New at Reason

|1.18.05 @ 12:34PM|#

Of course men are pigs. Too bad we own everything. Oh well, it was much easier for them when all they had to do was bake stuff and squirt out babies.

Kidding!

|1.18.05 @ 12:54PM|#

In my college days I believed the BS that women wanted a sensitive male. I ended up hearing "I think of you like a brother" more often than I care to remember.

Once I let my inner asshole badboy pig out, I got more than my fair share of the chicks. What feminists say women want is not what women really want. If women didn't want us men to be pigs, our mommas wouldn't have raised us to be pigs and our wives and girlfriends wouldn't have passed up a sensitive new age guy for us.

So tell me, Who's yer Daddy, Bee-otch?

|1.18.05 @ 1:37PM|#

NoStar got to agree with you on that one, try'd that "sensitive shizzzz" and got regularly dismissed. Got my "P### Hand" back strong and life(read sex) got a whole lot better.

|1.18.05 @ 1:53PM|#

Yes, women all want the same thing. We are a uniform, single-minded, thought-sharing, collective. We especially like asshole men. All of us. Any woman who attempts to think for herself, express her own personal preferences, or otherwise differentiate from the collective will be assimilated. As many times as necessary.

It's easier for the men this way.

|1.18.05 @ 1:59PM|#

FemaleBorg, How many nice guys did you tell "I think of you like a brother" before you assimilated them.

The fact remains pigs get laid more than sensitive new age guys.

|1.18.05 @ 2:05PM|#

No men are assimilated. We are trying to build an advanced collective, after all.

|1.18.05 @ 2:08PM|#

Once I let my inner asshole badboy pig out, I got more than my fair share of the chicks.

It doesn't matter if they're feminists, anarchists, or Calvinists. You do not get them wet by making them think they've already got you in the bag. It is when they know you could turn your back on them just as quickly and easily as they could turn their back on you that you become an object of their desire.

|1.18.05 @ 2:09PM|#

It's easier for the men this way.

Yes, men all want the same thing. We are a uniform, single-minded, thought-sharing, collective. We especially like submissive women. All of us. Any man who attempts to think for himself, express his own personal preferences, or otherwise differentiate from the collective will be assimilated. As many times as necessary.

It's easier for the women to think this way.

|1.18.05 @ 2:23PM|#

I heard Christine Lavin sing this song some years back. It is an absolutely hilarious sing along.

Sensitive New Age Guys
Words and Music by Christine Lavin and John Gorka
Copyright 1990 CL2 (ASCAP) & Blues Palace Music (ASCAP)

Who like to talk about their feelings?
(Sensitive new age guys.)
Who's into crystals, into healing?
(Sensitive new age guys.)
Who like to dress like Richard Simmons?
(Sensitive new age guys.)
Who are hard to tell from women?
(Sensitive new age guys.)
Who like to cry at weddings?
Who think boxing is upsetting?
Who tapes "Thirty Something" on their VCR,
Who's got "Baby on Board" stickers on their cars, oh,
(Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh)

Whose last names are hypenated?
(Sensitive new age guys.)
Who like "Three Men and a Baby" a movie I hated?
(Sensitive new age guys.)
Whose consciousness is constantly raising?
(Sensitive new age guys.)
Whose tax free income is amazing?
(Sensitive new age guys.)
Who thinks that red meat is disgusting?
Who's into UFO's channeling, and usting?
Who believes us when we say we've got premenstrual syndrome?
Who doesn't know who plays in the Seattle Kingdome?

Who likes music that repetitious?
(Sensitive new age guys.)
Who likes music that's repetitious?
(Sensitive new age guys.)
Who's concerned about your orgasm? (silence)
Well, I guess it's more important that they have 'em.
(Sensitive new age guys.)
Who carries the baby on his back?
Who thinks Shirley MacLaine is on the inside track?
Who always sings on sing-alongs,
Even when they can't stand stupid sing-along songs?
SENSITIVE NEW AGE GUYS!

|1.18.05 @ 2:36PM|#

Cathy's article is getting airplay on Rush Limbaugh's radion show right now.

|1.18.05 @ 2:37PM|#

radio - not radion

A good typist I ain't

|1.18.05 @ 2:38PM|#

Gilbert,

Rush Limbaugh is still around?

|1.18.05 @ 2:47PM|#

Not offering this as proof by any means, but long ago my wife saw me in a college party, shaved bald, smoking a cigar, swilling on Jim Beam, neat, and degrading the women that wandered by.

