Coffee shop owners face backlash after “pick-up artist” podcast exposed

Anonymous stories included rape-like scenario; creators responded with apologies.

Read the whole story

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Did these guys learn nothing from Rockstar's "Hot Coffee" scandal? Kids these days...

 

[michael ellis day]

thelee[/url]":1jbnwdtl]Well as far as apologies go, those are pretty alright.

If you read the apology in full as posted at their website, it's a very strange thing, full of jargon and buzzwords and passive language. On the face of it you might think they're taking full responsibility for their actions, but the overwhelming impression I get is of two extremely smarmy assholes who are sorry they were caught and are telling themselves "No problem! We know exactly the kind of begging, pleading language they want to hear, and we can give it to them. The chicks will totally buy this, they'll forgive us, and we'll be off the hook. Hey, maybe we'll even get a few fucks out of this now that we've shown how damaged and sensitive we are!" No joke, this is how those guys think. There is no way they've suddenly seen the error of their ways and become changed characters just because their cover was blown.

 

[Mitlov]

Argyris[/url]":gbjy2djc]Amazing the things I learn about on Ars. I'd never even heard of this PUA thing. Maybe I just don't get out enough?

I first heard the term in connection with a terrible show on VH1 in 2008:

Set aside the guy's ridiculous hat and facial make-up, and it was a show about taking socially awkward guys and teaching them how to pick up women in bars, with the final episode of the season about picking up a stripper. His advice generally involved insulting the women and playing off any insecurities that the "pick-up artist" detected.

It's somewhat connected with another phenomenon, the "nice guy" or "friendzone" phenomenon. There, the guy feels that women are vending machines where you put in kindness and should thus automatically get out sex. The PUA feels that women are video games where you put on the right pattern of moves, generally involving casual insults and playing off insecurities, and you "win" by getting sex. Both ignore the fact that women--and here's the kicker--are actual human beings instead of vending machines or video games, and probably should be treated as such.

 

[talon_262]

ganjadude43[/url]":3gtrmptc]

Static and Noise[/url]":3gtrmptc]

beebee[/url]":3gtrmptc]While you could deem them douches in the Yelp forum, an alternative is to say their coffee sucks in the review section, even if their coffee is fine. Because? Because they are douche bags.

And self-admitted rapists (one of them). Goes a bit beyond "douchebag".

to be fair, we have no way of knowing if they are even telling the truth

in my experience these "pickup artists" are just lonely losers saying things they think should work but the truth is they still live in mmoms basement

A Venn diagram of "pick up artists" and "men's rights activists" would overlap a lot.

 

[MattEvansC3]

perrosdelaguerra[/url]":3m4io0ir]

TomXP411[/url]":3m4io0ir]What the heck is with these "pick up artists" anyway? It seems to me that the only way you can justify this kind of sociopathic behavior is if you really do believe that women are just objects or toys.

Do you guys think this is just a case of people being dumb because it's the Internet and they can get away with it, or do you really think this is how these men view women - as nothing more than toys to be played with and discarded when they're no longer interesting?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

"...traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior."

Emphasis added to show you where you kind of defined sociopathic behavior.

On a nitpicky note that's the definition for psychopathy. Sociopathy and Psychopathy were renamed to Anti-Social Behavioural Disorder and had the assumptions about personality characteristics removed. Psychopathy has been retained as a medical term, with its personality assumptions but is used in post-diagnosis for those already diagnosed with ASBD. Sociopathy as a diagnosis hasn't existed for decades.

When it was called Sociopathy the main differences between it and Psychopathy was;
A) Sociopathy was caused by social factors whereas Psychopathy was more hardwired into the brain.
and
B) Sociopathy is where the view of right and wrong is different to an average person. A "sociopath" can and will still feel remorse and empathy. A classic psychopath lacks those qualities as well as a moral compass.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Do you guys think this is just a case of people being dumb because it's the Internet and they can get away with it, or do you really think this is how these men view women - as nothing more than toys to be played with and discarded when they're no longer interesting?

