date and instead ask to hang out as friends when the offer comes up if they're not into someone.
"If only she gave me a chance so then she'd see that I'm a really cool guy, why won't she just go on a date with me once, gatekeeping!"
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,297
904
118
Country
United Kingdom
I think dating is in broad terms "courtship", or the modern equivalent. So it is implied but not said in order to be classy, that there is always a possibility of sex. Not a promise, of course, but a non-0% possibility.
What does this even mean?

Do you have to roll dice to decide if you're going to sleep with someone every time you go on a date with them?

I think what you meant to say is that you shouldn't go on a date with someone unless you have some idea that you might want to sleep with them at some point. But think about what that would mean. It would mean you never dated anyone you didn't immediately find attractive. It would mean never giving anyone a chance unless there was an immediate physical appeal. It means never having that fun, exciting little thing of having a friendship where you flirt a lot and neither of you know if it's going to go anywhere but it's okay because you have fun.

I don't know where some men get this idea that dating isn't supposed to be fun, or that it's this chore you have to endure in order to get laid. Maybe this is just lockdown talking, but seriously, what else were you going to do with your time? What plans did you have that were so much more exciting than going out and getting to know a person you don't know very well? Sure, there's bad things about dating, there's rejection and vulnerability and disappointment and a lot of weird drama, but at the end of the day what else were you going to do with your time?

If you're paying for dates because you think that's expected or because you think it will increase the non-0% possibility of you getting laid, why are you doing that? If you're willing to compromise the kind of dynamic you want, why is anyone else supposed to care about what you want?
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,090
305
88
unless you have some idea that you might want to sleep with them at some point. But think about what that would mean. It would mean you never dated anyone you didn't immediately find attractive.
I would say "having some idea you might want to sleep with someone at some point" and "finding someone immediately attractive" are quite different things.
It means never having that fun, exciting little thing of having a friendship where you flirt a lot and neither of you know if it's going to go anywhere but it's okay because you have fun.
Not everyone finds that "fun". Aromantics deserve as much recognition as asexuals.

and going beyond all the date stuff to the main point of disagreement:
Maybe this is just lockdown talking, but seriously, what else were you going to do with your time? What plans did you have that were so much more exciting than going out and getting to know a person you don't know very well? Sure, there's bad things about dating, there's rejection and vulnerability and disappointment and a lot of weird drama, but at the end of the day what else were you going to do with your time?
Only some extrovert writes stuff like this. I for one am super happy with the lockdown. I have finally time for all those things I always wanted to do and which are all super relaxing because there are no other people involved.

If I were to meet someone for whatever reason, that reason should better be worth the discomfort of having to spend time around other people. Now, quite a lot of things are worth it. For example there are many fun hobbies that are done as group.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
7,269
2,861
118
Country
United Kingdom
I think dating is in broad terms "courtship", or the modern equivalent. So it is implied but not said in order to be classy, that there is always a possibility of sex. Not a promise, of course, but a non-0% possibility. So while you're obviously not entitled to sex, if someone already has ruled you out entirely before agreeing to be courted by you, they indeed ARE manipulating you by behaving as though you have a chance with them. An honest person would refuse a date and instead ask to hang out as friends when the offer comes up if they're not into someone.
The date is usually the point at which judgements are made about whether the people are compatible or not. And not just sexually, but romantically as well, which isn't the same thing.

Where exactly are you getting it from that significant numbers of women are accepting dates from men solely to get food, having already ruled out anything romantic or sexual? It sounds to me as if you're ascribing motivations to women that you couldn't possibly know, and which make zero sense.

I expect this boils down to nothing more but an expectation that women should put out more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,484
695
118
Country
USA
Where exactly are you getting it from that significant numbers of women are accepting dates from men solely to get food, having already ruled out anything romantic or sexual? It sounds to me as if you're ascribing motivations to women that you couldn't possibly know, and which make zero sense.
You're pushing back a little too hard. Regardless of what you personally feel, "I like free dinner" is not a motivation that makes zero sense.