She sent an emissary to negotiate her arrival next to me, because as she always says, she "fell in lust".

She watched me, hearing me say nasty things, saw the whiskey-drinking, cigar-smoking idiot, and couldn't resist meeting me.

Methinks there is merit in appealing to the genetics of women.

|1.18.05 @ 2:49PM|#

"Gilbert,

Rush Limbaugh is still around?

If you have to ask that, you aren't living on planet Earth.

|1.18.05 @ 2:59PM|#

"The problem, Kipnis hectors, is that "the beauty culture is a heterosexual institution, and to the extent that women participate in its rituals, they, too, are propping up a heterosexual society and its norms"-norms which supposedly subordinate women to men."

Sometimes it does seem like the base charge is that men are physically attracted to females.

By the way, for those who haven't caught on, men don't "get" women--women "get" men. It's entirely their choice. There are things you can do to make yourself more or less attractive, but just like bees, birds, fish and grizzly bears, the women do the pickin'--everything else is illusion.

Why do the Salmon swim upstream? 'Cause the ladies won't lay their eggs just anywhere so that some loser can come along and fertilize them.

P.S. When you break up--9 times out of 10--that was their choice too.

|1.18.05 @ 3:10PM|#

So, successful men don't have "time" to deal with the personality, uh, traits of feminists? And Maureen's point was...?

Femininism is on the decline because women discovered that they work harder for the same, or less, happiness than when they were "oppressed". In the words of Velvet Jones, "it's as simple as that".

|1.18.05 @ 3:16PM|#

It's unfortunate that Kipnis (and her old-school sisters) continue to focus on the beauty non-issue. Because now, after we've put on our makeup and our skinny jeans and teeny shirts, we're going out and we're doing better in school than boys, we're graduating from high school at higher rates, and damn if the boys aren't "marrying up" these days.

Despite the given statistics on what gals a boy might like to marry, there are an awful lot of men out there who are cleaning floors for a living and marrying their middle management girlfriend, and I don't hear anyone complaining.

Isn't that partly what it was about? The choice? That's what I got out of feminism, but maybe I was just duped somewhere. Bottom line: beauty isn't keeping us down.

|1.18.05 @ 3:30PM|#

it's like me mate Dave say...treat'em rough and you'll get the muff!

|1.18.05 @ 3:31PM|#

"...there are an awful lot of men out there who are cleaning floors for a living and marrying their middle management girlfriend, and I don't hear anyone complaining."

In my experience, the guys who are marrying up into middle management are staying home, lookin' for a job and playing computer games.

I know a number of middle management women, and I don't know any who married a janitor--I haven't seen any statistics either way, but middle management women marrying down seems counter-intuitive to me.

|1.18.05 @ 3:31PM|#

it's like me mate Dave say...treat'em rough and you'll get the muff!

-Da Ali G-

|1.18.05 @ 3:31PM|#

Where are Maureen Dowd, Rebecca Traister et.al. finding all these loser guys, anyway? I've never had such problems. Sounds to me like they're hanging out in the wrong bars.

|1.18.05 @ 3:40PM|#

Where are Maureen Dowd, Rebecca Traister et.al. finding all these loser guys, anyway? I've never had such problems. Sounds to me like they're hanging out in the wrong bars.

They're not in bars. They're in campus coffeehouses and hanging around men that find their politics 'fascinating'.

|1.18.05 @ 3:48PM|#

Goiter,
LOL!

|1.18.05 @ 3:49PM|#

>Where are Maureen Dowd, Rebecca Traister et.al. finding all these loser guys, anyway?

Here?

|1.18.05 @ 4:16PM|#

>>I know a number of middle management women, and I don't know any who married a janitor--I haven't seen any statistics either way, but middle management women marrying down seems counter-intuitive to me.

|1.18.05 @ 4:27PM|#

I think somewhere along the line the feminists are trying to fight biology.

People want to have babies, only women can have babies. That takes them out of the workforce for a while. Also women for the most part have evolved to choose self reliant, self confident, powerful men, that can provide well for the the kids, and protect them. Men for the most part have evolved to pick women who are built in a way that they would be able to give birth to healthy kids.

|1.18.05 @ 4:28PM|#

lso women for the most part have evolved to choose self reliant, self confident, powerful men, that can provide well for the the kids, and protect them.