It's not like this was a one time event, where maybe someone was having a lousy day and said something stupid. They've been broadcasting their repulsive bullshit for years. You know what we call people who go around saying sexist shit all the time? Sexists. We call those people sexists, because they earned it.

When people tell you who they are, it's your job to listen.

 

[Lee L]

edwardangle[/url]":3bn3r3nq]

Psykus[/url]":3bn3r3nq]Why are these types of articles on Ars? I don't see any technology related angle except that the owners had a podcast and the people that outed them had a blog.

Who knows. I don't even see the lefty political angle on this, and that's the other reason Ars will post a story.

Let's just change the name to ArsWhativica already. Or "The Daily Ars".

The only real "Left" angle in the story is it happenned in Asheville, NC which at least in th city proper is quite liberal and these guys were loved by many there and seemed to be the stereotypical coffee shop owners, liberal, progressive, hippy, whatever you want to call it. Obviously, the kind of behavior from their blog is not what you would expect.

 

[TomXP411]

Psykus[/url]":bt93n7i5]Why are these types of articles on Ars? I don't see any technology related angle except that the owners had a podcast and the people that outed them had a blog.

I don't think Ars has ever been just a "Tech" blog. As long as I've been visiting, they have reported on some social and political issues.

 

[iamaelephant]

Korpo[/url]":15e1noua]
It doesn't matter. Someone posted on someone's Facebook about some podcast they'd never heard of that offends some sensibility that they have. Now, OUTRAGE. So these guys were sleazy, so? How many other sleazy guys are there out there? How many work in coffee shops, or restaurants, or bars? I'd wager it's more than two.

At least now the internet will move on from the clock kid, like they moved on from the lion, like they moved on from the pizza shop that hates gays, like they moved on from every other huge outrage that went precisely nowhere once it wasn't the top story on everyone's feed. But you know, Kony 2012 or whatever.

Unfortunately the outrage doesn't go "precisely nowhere" from these outrage blowups. They may leave our consciousnesses but they certainly don't leave the victims unharmed. I recently finished reading Jon Ronson's new Book So You've Been Publicly Shamed and it's incredible how much these peoples' lives can be totally destroyed by internet mobs.

Justine Sacco's life was completely ruined by a mob's reaction to one stupid tweet. Lindsey Stone posted one little picture to Facebook and became unemployable. Regardless of how you feel about the transgressions of mob victims, the effects of internet mobs can be totally disproportionate.

 

[bthylafh]

SraCet[/url]":wcvw93bd]
Your apparent concern for women is noble but ironic.

Do you think women are so helpless and stupid that they don't know when they're being hit on by d-bags?

What does that have to do with justly condemning PUA behavior?

 

[edwardangle]

Lee L[/url]":9e74bbxw]

edwardangle[/url]":9e74bbxw]

Psykus[/url]":9e74bbxw]Why are these types of articles on Ars? I don't see any technology related angle except that the owners had a podcast and the people that outed them had a blog.

Who knows. I don't even see the lefty political angle on this, and that's the other reason Ars will post a story.

Let's just change the name to ArsWhativica already. Or "The Daily Ars".

The only real "Left" angle in the story is it happenned in Asheville, NC which at least in th city proper is quite liberal and these guys were loved by many there and seemed to be the stereotypical coffe shop owners, lineral, progressive, hippy, whatever you want to call it. Obviously, the kind of behavior from their blog is not what you would expect.

Liberality is precisely what I'd expect from liberals.

 

[Static and Noise]

TomXP411[/url]":uq6735fe]

Psykus[/url]":uq6735fe]Why are these types of articles on Ars? I don't see any technology related angle except that the owners had a podcast and the people that outed them had a blog.

I don't think Ars has ever been just a "Tech" blog. As long as I've been visiting, they have reported on some social and political issues.

It's not like this is the first time Ars has covered anonymity and the internet. Internet and anonymity (good, bad or weird) is a pretty relevant tech issue.

 

[MattEvansC3]

thelee[/url]":3ko450ux]Well as far as apologies go, those are pretty alright.

