Young South Korean Men Revolt Against Feminism in South Korea

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
9,445
4,942
118
Country
United Kingdom
Oh no, sure you can have all sorts of interactions with women just like you can do with men, like, there's lesbians and stuff, they're still women. And also there's old women and so on, obviously you wouldn't need a sexual dynamic to talk to your friend's grandma. I love sharing cooking tips with grandmas cause they know old stuff I've never heard of before which can be pretty unique.
Jesus.

You know they're people, right?
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
21,957
9,304
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
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? 
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)
Dude, you are officialy now the lowest of the low on this entire forum as far as I am concerned now. It's probably why you can't find a love nor committed person. Not with that attitude. It's sad, pathetic, and insulting to all genders everywhere. Respond with another "lol", and shows how immature you actually are, and have not grown as a person at all. Also, I won't be listening to your sexist bullshit.

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.
You are so full of crap it's amazing.

Seems a lot of people never learned from En Vouge's greatest song.

 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
5,669
859
118
Country
USA
According to Dreiko, its only legitimately a "date" if it involves a non-zero likelihood of sex. So the woman isn't allowed to be motivated by merely enjoying the time spent with someone; to do so would, according to him, be manipulative unless they were considering sex.
I think the problem with Dreiko's perspective is that it's inherently inconsiderate of the intentions of the other person, but that's also the truth hidden beneath Dreiko's argument: people can go on dates for different reasons, but there's an aspect of manipulation any time someone goes on a date with indifference of the other's intentions, regardless of what those intentions are.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,743
2,614
118
Country
United States of America
I think the problem with Dreiko's perspective is that it's inherently inconsiderate of the intentions of the other person, but that's also the truth hidden beneath Dreiko's argument: people can go on dates for different reasons, but there's an aspect of manipulation any time someone goes on a date with indifference of the other's intentions, regardless of what those intentions are.
Humans are typically such shy creatures that a date should be more accurately considered a way to find out someone's intentions (though not always successfully).
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
9,445
4,942
118
Country
United Kingdom
I think the problem with Dreiko's perspective is that it's inherently inconsiderate of the intentions of the other person, but that's also the truth hidden beneath Dreiko's argument: people can go on dates for different reasons, but there's an aspect of manipulation any time someone goes on a date with indifference of the other's intentions, regardless of what those intentions are.
Surely on a first date, we don't know how much of a relationship the other person envisages. People go on dates for different reasons, as you say, and the date is an opportunity to sound that out.

Dreiko, on the other hand, is concluding that all dates imply the likelihood of sex. He's fitting them all into his own conception of what a date should be, then asserting that anyone who doesn't follow through with his idea of it is manipulative.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,959
118
I think the problem with Dreiko's perspective is that it's inherently inconsiderate of the intentions of the other person,
That's a very common theme in Dreiko's posts.

but there's an aspect of manipulation any time someone goes on a date with indifference of the other's intentions, regardless of what those intentions are.
A female equivalent of Dreiko would be on a forum somewhere complaining "This guy was buying me a free meal, and then the creep seemed to want to make out!"
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,740
1,572
118
Country
United Kingdom
In my mind the sleeping with me bit is the reward, in and of itself. It's not something you're tricked into, it's something you are bequeathed.
If that's genuine, then that's a really admirable level of self-belief.

But if you actually believe that, why are you dating at all? If sleeping with you was reward enough, then you wouldn't need the pretext of going on a date, so the fact remains.. why are you doing something you clearly don't enjoy? Why not just skip all that? Surely you could just explain to someone that you wish to bequeath on them the great and prestigious honour of sleeping with you. What kind of ingrate would turn that down?

This is how I approach the situation, so when my good graces are wasted on someone who is just hungry and broke/cheap then that's clearly not very honest and forthright.
So what you're saying is, even though you see sleeping with you as a reward in and of itself, you're not only willing to go on dates you don't enjoy or get anything out of, but you're willing to pay for the mere possibility of giving someone else a reward..

I don't think that's how rewards work, but okay.

Also, you're somehow making this weird assumption that you have to like someone to wanna sleep with them, which is super weird in and of itself. Ever hear of a hatefuck?
Again, if you don't like someone, why are you going on a date with them?

Also, I think you have seriously raised the bar for what qualifies as liking someone, and I'm not sure why. If people are having hate sex and not ending up crying in the shower or being treated for sex addiction, those people probably like each other. Liking someone can be complicated. Liking someone can be something you're not consciously ready to admit.

Again, I have ADHD, I can guarantee you that if it is possible for a painful, uncomfortable or toxic emotion to get horny, it has gotten horny for me at some point.