Like I said, there is something to be said for appealing to the genetics of the female species....

|1.18.05 @ 4:44PM|#

Sometimes it seems to me like the biggest difference between me and Maureen Dowd and the rest of the "men want subservient women" crowd is that if I wrote a column castigating women for being insufficiently attracted to Latin majors, I would have the good sense to see it for what it was.

|1.18.05 @ 4:46PM|#

Women go for the asshole badboy pigs to knock them up. Then they marry the sensitive new age guy to raise the asshole badboy pig's snot nosed spawn.

|1.18.05 @ 5:04PM|#

Note to ourselves- Damn. That boy genius NoStar is onto us. Must send a sister to run right out and shut him up with a few "favors". Who to choose? No, better yet, send out the call for every female to take care of him. Everyone will want that asshole anyway, because we- all women- like assholes (but only for sex)! Then we'll need to round up any decent males we can find since many of us will now be pregnant. It's not ideal, but I suppose we'll have to make due with men treating us decently for the duration of child raising. That asshole NoStar is just too smart for us.

|1.18.05 @ 5:30PM|#

Mrs Borg,
Perhaps NoStar is wrong then? Or is he just an asshole for mentioning something that could be a common trait?

I mean, I don't think everything is black and white like he says. To a certain extent both sexes seem to seek what they don't think they can have, and there seems to be a truism about treating an individual badly and they wont leave you. Treat them like royalty and they will look for sex elsewhere.

Of course nothing is universal even for borgs

|1.18.05 @ 5:30PM|#

To the person who wrote: "Men for the most part have evolved to pick women who are built in a way that they would be able to give birth to healthy kids." (italics)

Uh, yeah, most modern men I know really love women with big, wide hips. (WTF?!). Newsflash: having supermodel or otherwise tanorexic proportions (read: size 0-4 ) doesn't necessarily produce "healthy kids". And I haven't met too many men, excepting some with an unusual "fetish", who seek out women with hips wider than those of your standard Victoria's Secret model or Sports Illustrated goddess or what have you. There's nothing wrong with preferring slender, attractive women, but don't sugar-coat it as if to say "most men" consider a woman's proportions in regards to their next-of-kin's safe delivery when looking for a sex partner. In fact, I usually see petite women with relatively narrow hip bones married, and having C-sections done, rather than birthing their "healthy kids" with their own sturdy, well-bred frames. Having bleached teeth, professional hair coloring, and a liposuctioned ass doesn't guarantee healthy kids, but a lot of guys sure seem to go for that kinda gal.

|1.18.05 @ 5:37PM|#

P.S. the words "sturdy, well-bred" were used sarcastically, in case that wasn't clear.

|1.18.05 @ 5:44PM|#

"It is when they know you could turn your back on them just as quickly and easily as they could turn their back on you that you become an object of their desire."

Heh. I find this works well on men, too.

|1.18.05 @ 5:48PM|#

One more P.S.: If your statement about men choosing women based on their frame's ability to deliver healthy kids were true, I'd have to beat "most men" away with a stick. Boy, I'd like to live in that reality. No, I would have no problem with that. :) But unfortunately, that is not the case. And, no, I do not have a buttah face.

|1.18.05 @ 5:54PM|#

smacky,

I'm actually going to disagree on this one. Most of the men I know (who, granted, are 30-ish and this makes a difference) actually prefer women who are more like size 6-10, which for the most part qualifies as sturdy enough. I think it's about proportion more than anything...

"Paris Hilton? I don't get it, she looks like a boiled chicken!" -some guy

And anyway, despite what porn and magazines and runways tell us, if the average woman in the US is a 12-14, most of their significant others don't seem to mind much, considering we still reproduce just fine.

|1.18.05 @ 6:06PM|#

That Paris Hilton quote is Hilarious.