Not really. On face value they look like apologies but in fact they are diverting blame. In both apologies they are citing the anonymity of the internet as a key factor in what they said;

Rutledge - I was naive enough to think it’d stay anonymous, and I was wrong.
Owens - "Under a disguise that I thought would be anonymous, without the accountability that good friends hold you to, this persona that I am fully responsible for developed into a chauvinist and a misogynist.

In Rutledge's apology he not only compares this incident to being caught looking at porn on a laptop and dealing with the shame caused by it but also tries a "its not really my fault" line whereby he also pins the blame on his insecurities with dating and this was him sharing his success stories and getting over those insecurities.

At no point in the "apology" does Rutledge actually apologise to the women affected. He's apologising to the community for bringing shame on them;

So here we are. I grew up in West Asheville and have disappointed and brought shame to the community that raised me, and there's not really anything I can do to make it right. There are no excuses to be made. The way I've phrased and framed my private conduct in a sad and tawdry public way is humiliating. There's nothing to do but ask your forgiveness for any harm I've caused. I'm sorry folks.

This is a well though out, manufactured PR apology aimed at the people they now as well as their customers. By aiming it at these people as well as including mitigating factors they have done the "right thing" in the public's eyes, not the victims' eyes.

 

[StillGridlocked]

TomXP411[/url]":juffnbg8]What the heck is with these "pick up artists" anyway? It seems to me that the only way you can justify this kind of sociopathic behavior is if you really do believe that women are just objects or toys.

Do you guys think this is just a case of people being dumb because it's the Internet and they can get away with it, or do you really think this is how these men view women - as nothing more than toys to be played with and discarded when they're no longer interesting?

Also, I'm glad to see Yelp doing something to throttle social justice warriors. Whether or not the guys are jerks, people who haven't actually shopped there posting reviews breaks the system.

I think this is how they really see women. Think about it just because you can get away with something doesn't mean you'd go ahead and do it. It's ingrained in your morals/belief system to do things a certain way. Men like this have no morals/belief system. They were dropped on their heads when they were kids.

You're in a jewelry store and there is a medical emergency - you are left alone in the store and the power goes out - no cameras - do you dump a few hundred thousand in diamonds into your pockets because you can 'get away with it'?

Unfortunately there are a lot of women who are attracted to men who treat them like dirt.

 

[Static and Noise]

MattEvansC3[/url]":1qzvkujw]

thelee[/url]":1qzvkujw]Well as far as apologies go, those are pretty alright.

Not really. On face value they look like apologies but in fact they are diverting blame. In both apologies they are citing the anonymity of the internet as a key factor in what they said;

Rutledge - I was naive enough to think it’d stay anonymous, and I was wrong.
Owens - "Under a disguise that I thought would be anonymous, without the accountability that good friends hold you to, this persona that I am fully responsible for developed into a chauvinist and a misogynist.

In Rutledge's apology he not only compares this incident to being caught looking at porn on a laptop and dealing with the shame caused by it but also tries a "its not really my fault" line whereby he also pins the blame on his insecurities with dating and this was him sharing his success stories and getting over those insecurities.

At no point in the "apology" does Rutledge actually apologise to the women affected. He's apologising to the community for bringing shame on them;

So here we are. I grew up in West Asheville and have disappointed and brought shame to the community that raised me, and there's not really anything I can do to make it right. There are no excuses to be made. The way I've phrased and framed my private conduct in a sad and tawdry public way is humiliating. There's nothing to do but ask your forgiveness for any harm I've caused. I'm sorry folks.

This is a well though out, manufactured PR apology aimed at the people they now as well as their customers. By aiming it at these people as well as including mitigating factors they have done the "right thing" in the public's eyes, not the victims' eyes.

They sound very much like televangelists do when they get caught cheating, visiting prostitues, having homosexual affairs et cetera, when they want their flock to forgive them for their sins.

 

[edwardangle]

SraCet[/url]":1wnn9vfv]

TomXP411[/url]":1wnn9vfv]What the heck is with these "pick up artists" anyway? It seems to me that the only way you can justify this kind of sociopathic behavior is if you really do believe that women are just objects or toys.