Yeah basically what we have here is different folks value different aspects differently. Thing is only one group is trying to call the things they dislike manipulation, and when I use their logic for something on my end everyone sounds bemused and is full of incredulity.
So, my issue is that the way you talk about your own expectations of dating does not match the way you claim to feel about yourself at all, which makes me wonder whether you're being truthful, or whether you're just deliberately going through the motions of what you think people want to hear while being entirely conscious of the deception. Because the latter is manipulation.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
15,224
7,193
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
In my mind the sleeping with me bit is the reward, in and of itself. It's not something you're tricked into, it's something you are bequeathed. Not something which is a deficit but a boon to your being. You are not losing anything from it, you only gain. This is how I approach the situation, so when my good graces are wasted on someone who is just hungry and broke/cheap then that's clearly not very honest and forthright.
Huh... what an "interesting" manifesto.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
In my mind the sleeping with me bit is the reward, in and of itself. It's not something you're tricked into, it's something you are bequeathed. Not something which is a deficit but a boon to your being. You are not losing anything from it, you only gain. This is how I approach the situation, so when my good graces are wasted on someone who is just hungry and broke/cheap then that's clearly not very honest and forthright.
I am confused, if sleeping with you is a reward why do you pay their dinner? Let the person pay YOUR dinner. Clearly if you feel the need to buy someone else's dinner deep down you know this isn't true.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
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.
Well yes, because speeches aren't entertaining nor are they extraordinary. A lot of people watch movies to escape real life routine, otherwise i'd turn on the news to see how world leaders are desperately trying to use their phone to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine (if that is his plan). And to be honest, I couldn't care that much about him fucking. If I want to see fucking i'll watch porn.
And you know, I wonder if it's the killing that does it? I mean, I loved the A team series when I was younger and they never actually killed anyone. But they always did manage some extraordinary things to "save the day".

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.
Well yes, exactly.



So this is a fun aside... What features of this character would you say are charming?
Quite simple; that is how he's presented to be. He is that mythical creature with perfect aim who never sweat and was able to charm every women with a smile. That is not how I defined him but the writers.

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.
That's because you're overthinking a shallow character in a shallow movie. James Bond is a popcorn action movie not something to be taken seriously. At least it was.

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.
Well not at all, that is your very personal interpretation. Because the narrative doesn't show James Bond using manipulative pickup artist moves on anyone. It just shows him being him and having this effect. It's like in RL, you'll always have men who will have much more success picking up women than others without even having to do any effort or being a pickup artist. James Bond is that but on a mythical level.

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.
Well yes, and James Bond is so awesome that he's the preference of (almost?) all women. Just like he's capable of fighting armies of villains on his own.
And it truly depends, it is undeniable that some men are preferred by more women than others. And let's not forget that sometimes it's one's character that tends to put off a lot of women, on that respect it could be considered a failure. But as I said earlier, being attractive is still considered a positive trait and James Bond is presented to us as basically being the definition of "attractiveness". Is that silly? Well, yes. Just like a lot of what he does is silly, hence the existence of all these parodies. But James Bond is not supposed to be taken seriously.


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.



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.
I don't think anything is dodgy at all once contextualized. Evolution has made it so being "attractive" to the opposite sex is important for all species and hence why it is considered a positive trait by human beings (men and women). James Bond is presented as being extremely attractive, so much so it can only be a fantasy. But that's not necessarily bad if you realize James Bond is not realistic (which should be obvious from the get go). As for violence, it is an unfortunate reality violence has shaped our world all the time. Wars are still everyday business in certain parts of the world and terrorism haunts the world as well. There is nothing dodgy with acknowledging there are certain types of threats which can only be stopped through the use of violence. And that's what defines the whole action movie genre.
If we lived in a perfectly peaceful world maybe the action movie genre would die out. But as it stands humans are well aware that unfortunately it is still often needed. And a perfect agent who is able to single handedly stopping threats without collateral damage is the ideal weapon against evil that requires violence to be stopped. It sure beats our Real Life alternatives that usually end up killing more innocent bystanders than targets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirty Hipsters

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,121
4,410
118
Australia
If we lived in a perfectly peaceful world maybe the action movie genre would die out. But as it stands humans are well aware that unfortunately it is still often needed. And a perfect agent who is able to single handedly stopping threats without collateral damage is the ideal weapon against evil that requires violence to be stopped. It sure beats our Real Life alternatives that usually end up killing more innocent bystanders than targets.
That's a very long winded way of saying 'Watch Skyfall again, and pay attention this time'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
6,548
1,517
118
Country
USA
New from the Sandman about South Korea. He thinks they're doing it right and wants the West to wake up.

 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,417
2,096
118
Country
Ireland
New from the Sandman about South Korea. He thinks they're doing it right and wants the West to wake up.

Probably won't watch all of it because every sentence out of his mouth sounds like Owen Wilson asking a question. People who want to talk for a living should be better at talking.

Jesus H Christ. I skimmed through it. Literally every sentence that comes out of that man's mouth is probably a maximum of 6 words long with an inflection at the end of every one. It was honestly stressing me out to listen to him.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,740
1,572
118
Country
United Kingdom
I never finished the Bond thing, did I. Oh well..

Well yes, because speeches aren't entertaining nor are they extraordinary.
But sex and violence is?

You never hear about those on the news?

That's because you're overthinking a shallow character in a shallow movie.
Yes. I am.

Did you think I wasn't aware of that?

I think shallow movies are interesting precisely because you're not supposed to think about them. They're meant to bypass that thinking, rational part of your brain and go straight for the goey emotional centre. For this reason, they're often very honest in catering to the audience's fantasies in a way more thoughtful movies are not.