Maybe age does make a difference. Still, I may not be in my 30's, but I do know and work with many older (30+) men... Consider: Magazines, Hollwood and TV, etc. may "tell us" nothing, but *somebody's* gotta be buying all those Maxims and playboys. Last I heard, implanted silicon doesn't improve a child's genetic composition. Plus, consider that many people marry before their 30's (when the woman is usually at her smallest, hip-wise), and more importantly, that the average women's size of 12-14 takes into account a wide range of ages, the majority of which are baby boomers or older, and also women who have already had their children, which naturally increases the woman's size....women can get away with spreading out at that age, they've already married and had their babies.

|1.18.05 @ 6:11PM|#

Consider: Magazines, Hollwood and TV, etc. may "tell us" nothing, but *somebody's* gotta be buying all those Maxims and playboys

There are a whole lotta better homes and gardens sold too, but not everyone's house looks like the magazines.

|1.18.05 @ 6:12PM|#

FemaleBorg can't stop thinking about me being such an asshole. I've gotten her hormones into a roiling boil. She wants me. Oh yeah, She wants me bad!

|1.18.05 @ 6:22PM|#

Smacky,

The sillicone thing proves my point. The part of a mans brain that evaluates the value of a woman for reproductive purposes doesn't know that it is sillicone.

Straight men like curves. There was a whole 'nother thread in H&R about that flying movie with Leonardo De Caprio, and the main point of that thread was every guy asking what happened to Hollywood, where are all the women with curves.

|1.18.05 @ 6:23PM|#

"the average women's size of 12-14 takes into account a wide range of ages, the majority of which are baby boomers or older, and also women who have already had their children, which naturally increases the woman's size....women can get away with spreading out at that age, they've already married and had their babies."

You mean we're not allowed to have sex after we give birth? Oh, damn!

|1.18.05 @ 6:28PM|#

OK but seriously, here's the point about the man's age: by the time they're 30, they are more likely to be going for the true genetically attractive woman, the one with curves, over the skinny one they were told by Playboy that they should want. Been my experience anyway. Curvy in middle school = fat; curvy at 30 = way sexy.

|1.18.05 @ 6:31PM|#

I don't really know what a 6-10 or a 12-14 size is. Talk to me about Height, weight, and cupsize. That is math I can understand.

Curves are attractive, fat is not. I think for the most part overall height is irrelevant. I am sure there is a reason why fat is not attractive, but I don't know exactly what it is. I am sure that it has something to do with capability of producing the best offspring or caring for them.

Exibit A: J-lo
Exibit B: Anna Nicole Smith

|1.18.05 @ 6:36PM|#

Paris Hilton is objectively not a sexy woman. (Wasn't she in the video at 19 doing it with a 46 year old dude?) After the video she became sexy because everyone knows that she puts out. When you see her you think of sex. You think to yourself, "I don't want to breed with her, but I can practice with her"

|1.18.05 @ 6:42PM|#

Kwais, I wouldn't fuck Paris Hilton with your dick. I might consider FemaleBorg depending on the pictures she sends me.

|1.18.05 @ 6:46PM|#

I am sure there is a reason why fat is not attractive, but I don't know exactly what it is. I am sure that it has something to do with capability of producing the best offspring or caring for them.

Well, you don't want the fat lady eating your offspring.

Wait, I mean, you don't want the fat lady eating all of your offspring's food. Right. That's it.

|1.18.05 @ 6:50PM|#

I think fat is a relative and cultural thing. Rubenesque used to be the ideal. To me it is like automobiles. Do you want one built for speed and handling, or do you want one built for comfort?

|1.18.05 @ 6:58PM|#

Chalk me up as another guy that likes curves (that includes hips), but dislikes fat. And I'm in my 20s. It's not so much the size, either, but the proportion that matters to me. It's a turn-off if I'm the light one in the relationship, sorry.

Paris Hilton, yuck. And that's not even taking into account the fact that she has a vaginal petri dish.

|1.18.05 @ 6:58PM|#

NoStar-
I think the Borg is saying that men prefer a slow, uncomfortable car that looks really good. Or something. Me, I think the world is full of shallow assholes but they're divided pretty evenly by gender, so there are enough non-shallow non-assholes to go around, unless you're some whiny person who always runs around screeching "You never talk about my needs, dammit."

True fact: women who say that ALL men are scum are the same women who say they hate men who say that ALL women are (insert pejorative here).

|1.18.05 @ 7:08PM|#

I know what I find MOST attractive in a woman and it is not cup size, length of legs, curvature, body mass index, or her earning power relative to my own. It is simply this, does she think I'm funny and does she laugh at my jokes. Everything else is negotiable.

|1.18.05 @ 7:28PM|#

NoStar,
Don't talk about fucking women with my penis. We don't know eachother that well yet. I am very particular about who I let use my pecker to fuck others.

I like curves, and I don't find Paris Hilton attractive, but I have done worse whilst drunk, and through the magic of latex have managed to stay STD free.

I like the curvier ones in playboy and SI.

What to the Borg lady's measurments mean in Heigth weight and cupsize stuff? Or in other words is she Rosie O'Donnell, J-Lo, or Kate Moss?

|1.18.05 @ 7:42PM|#

Kwais, To be technical about it, I was talking about NOT fucking with your dick. But as I think about it, I am sure you don't want me talking about you technicals either.

|1.18.05 @ 8:10PM|#

Here's something you won't see often on a Libertarian Blog: A selfless act of altruism.

But, I am ready to take one for the team. So regardless as to whether she thinks I am funny or whether she looks like Kate Moss, Jamie Lee Curtis, or Kathy Bates; I am willing to give FemaleBorg the mercy fuck she so obviously needs.

|1.18.05 @ 8:38PM|#

"the mercy fuck she so obviously needs."

Wow, so there is a gentelman amongst us. How very cavalier of you, nostar.

|1.18.05 @ 8:58PM|#

Say kwais, Can I borrow your dick for a few hours?

|1.18.05 @ 9:00PM|#

"I am willing to give FemaleBorg the mercy fuck she so obviously needs."

I suggest taking a look at "her" e-mail address first. It looks a lot like the one thoreau leaves. And he does have a habit of making sardonic posts under spoof names.

|1.18.05 @ 9:09PM|#

That's why I want to borrow kwais' unit, just in case.

|1.18.05 @ 9:17PM|#

"Can I borrow your dick for a few hours?"

Not for Thoreau you can't.

If you are going to hit up Smacky, you have to translate those sizes before I give you and OK

|1.18.05 @ 9:19PM|#

You know, a few minutes is probably a more realistic time frame.

|1.18.05 @ 9:52PM|#

I generally find myself only getting along in the mixed company of individuals who can't tolerate their own sex.

Men who think all women love assholes are generally the biggest assholes, of the unconfident insecure variety, tortured by a ballgratingly deep Madonna/Whore complex.

Women who cry, "Misogynist!" are usually just calling out a man for doing to women what they naturally do to one another.

|1.18.05 @ 11:19PM|#

It isn't very often that we get a female in here that'll stick around for more than a post or two. It seems like every time one shows up, somebody has to denounce them or post something lude--we're the blogosphere equivilent of a job site filled with ogeling construction workers.

I mean there are a few who hang around, but I get the feeling that the objectivist chicks around here carry handcuffs in their purses--and I'm just gettin' too old for that.

Women sympathetic to libertarians are hard enough to find--we don't want to scare them away in the first thread they show up in! Let's not offer to whip it out and give every one 'em that shows up what they really want--at least not right away.

...At least not until they've been here for a while--say the third thread. We'll find a way to keep track.

P.S. Okay, there was this daddy bull and his son standin' up on this ridge, lookin' down on a field of cows. The kid looks up at his dad and says, "Hey Pop! Let's run down into that valley and..."

TWC|1.19.05 @ 12:45AM|#

"Libertarian" and "women" are mutually exclusive terms.

And, of course Men Are Pigs.

TWC|1.19.05 @ 12:47AM|#

"Kwais, I wouldn't fuck Paris Hilton with your dick."

ROTFLMAO

No shit, dude.

|1.19.05 @ 5:25AM|#

"Where are Maureen Dowd, Rebecca Traister et.al. finding all these loser guys, anyway? I've never had such problems. Sounds to me like they're hanging out in the wrong bars."

I think in Manhattan. I don't know New York, but isn't that where Maureen would hang out?

|1.19.05 @ 6:37AM|#

Doug-
There's what--four or five million guys in Manhattan? Even a misanthrope like me refuses to believe that EVERY ONE of them is an immature jerk. If we were talking about columnists writing in Mississippi or something I'd be more sympathetic.

|1.19.05 @ 6:47AM|#

>>"Libertarian" and "women" are mutually exclusive terms.

|1.19.05 @ 8:50AM|#

Ken Schultz,

I wouldn't worry about scaring away the libertarian women from this thread, or from H&R.

It has already been established that Female Borg is Thoreau.

Jennifer has admitted to being a big bald sweaty guy in a tank top and a jock strap, who thinks of himself as a hot ass 106 lb curvatious chick.

Smacky is probably just another of Jean Bart's personalities.

It is really quite sad, and quite sick this.

|1.19.05 @ 9:19AM|#

I'm amused that this "discussion" has predictably devolved into talk about women's body shapes and men's penises.

Warren|1.19.05 @ 9:34AM|#

I am 40. I hate the Auschwitz survivor look. Size 10-14 (Marilyn Monroe, Jane Mansfield) makes me drool (even more disgusting than you imagine). I agree that gay fashion guys are the men who are pimping pro-ano. However, I think there is another point that needs to be made here. "Can't be too thin" is a female mantra. For all the bellyaching feminists do about how men have created the 'beauty' culture and women are it's victims. I think that the, shrink-wrapped skeleton as feminine ideal, is a result of women's perverse psyches. Women aren't starving themselves so much out of a desire to be attractive to men, as a desire to compete with other women. I do think there is a low self-esteem element here. But it seems to me, that this is something women are doing to themselves.

|1.19.05 @ 9:51AM|#

the men maureen dowd are talking about exist in a certain social strata - i.e. upper middle class and beyond.

"I generally find myself only getting along in the mixed company of individuals who can't tolerate their own sex."

yeah. they tend to be the most fun. the girls know how to drink and the guys aren't worried about catching TEH GAY every time you shake hands.

speaking of assholes, if we could create progeny of maureen dowd and andrea peyser, what would happen? would it explode? would it become the world's most sensitive evil manwoman?

|1.19.05 @ 9:56AM|#

warren - don't forget the magazines. they're a huge culprit.

what about those of us who like everything? fat, skinny, short, tall, hook-nosed, hunchbacked, etc.
(we're the biggest assholes of all)

Warren|1.19.05 @ 10:33AM|#

don't forget the magazines. they're a huge culprit

There are all kinds of magazines out there. The point is, that more than being conditioned to accept a certain ideal by the culture (magazines e.g.) the size-zero look is popular in magazines read by women. Men seem to be more conditioned by this cultural movement, as over the decades the women in men's magazines have gotten thinner. However, even as their taste is changing they still prefer women with curves, resulting in the grotesque 'lollypop with bowling balls' archetype. Magazines must reflect the tastes of their readers far more than they can bequeath it to them.

|1.19.05 @ 10:41AM|#

Serafina,

What are you talking about? Devolved?

The "discussion" started out from some strange feminists bellyaching about how unhappy they are with human biology and biological urgings. And how reality is never fitting what they think it should be. And really that those feminists are so confused about their own identity that they don't even know what they want.

And the discussion has EVOLVED into the interesting psychological phenomenon of how women see their own sexuality,and what we men are really attracted to, (and how often it is different).

Body size and shape being what we are genetically programmed to judge someone of the opposite sex on (and also judge someone of the same sex on too in a large part).

And the penis is the final instrument of completing the act of desire for men. And the recieving of which is the completion of the act of desire for women.

|1.19.05 @ 10:48AM|#

I used to believe that the skinny look was mostly from the fact that fashion designers were homosexual men. And their real ideal of beauty was a ten year old boy. And that is what they were looking for when they picked the women.

But, now having seen a lot of girls try on clothes and stuff, I think a lot of it is the fact that designing clothes around a skinny person, male or female is easier if that person is skinny. The form is a lot more forgiving. Therefore women judge eachother from how they look clothed, and that has evolved into an obsession with skinnyness.

Also, guys have come to seek skinnyness in part because if you are dating a woman that other women think is beautiful, women will think you are to be desired, and your next girlfriend will be much easier to come by. And even while you are still dating your ego will be fed by the knowledge that other women want you.

|1.19.05 @ 11:16AM|#

warren, i was joking. sorry.

not that things like cosmo aren't wastelands of vapidity, but so is maxim. my iq drops whenever i pass the newstand, y'know?

Warren|1.19.05 @ 11:50AM|#

dhex,
Color me obtuse. I was so intent on using your comment as a springboard to get in another couple of jabs, that I missed the sarcasm.

I agree with you regarding Cosmo and Maxim. I used to get a magazine called Atomic but they went belly up. RetroRadar.com has some good pin-ups, but you have to glean them from a lot of unimpressive material.

|1.19.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Hahaha. Assholes and stupid, too. Surely many of you hooked up with us in the last twenty-four hours being that all women find those qualities simply irresistable.

Libertarians? What libertarians? There are clearly not many in this thread dominated by collectivists lumping women all into one category.

|1.19.05 @ 12:14PM|#

Kwai, what any one man might like in a female body type is interesting only to that guy and any women who might return the interest.

|1.19.05 @ 12:24PM|#

"I'm amused that this "discussion" has predictably devolved into talk about women's body shapes and men's penises."

I only have one of those--talk about feelings of inadequacy!

|1.19.05 @ 12:44PM|#

Basic rule of thumb: whichever look is difficult to achieve will be considered the ideal. So in medieval times, when food was very expensive, only rich people could afford to get fat, so fat was 'in.' Now food is very cheap and most people have sedentary jobs; it's hard for most folks to be thin, so thin is in. Ditto for pale versus tan: when the peasants spent all their time working outdoors, pale skin was in since only rich people could afford to cultivate it. Now most folks are stuck indoors all day, so tans are popular.

|1.19.05 @ 1:38PM|#

Ms Borg, (aka thoreau)

You are still bitter? I guess NoStar didn't give you the rogering you clamor for.

What collectivists? What are you talking about? If someone says that on average females do X want X or can do only X. It is either true or not true, but does not imply collectivism.

I don't think it does. If it does, explain it to me pls. (slowly with small words)

|1.19.05 @ 1:40PM|#

Serafina,

If that were so, there would be no Playboy, no Maxim, no Porn. And this thread would have a lot fewer messages on it.

|1.19.05 @ 1:42PM|#

Ken Schultz,

No need to worry. Apparently my tool is avaiable to posters on this thread.

|1.19.05 @ 2:21PM|#

Kwais, have no fear about the misuse of your unit. The Queen of the Borg Collective will consent to a rogering only on the condition that it come from that tool of communism, Joe.

See, When women prefer assholes, they go for the biggest one around.

|1.19.05 @ 2:23PM|#

Let's see, where do I go with that?

"Uprising" has a lot of potential...

|1.19.05 @ 2:39PM|#

A few things:
"Well, you don't want the fat lady eating your offspring." -TPG

"Let's not offer to whip it out and give every one 'em that shows up what they really want--at least not right away.
...At least not until they've been here for a while--say the third thread. We'll find a way to keep track." -KS

"Jennifer has admitted to being a big bald sweaty guy in a tank top and a jock strap, who thinks of himself as a hot ass 106 lb curvatious chick." -KW

ROTFLMAO - you Libertarians ( = men) are really funny. Where should i spread 'em? (joking). Also:

" Smacky is probably just another of Jean Bart's personalities. "

-- False.

"Also, guys have come to seek skinnyness in part because if you are dating a woman that other women think is beautiful, women will think you are to be desired, and your next girlfriend will be much easier to come by. And even while you are still dating your ego will be fed by the knowledge that other women want you."

- An unfortunate reason to date someone, particularly if used as a pretext in a "serious"/long-term relationship. I have been the "chick magnet" many a time, and it ain't fun. Why don't you just put a sock down the front of your pants instead, and spare the poor pretty girl you're using as bait?

Finally,

"The men maureen dowd are talking about exist in a certain social strata - i.e. upper middle class and beyond." - Warren

-- Uh, yeah, which is probably her gripe. What about all the middle class (read: MOST) women in America? If upper middle class men and higher are vastly unrealistic jerks; if indeed it is true (as you imply) a symptom of a "certain social strata", then what's a successful, middle-class woman to do? Marry down? That's why feminists are so pissed: for most women it's an endless cycle of spending time and effort preening and grooming, just to doll up for some fatass average Joe Mechanic whose only desire in life is to watch TV uninterrupted.

|1.19.05 @ 2:39PM|#

Be proud, Joe. Be proud.

|1.19.05 @ 3:03PM|#

My tool is a capitalist tool.

It's just better regulated (in the 2nd Amendment ense) than most.

|1.19.05 @ 3:15PM|#

Smacky your back :)

Us vile lonely degenerate male libertarians didn't scare you off. Cool.

BTW, I didn't really think that you were JB, but he does have some other personalities so I figured I would tie in my exagerated point with that outlandish claim. Jennifer is also most likely really a hot chick, she jokingly claimed at one point to be a fat dude in a jock strap.