Do you guys think this is just a case of people being dumb because it's the Internet and they can get away with it, or do you really think this is how these men view women - as nothing more than toys to be played with and discarded when they're no longer interesting?
...

Your apparent concern for women is noble but ironic.

Do you think women are so helpless and stupid that they don't know when they're being hit on by d-bags?

Why does he imagine that some of those women weren't looking for the same sort of interaction these two men were?

 

['LilRedDog]

SraCet[/url]":9zogcrvt]

TomXP411[/url]":9zogcrvt]What the heck is with these "pick up artists" anyway? It seems to me that the only way you can justify this kind of sociopathic behavior is if you really do believe that women are just objects or toys.

Do you guys think this is just a case of people being dumb because it's the Internet and they can get away with it, or do you really think this is how these men view women - as nothing more than toys to be played with and discarded when they're no longer interesting?
...

Your apparent concern for women is noble but ironic.

Do you think women are so helpless and stupid that they don't know when they're being hit on by d-bags?

I think a more pertinent question is: why do any women fuck d-bags??

Either they know, as you imply, or they don't; either way, it encourages/rewards the d-bag often enough (when the d-bag is just playing the numbers)...

Isn't it time women start adressing that some of them (enough) are teaching men being a d-bag works???

I mean: use all the words you want but the most addictive behavior is the inconsistent reward; getting laid is a fucking (pardon the pun) powerful reward...

 

[TomXP411]

Mitlov[/url]":d3qe6vs8]It's somewhat connected with another phenomenon, the "nice guy" or "friendzone" phenomenon. There, the guy feels that women are vending machines where you put in kindness and should thus automatically get out sex.

I'm always a little offended by the way people belittle the term "friend zone," and automatically label it as sexist. It's a concise term to describe of a fairly common state where romantic and platonic feelings are not balanced in a relationship, and I find it condescending when someone hears the term and automatically equates it with "that person just wants sex."

Because relationships are about a lot more than sex, and plenty of people who would like to escalate a friendship to a romantic relationship, but can't, aren't looking to just get laid.

Quite frankly, the dismissal of the concept as sexist is just as offensive to me as the what the people who dismiss it are implying. It completely dismisses a person's feelings as sexist or wrong, when nothing is more normal or commonplace than to be attracted to someone that doesn't see you as a romantic partner but still enjoys your company platonically.

 

[Deleted member 14629]

SraCet[/url]":23d0p821]

bthylafh[/url]":23d0p821]

SraCet[/url]":23d0p821]
Your apparent concern for women is noble but ironic.

Do you think women are so helpless and stupid that they don't know when they're being hit on by d-bags?

What does that have to do with justly condemning PUA behavior?

What's there to condemn?

So there are some guys who go to bars wearing stupid hats and they do magic tricks for women and neg (mildly insult) them with the idea that they might get lucky.

I don't see how that's much different from regular guys who go to bars looking to meet women but they don't have stupid hats and they don't know any magic tricks.

"negging" isn't a constructive way to meet people. It's a fundamentally abusive way to.

 

[MattEvansC3]

SraCet[/url]":22xbqhb7]

TomXP411[/url]":22xbqhb7]What the heck is with these "pick up artists" anyway? It seems to me that the only way you can justify this kind of sociopathic behavior is if you really do believe that women are just objects or toys.

Do you guys think this is just a case of people being dumb because it's the Internet and they can get away with it, or do you really think this is how these men view women - as nothing more than toys to be played with and discarded when they're no longer interesting?
...

Your apparent concern for women is noble but ironic.

Do you think women are so helpless and stupid that they don't know when they're being hit on by d-bags?

At what point did they say that? Their post specifically references the behaviours and motivations of the Pick up artists not the capability of the women.

On a side note the pick up artists are using social engineering to effectively coerce these women. They are no different than any other scam artist that targets a person they believe is vulnerable enough to be duped by it. There is no more irony in showing support and concern for these victims then there is in showing concern and support for the OAP who's had their bank account raided because they thought they were speaking to someone in Microsoft tech support.