I don't think you understand my point here. I'm not trying to explain some secret hidden message embedded in James Bond movies. I know that these are shallow action movies with very little deeper meaning to them beyond entertainment. The point is why are these movies entertaining to anyone?

I also know that the fact that James Bond kills people is not, in and of itself, the answer to that question. I know that the way most people would emotionally react to someone being killed in a slasher movie is different to the way they would react to someone being killed in an action movie, and I know why. All of this is rhetorical, I'm not ignorant of what happens in James Bond movies, I'm not ignorant of how you're supposed to feel watching them. I don't need basic explanations of these films.

The difference between a slasher movie and an action movie, the difference in how it makes the audience feel, is empathy and perspective. In the slasher movie, the audience is following the perspective of the victim. Empathy with the victim is encouraged. That is what creates the feeling of horror. In an action movie, empathy with the victims of violence is discouraged because it gets in the way of the visceral pleasure and excitement of watching it.

Now, that's not a universal rule. Clever action movies will often incorporate a teeny tiny bit of horror because it creates tonal depth and heightens the stakes, and plenty of slasher movies encourage "rooting for the killer" and intentionally play down empathy for the victims. I know. Again, I'm not looking for basic explanations.

The real observation that I am making here is the feeling of empathy is heavily gendered. Slasher movies generally have female protagonists, and women tend to be the disproportionate victims of violence in slasher movies, because it's easier to elicit empathy for a female character. Conversely, almost all of the people James Bond kills are men, and on the rare occasion he does kill a woman she is either heavily gender non-conforming or it will be a big moment. There's a sexual ideology to James Bond movies that is not actually very flattering to men. Men are really disposable in these movies, they die constantly and the movie openly doesn't want you to have any kind of feeling for them. So, why do men love these movies so much?

That's also a rhetorical question. But what's your answer?

Well not at all, that is your very personal interpretation. Because the narrative doesn't show James Bond using manipulative pickup artist moves on anyone.
Isn't that the ideal though?

There are pickup artists out there who are very open that they are about manipulating and abusing women, but they are a very, very small minority. Most people who are actually successful in marketing themselves as pickup artists are not selling that, they're selling a fantasy that by adopting a certain type of persona, you can become so charming that women will find you irresistible.

The fantasy that there is this type of man who is just so fucking cool and smooth and amazing that any woman who meets him will feel some overwhelming biological urge to have sex with him even if she initially doesn't actually like him is one men not only seem to have remarkably little trouble accepting in movies, but it also tends to be one some men will take into real life and try to act out because they think that is actually how the world works. The manipulation is what happens when that fantasy doesn't work out.

James Bond is presented as being extremely attractive, so much so it can only be a fantasy.
You keep saying this, but think about it. How is James Bond presented as being attractive?

Describe some of his most attractive features?

As for violence, it is an unfortunate reality violence has shaped our world all the time. Wars are still everyday business in certain parts of the world and terrorism haunts the world as well. There is nothing dodgy with acknowledging there are certain types of threats which can only be stopped through the use of violence. And that's what defines the whole action movie genre.
Okay, so why is violence "entertaining and extraordinary"?

If it's an unfortunate reality of our world, why do we spend our free time watching it? Why do we "escape our real life routines" by watching this thing we supposedly only grudgingly acknowledge the existence of?

You know the answer. We all know the answer. All this is just the most desperate and unnecessary knee-jerk reaction which I truly don't understand. Violence can be fun to watch. It can be cathartic and exciting. It taps into fantasies and parts of our inner lives that are very, very deep seated. Yes, not all violence is fun to watch. Yes, there is "context" a filmmaker has to add in order to make violence fun to watch. One aspect of this context is adding a narrative contrivance that renders the violence justifiable. Another is ensuring the audience does not empathize with the victims of violence (outside of occasionally raising the tension or stakes). I know. I'm not missing anything, and you're not explaining anything I don't already know.

The point here is not "why do you love violence so much, violence is bad." I'm asking you to look more closely at those mechanisms that make violence fun to watch, and in particular how those mechanisms are gendered. Because they are gendered. We are talking about films overwhelmingly designed for men, and yet in which empathy for men is largely discouraged. So, what is going on here? What emotions and fantasies are being catered to or met here, and why are they so deeply gendered?
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,252
2,656
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Probably won't watch all of it because every sentence out of his mouth sounds like Owen Wilson asking a question. People who want to talk for a living should be better at talking.

Jesus H Christ. I skimmed through it. Literally every sentence that comes out of that man's mouth is probably a maximum of 6 words long with an inflection at the end of every one. It was honestly stressing me out to listen to him.
This has to be an automated voice. No one had this speech pattern
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
21,957
9,304
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Jesus H Christ. I skimmed through it. Literally every sentence that comes out of that man's mouth is probably a maximum of 6 words long with an inflection at the end of every one. It was honestly stressing me out to listen to him.
Dudes sound like another loudmouth, sexist, douche trying to sound "eloquent and smart". Another useless maggot in a pile of shit. Nothing new here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheetodust