~ archived since 2018 ~

Surprisingly good MensLib thread (if holding some significant blind spots) about the demonization of male sexuality

thereslcjg2000

March 27, 2020

27 upvotes

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

https://reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/fpt4gp/is_mens_sexuality_demonized/

Archived from /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates is a place for the discussion of men's issues from a left wing perspective.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Surprisingly good MensLib thread (if holding some significant blind spots) about the demonization of male sexuality
Author	thereslcjg2000
Upvotes	27
Comments	75
Date	March 27, 2020 8:18 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/fq4sik/surprisingly_good_menslib_thread_if_holding_some/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/surprisingly-good-menslib-thread-if-holding-some.1063780 https://theredarchive.com/post/1063780

Comments

[–]hope2overcome 27 points28 points29 points 6 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ur_waifus_prolapse 23 points24 points25 points 6 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 6 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]shrinking_dicklet 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Haloisi 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shrinking_dicklet 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Egalitarianwhistle 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aaod 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure which one. I believe it was Cicero himself. It was a detailed and quite ¿honest? explanation of what Menslib mods believed. It wasn't from a point of argument, it was more like "I've heard that you were disappointed about this, and wanted to set this clear". Remember that I have been quite an active user there and I split (or precisely, was rightfully banned, I was making an embarassment of myself) in relatively good terms.

And I continuously find frustrating the way they manage the tight censorship they use there, because I believe that they can do much much much better in their intention to pursue their will of changing gender norms. I dislike their extreme paternalism over men, like if they were guiding them to an enlightment path. When many times they are wrong! I still dislike the ammount of misoginy I find here, but at least I can talk!

[–]mewacketergi 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I was defending female pedophiles XD.

Or, according to myself, I was defending the right of male teens to have sex.

Well, when you put it this way... There is a liiiiiiiitle bit of difference between those two views. :P

I think there is an unhealthy demonization of teenage sexuality, but the way women's liaisons with underage boys are treated differently than men's is a double-standard that needs to stop.

I do not seek revenge, I seek change.

That's noble of you, but that's beside my point. I'm not saying that revenge is necessary.

It's not necessary to be angry at women to held them accountable.

I'm saying that defining anger directed at women, whether for good reason or not, as "misogyny" is kinda a lot like that feminist propaganda tactic where they say that "majority of those who disagree with us, or opposes our movement do so because they are horrible, vile, hateful bigots who just can't be reasoned with", and the leftists allow them to get away with it.

Here's this point explained in more length:

Under feminist theory, which is deeply dependent upon postmodern thought, knowledge is believed to be constructed by “dominant discourses,” and feminism, particularly intersectional feminism, is taken to be the true defender of marginalized voices, including those allegedly of women. Worse than this, because of its beliefs about these structures of power, to criticize feminist theory is to violate a moral taboo against gender equality. Critics of feminist theory, even in purely scholarly terms, are easily derided as being complicit in sexism, and the moral architecture of the post-1960s academy left other academics (and administrators) particularly weak against these charges. Thus, feminist theory perpetuated and concentrated, making itself simultaneously less connected to reality and even more un-care-about-able.

Criticism of feminist theory therefore cannot work in the normal way. From within, it can only be seen as evidence that the dominant discourses it seeks to overthrow are still dominant, thus need opposing even more strongly. Interpreted from within the scholarly architecture of feminist theory, critics like myself, Peter Boghossian, Paul Gross, Norman Levitt, Alan Sokal, and Steven Pinker are just white males exercising our epistemic pushback, like every other man who disagrees. (Nota bene: Women who disagree suffer from “internalized misogyny” and, in an attempt to maintain favor with “the mens,” engage in the same epistemic pushback, once removed — so there’s no winning here, only agreeing with the feminists, being used as evidence of the rightness of feminism and the need for more feminism and feminist theory, or being ignored.)

This makes two potent forces that have allowed feminist theory to endure beyond the endurance of responsible scholarship. First, it deflects all criticism by abusing a loophole in the academic and cultural Left’s moral architecture: an overwhelming need to distance itself from anything anyone could conceivably call bigotry, which is a need outdone only by an even stronger impulse to throw clear virtuous signals proving the uncrossable magnitude of that distance. Second, it makes itself un-care-about-able by retreating to a fantastic academic island, like theology. The trouble is that the island has made itself well-armed and we’re well within range of its missiles. Given that this is occurring within a wider environment of almost complete indifference to feminist theory for the very good reason that it is producing very little that is comprehensible, coherent or substantive, this is indeed a problem.