 

[StillGridlocked]

'LilRedDog[/url]":fc6e4l1g]

SraCet[/url]":fc6e4l1g]

TomXP411[/url]":fc6e4l1g]What the heck is with these "pick up artists" anyway? It seems to me that the only way you can justify this kind of sociopathic behavior is if you really do believe that women are just objects or toys.

Do you guys think this is just a case of people being dumb because it's the Internet and they can get away with it, or do you really think this is how these men view women - as nothing more than toys to be played with and discarded when they're no longer interesting?
...

Your apparent concern for women is noble but ironic.

Do you think women are so helpless and stupid that they don't know when they're being hit on by d-bags?

I think a more pertinent question is: why do any women fuck d-bags??

Either they know, as you imply, or they don't; either way, it encourages/rewards the d-bag often enough (when the d-bag is just playing the numbers)...

Isn't it time women start adressing that some of them (enough) are teaching men being a d-bag works???

I mean: use all the words you want but the most addictive behavior is the inconsistent reward; getting laid is a fucking (pardon the pun) powerful reward...

I believe there are woman who were treated badly by their Fathers or worse and were always trying to please their Father - they don't know how to react to a man that treats them right. So they seek out men that they see as their Father. Maybe that sounds crazy but based on my life experience I believe it to be true.

I've met a few women like that through my friends brother. He treated women like garbage and had more women chasing him than you could believe.

Just to add that I'm not blaming women for that. Anyone who would have sex with a women that was drugged in a hospital has no morals.

 

[valkyriebiker]

thelee[/url]":3utd66cd]Well as far as apologies go, those are pretty alright.

Disagree (assuming you aren't being sarcastic)

Behavior like that can't be explained or whisked away with an apology, no matter how it's worded. The only hope these two have is to move on, let things settle down, maybe open a new coffee shop a few towns away, and take the object lesson to heart. And hope they aren't outed.

Just like the apology of VW's CEO Martin Winterkorn will never be enough. Resignation is the only option. (And a criminal charge if he's found to be complicit).

 

[StillGridlocked]

edwardangle[/url]":125bt54s]

TomXP411[/url]":125bt54s]

Mitlov[/url]":125bt54s]It's somewhat connected with another phenomenon, the "nice guy" or "friendzone" phenomenon. There, the guy feels that women are vending machines where you put in kindness and should thus automatically get out sex.

I'm always a little offended by the way people belittle the term "friend zone," and automatically label it as sexist. It's a concise term to describe of a fairly common state where romantic and platonic feelings are not balanced in a relationship, and I find it condescending when someone hears the term and automatically equates it with "that person just wants sex."

Because relationships are about a lot more than sex, and plenty of people who would like to escalate a friendship to a romantic relationship, but can't, aren't looking to just get laid.

Quite frankly, the dismissal of the concept as sexist is just as offensive to me as the what the people who dismiss it are implying. It completely dismisses a person's feelings as sexist or wrong, when nothing is more normal or commonplace than to be attracted to someone that doesn't see you as a romantic partner but still enjoys your company platonically.

None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

I somewhat agree with that but if a couple decides to live together or get married it's NOT going to last unless they are friends also or gluttons for punishment. Short of being good friends you at least have to have common interests. Being with someone just because there is 'good sex' doesn't make for a lifetime together.

 

[Superman Pants]

Let me guess... these idiots are in their 20s or 30s, right?

 

[SraCet]

MattEvansC3[/url]":312edxfr] ...
On a side note the pick up artists are using social engineering to effectively coerce these women. They are no different than any other scam artist that targets a person they believe is vulnerable enough to be duped by it. There is no more irony in showing support and concern for these victims then there is in showing concern and support for the OAP who's had their bank account raided because they thought they were speaking to someone in Microsoft tech support.

A lot of you guys seem to be taking it for granted that this PUA stuff actually works and is being used to trick completely unwilling women into casual sex.

You would do well to read The Game by Neil Strauss, which is a gonzo journalism account of the PUA community.

Most of these PUA guys seem to be hopelessly unsuccessful with women, most of the techniques have been discredited or never proven effective in the first place, and it's unclear if any of the techniques described in the book still work on anybody (as discussed at the end of the book).

So it's unclear to me that what you're so upset about actually exists.

 

[edwardangle]

StillGridlocked[/url]":1j32qdy5]

edwardangle[/url]":1j32qdy5]

TomXP411[/url]":1j32qdy5]

Mitlov[/url]":1j32qdy5]It's somewhat connected with another phenomenon, the "nice guy" or "friendzone" phenomenon. There, the guy feels that women are vending machines where you put in kindness and should thus automatically get out sex.

I'm always a little offended by the way people belittle the term "friend zone," and automatically label it as sexist. It's a concise term to describe of a fairly common state where romantic and platonic feelings are not balanced in a relationship, and I find it condescending when someone hears the term and automatically equates it with "that person just wants sex."

Because relationships are about a lot more than sex, and plenty of people who would like to escalate a friendship to a romantic relationship, but can't, aren't looking to just get laid.

Quite frankly, the dismissal of the concept as sexist is just as offensive to me as the what the people who dismiss it are implying. It completely dismisses a person's feelings as sexist or wrong, when nothing is more normal or commonplace than to be attracted to someone that doesn't see you as a romantic partner but still enjoys your company platonically.

None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

I somewhat agree with that but if a couple decides to live together or get married it's NOT going to last unless they are friends also or gluttons for punishment. Short of being good friends you at least have to have common interests. Being with someone just because there is 'good sex' doesn't make for a lifetime together.

I wasn't trying to make the point that relationships just work if the couple has good sex. I guess my mind just latched on to the "friend" part of "friendzoned".

 

[StillGridlocked]

edwardangle[/url]":2zquagc2]

StillGridlocked[/url]":2zquagc2]

edwardangle[/url]":2zquagc2]

TomXP411[/url]":2zquagc2]

Mitlov[/url]":2zquagc2]It's somewhat connected with another phenomenon, the "nice guy" or "friendzone" phenomenon. There, the guy feels that women are vending machines where you put in kindness and should thus automatically get out sex.

I'm always a little offended by the way people belittle the term "friend zone," and automatically label it as sexist. It's a concise term to describe of a fairly common state where romantic and platonic feelings are not balanced in a relationship, and I find it condescending when someone hears the term and automatically equates it with "that person just wants sex."

Because relationships are about a lot more than sex, and plenty of people who would like to escalate a friendship to a romantic relationship, but can't, aren't looking to just get laid.

Quite frankly, the dismissal of the concept as sexist is just as offensive to me as the what the people who dismiss it are implying. It completely dismisses a person's feelings as sexist or wrong, when nothing is more normal or commonplace than to be attracted to someone that doesn't see you as a romantic partner but still enjoys your company platonically.

None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

I somewhat agree with that but if a couple decides to live together or get married it's NOT going to last unless they are friends also or gluttons for punishment. Short of being good friends you at least have to have common interests. Being with someone just because there is 'good sex' doesn't make for a lifetime together.

I wasn't trying to make the point that relationships just work if the couple has good sex. I guess my mind just latched on to the "friend" part of "friendzoned".

I wasn't criticizing more like adding on to your wiki. Good sex is also a prerequisite!

 

[Static and Noise]

Kristofff[/url]":st0nzr08]

edwardangle[/url]":st0nzr08]

TomXP411[/url]":st0nzr08]

Mitlov[/url]":st0nzr08]It's somewhat connected with another phenomenon, the "nice guy" or "friendzone" phenomenon. There, the guy feels that women are vending machines where you put in kindness and should thus automatically get out sex.

I'm always a little offended by the way people belittle the term "friend zone," and automatically label it as sexist. It's a concise term to describe of a fairly common state where romantic and platonic feelings are not balanced in a relationship, and I find it condescending when someone hears the term and automatically equates it with "that person just wants sex."

Because relationships are about a lot more than sex, and plenty of people who would like to escalate a friendship to a romantic relationship, but can't, aren't looking to just get laid.

Quite frankly, the dismissal of the concept as sexist is just as offensive to me as the what the people who dismiss it are implying. It completely dismisses a person's feelings as sexist or wrong, when nothing is more normal or commonplace than to be attracted to someone that doesn't see you as a romantic partner but still enjoys your company platonically.

None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

I'm calling the SJW hotline right now and reporting you. To even suggest that men would think of sex or gravitate towards women they want to copulate with due to biological urges upsets the universal truth that everything a person is or does is dictated by socialization. Gender and biology are social constructs.

Some of us are self-aware, and not slaves to whatever impulses we have, biological or not. If a man can't be friends with a woman and see her like he sees a man (IE, like a person first of all), then they're lacking in self-awareness, simply.

And ho boy, you anti-Social Justice types really, really misunderstand the actual arguments used by actual Social Justice types.

 

[uno2tres]

Static and Noise[/url]":33qp4xu8]

One of those podcasts, as mentioned by a report at Jezebel, included Owens telling a story about having sex with someone at a hospital who was drugged—to which Rutledge responded, "Could she give consent?" before the duo began laughing.

So he's admitted to being a rapist. Wonder if the woman could be identified and if she was aware enough of what was happening so that Owens could be sent to jail. Or if he'll get away with it.

It is quite possible that some or all of these accounts were/are just fantasy. At least that's what I'm hoping.
That said, if this actually happened, I hope the victim comes forward and he's prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

[Mitlov]

edwardangle[/url]":2syjiwqq]

TomXP411[/url]":2syjiwqq]

Mitlov[/url]":2syjiwqq]It's somewhat connected with another phenomenon, the "nice guy" or "friendzone" phenomenon. There, the guy feels that women are vending machines where you put in kindness and should thus automatically get out sex.

I'm always a little offended by the way people belittle the term "friend zone," and automatically label it as sexist. It's a concise term to describe of a fairly common state where romantic and platonic feelings are not balanced in a relationship, and I find it condescending when someone hears the term and automatically equates it with "that person just wants sex."

Because relationships are about a lot more than sex, and plenty of people who would like to escalate a friendship to a romantic relationship, but can't, aren't looking to just get laid.

Quite frankly, the dismissal of the concept as sexist is just as offensive to me as the what the people who dismiss it are implying. It completely dismisses a person's feelings as sexist or wrong, when nothing is more normal or commonplace than to be attracted to someone that doesn't see you as a romantic partner but still enjoys your company platonically.

None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

But how many friends do you have who don't share your habit of talking about women with livestock terminology ("of breeding age")? Because that's going to affect the results of your informal poll.

 

[edwardangle]

StillGridlocked[/url]":1ab3r6mu]

edwardangle[/url]":1ab3r6mu]

StillGridlocked[/url]":1ab3r6mu]

edwardangle[/url]":1ab3r6mu]

TomXP411[/url]":1ab3r6mu]

Mitlov[/url]":1ab3r6mu]It's somewhat connected with another phenomenon, the "nice guy" or "friendzone" phenomenon. There, the guy feels that women are vending machines where you put in kindness and should thus automatically get out sex.

I'm always a little offended by the way people belittle the term "friend zone," and automatically label it as sexist. It's a concise term to describe of a fairly common state where romantic and platonic feelings are not balanced in a relationship, and I find it condescending when someone hears the term and automatically equates it with "that person just wants sex."

Because relationships are about a lot more than sex, and plenty of people who would like to escalate a friendship to a romantic relationship, but can't, aren't looking to just get laid.

Quite frankly, the dismissal of the concept as sexist is just as offensive to me as the what the people who dismiss it are implying. It completely dismisses a person's feelings as sexist or wrong, when nothing is more normal or commonplace than to be attracted to someone that doesn't see you as a romantic partner but still enjoys your company platonically.

None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

I somewhat agree with that but if a couple decides to live together or get married it's NOT going to last unless they are friends also or gluttons for punishment. Short of being good friends you at least have to have common interests. Being with someone just because there is 'good sex' doesn't make for a lifetime together.

I wasn't trying to make the point that relationships just work if the couple has good sex. I guess my mind just latched on to the "friend" part of "friendzoned".

I wasn't criticizing more like adding on to your wiki. Good sex is also a prerequisite!

Got it. And I completely agree. Sex isn't the only thing in a marriage, but it is very important.