This tactic is a big part of the reason why feminism was politically successful. Please read the rest of it here: https://quillette.com/2018/01/02/no-one-cares-feminist-theory/

This tactic is also born out of the worst traditionalist view of seeing men as unstable, dangerous and sometimes less-than-human, so to make them safe, special measures need to be taken. Like not allowing them to be angry, or ignoring their pain when they are, while angry women are seen as evidence that something bad has happened to them, and we need to take even more special care to listen to, protect, and accommodate them...

Please don't do that.

Happily utilizing this kind of the worst sexist double-standard is why I find feminism morally reprehensible, and not just intellectually wrong.

EDIT: Which reminds me of the ugliness and arguments from bad faith that reared its head when that mod I spoke to that with from Feminism ran out of arguments, — she derided my that fairly diplomatic and nuanced explanations, like the one above as "thinkpieces", and demanded that I cite "primary sources", which in case of conversation around gender means remaining willfully blind to the pro-feminist leftist bias in the gender studies academia.

[–]Melthengylf2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think there is an unhealthy demonization of teenage sexuality, but the way women's liaisons with underage boys are treated differently than men's is a double-standard that needs to stop.

I do not care about double standards. Sincerely I'm still not entirely sure that a 16 year old guy having sex with a 20 year girl is worse for the man psyche than the guy not having sex until 25. But it seems that there are people who feel very strongly that the man is hurting when dating an older woman, so I prefer not to have that conversation anymore.

I'm saying that defining anger directed at women, whether for good reason or not

Everyone has good reasons to be angry. If you are going to be angry at women, expect women to be angry at you. Now, feminists many times get angry at men because they found out it is the only way they can express their needs in a honest way instead of shutting up. Anger is good for developing honesty and boundaries. But it's honesty and boundaries what are needed, more than anything.

Happily utilizing this kind of the worst sexist double-standard is why I find feminism morally reprehensible, and not just intellectually wrong.

Something bad has happened to them, and we need to take even more special care to listen to, protect, and accommodate them.

Indeed something bad has happened to who is angry, they even may need extra protection, if the anger is hiding fear. It is also true that angry people are dangerous and you might need protection from hurt people who lash out.

The point I'm trying to make is that I am in relationship with very angry men, I think I remember male anger since I were little. I just don't think their anger is enough for them to be in a better place anymore, they seem to be trapped there and have no much idea of what they want.

I just will not dismiss male anger when I have been target of it so many times. Men do need to be held accountable for their anger: that means I want them to take conscience of why their anger is not working, and what do they need and want and how their anger is working against what they want. If I had been in my history less of a times the target of male anger, I would be more easy with my request for them to take conscience.

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sincerely I'm still not entirely sure that a 16 year old guy having sex with a 20 year girl is worse for the man psyche than the guy not having sex until 25.

That's probably true.

I think there is a lot of leftover cultural puritanism attached to the expressions of teenage sexuality, and both sides of the gender wars try to play this card in their favor as hard as they can, since it resonates with a lot of people, but the issue is probably bi-partisan; that's probably what the voraciousness of the responses you received was most closely linked to.

If you are going to be angry at women, expect women to be angry at you.

They already are, and their anger is commonly treated as sacred, as another reason to prioritize women's voices more, when angry men are ridiculed, mocked and silenced, which is a traditionalist double-standard I don't care for, particularly when it's a textbook tactic perpetuated by self-identified feminists, even as they loudly claim to "benefit men by fighting the patriarchy": https://reason.com/2019/01/28/the-future-is-female-and-shes

(not sure if you need a link to Kimmel, but here you go: https://www.amazon.com/Angry-White-Men-American-Masculinity/dp/1568589611)

But it's honesty and boundaries what are needed, more than anything.

I'm really not sure what you are saying here. Is men's movement problem... that we are liars?

The point I'm trying to make is that I am in relationship with very angry men, I think I remember male anger since I were little. I just don't think their anger is enough for them to be in a better place anymore, they seem to be trapped there and have no much idea of what they want.

I want to agree with something in here, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean, and what are you suggesting.

I just will not dismiss male anger when I have been target of it so many times.

I understand that you are conflating anger with aggression and abuse, and I while don't know your story, but that's not very charitable towards our sex.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think there is a lot of leftover cultural puritanism attached to the expressions of teenage sexuality, and both sides of the gender wars try to play this card in their favor as hard as they can, since it resonates with a lot of people, but the issue is probably bi-partisan; that's probably what the voraciousness of the responses you received was most closely linked to.

Maybe, I was probably in the wrong. I just do not fully understand it yet.

I'm really not sure what you are saying here. Is men's movement problem... that we are liars?

What??? Nono. I tried to say that many people use anger because it is the only way they know to express their feelings. Anger is still better than shutting up.

I understand that you are conflating anger with aggression and abuse, and I while don't know your story, but that's not very charitable towards our sex.

Well, this is an EXCELENT good point. Anger shouldn't be supressed. Anger is indeed precious, since it highlights an unmet need. So I'm not saying that anger should be suppressed, I'm saying that anger is no longer enough for men. It just doesn't get us good things anymore, it is a strategy that is no longer working, when there are others that would indeed work.

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What??? Nono. I tried to say that many people use anger because it is the only way they know to express their feelings. Anger is still better than shutting up.

Good.

Also, maybe this is in part because of how they will be laughed at, and their pain mocked and ridiculed by "patriarchy hurts men too" or "menz tears" types of brave feminists if they are vulnerable in public.

Anger is indeed precious, since it highlights an unmet need. So I'm not saying that anger should be suppressed, I'm saying that anger is no longer enough for men. It just doesn't get us good things anymore, it is a strategy that is no longer working, when there are others that would indeed work.

Alright, that's an okay point. Anger isn't going to get us a lot of sympathy from feminist-dominated spaces, that's for sure, but those aren't the only ones that matter.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Look, we talked before on how I believe that the problem of men and women are just not the same (negative and positive freedom).

And I remember agreeing with you back then.

But on second though, I came to realize that you are wrong, and there is no fundamental difference between men's and women's issues at all. The positive vs negative divide is just too subjective and open to interpretation.

It is just a matter of good PR and framing, and institutional power: men's movement is disenfranchised, and we have relatively few intellectual, soft-spoken thinkers like Warren Farrel, and our counterparts have an advantage of something Peter Boghossian called "an idea laundering machine", that imbues ideas originating in the gender studies academia an appearance of prestige, rigor and legitimacy where there is really none.

The original is paywalled at Wall Street Journal, but you can read enough of it here: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/boghossian-idea-laundering-wokeness-academia/

EDIT: Found a saved version: https://pastebin.com/vgEvZeph

So coming to think of it, for one example, how do b.s. concepts like "everyday sexism" or "microaggressions" different from the hostility and demonization of men and male sexuality that we see everywhere in most respected and influential media?

Yet one of those is treated as complaints of "whiny virginal crybabies in their mom's basements", and treated as completely invalid, and the other has attention of departments of academics and non-profits drawn to combating this seemingly serious problem.

What's the difference? There is no difference. We just need better PR.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hope2overcome 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shrinking_dicklet 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kreeps_United 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 18 points19 points20 points 6 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

The thread is surprisingly good, but my impression is that empathis is on the wrong thing. I don't see a lot of discussion on how men's sexuality is seen as predatory, dangerous and perverted, and I see a lot of discussion about heteronormativity, how having sex is seen as a symbol of status, and so on.

EDIT: And yes, we have this historical milestone on record: r/MensLib had a conversation, it was good, and the best comments weren't even the ones that got removed...

To be fair, most Christian sects would demonize women and girls masturbating just as much if not more.

Yeah, all lives matter, I mean all masturbation matters!

Oh wait, I spoke too soon. I wonder, do their mods go like, "Oh hey, this comment looks like fun, better remove it before someone sees it!"

Definitely see the Removeddit of that thread: https://www.removeddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/fpt4gp/is_mens_sexuality_demonized/

[–]CrosbyStillzandSwag 20 points21 points22 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cookiedoughjunkie 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]boundarychimps -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cookiedoughjunkie 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]shrinking_dicklet 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cookiedoughjunkie 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cookiedoughjunkie 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]liberalbutnotcrazy 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cookiedoughjunkie 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xemnas81 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link