But more to the point, you say you have been used as a chick magnet? Do you mean that you are a hot chick? I couple that with the earlier statement that you are a curvatious girl. So that would kind of back up my claim that men like curves right?

Also, I wasn't speaking for myself when I talked about dating a girl who other women think are cute. I date who I like, in the event that she also likes me. On the occasions that the girl I was dating was considered hot by other chicks, I have noticed girls try to steal me away, and I assume it was for their own egos. The fact that they were trying to steal me away was an ego boost in itself (not that I need one, for my already big head).

|1.19.05 @ 3:20PM|#

A capitalist tool, eh? So, You're just a gigolo...

Humma-la, beeba-la, zeeba-la, bubbu-la,
Humma-la, beeba-la, zeeba-la, bop!

http://filesrv.bands.uiuc.edu/MI.old/Sounds/1997/Gigolo.wav

I'm Just a gigolo Won't some sweet mamma
come and take a chance with me
cause I aint so bad And I'll sing out, sweet love songs
All of the time
She will only be, only be
Bip bozadee bodzee bop le bop I aint got nobody
oh and theres nobody cares for me
theres nobody cares for me
Hummala bebhuhla zeebuhla boobuhla
hummala bebhuhla zeebuhla bop
I ain't got nobody, nobody,
nobody cares for me
Nobody , theres nobody cares for me
I'm so sad and lonely,
oh lonely, oh lonely, lonely lonely Won't some sweet mama come and rescue me
cause I aint so bad And I'll sing out
sweet love songs
all of the time
she will only be, only, only, only only be
baby, sugar darling I aint got nobody baby
And there's nobody, there's nobody
there's nobody theres nobody
there's no one, there's no one
nobody, nobody, nobody
nobody cares for me

everywhere I go
people know the part
I'm playing Paid for every dance
selling each romance
Oh what their saying There will come a day
And youth will pass away
What will they say about me When the end comes I know
they'll say just a gigolo
Life goes on without me I'm just a gigolo, everywhere I go
people know the part I'm playing
paid for every dance
starting each romance
oh what their saying And there will come a day
And youth will pass away
What will they say about me When the end comes I know
They'll say just a gigalo
Life goes on without me Cause I aint got nobody
oh and theres nobody cares for me
theres nobody cares for me I'm so sad and lonely
sad and lonely sad and lonely

|1.19.05 @ 3:24PM|#

quoting Carrie Fisher from Maureen Dowd's article: "I haven't dated in 12 million years," she said drily. "I gave up on dating powerful men because they wanted to date women in the service professions. So I decided to date guys in the service professions. But then I found out that kings want to be treated like kings, and consorts want to be treated like kings, too."

It's really true. I've experienced this. I may be young, but I've dated many guys. In fact, I believe that the guy I dated who was most on the road to success (Master's/PhD) was so severely intimidated by me having a job before him (I put education on hold in order to earn income) that he no longer desired to date me. Stop lumping successful women who are tired of being alone together as "bitter feminists". That characterization is not true; Maureen Dowd and women like her who have actually achieved something for themselves take heat on all sides, except for where it counts (between the legs). And I empathize with them. It's not that I think ALL men are like this; but the ones who actually are searching for a marraige PARTNER (read: equal) are few and far between. I think these sorts of feminist complaints stem from men's low self-confidence in their own abilities. Most men's desire for a duller, less accomplished, more obedient woman is the biological equivalent of the girl with bad self-image who needs to surround herself with ugly friends in order to feel pretty.
And even when I've tried to "date down", the men who earn less or have a lesser job than me make me feel as if it's criminal for me to have a higher income than them, even though I never flaunt it.

Warren|1.19.05 @ 3:32PM|#

Throw Me A Curve

Wishing there was less of you?
Are you really sure
How much less is more
Girls are shapely by design
Exactly what you�ve got
Is so easy to adore

CLOTHES HANGER LOLLIPOP
MAGAZINE PHOTO OP
BUT I�D RATHER BE A PIN-UP GIRL
THAN ZERO SIZE

THROW ME A CURVE NOT A STRAIGHT NARROW LINE
THROW ME A CURVE AND I�LL SHOW YOU MINE
GET THE MESSAGE IT�S DIVINE
THROW ME A CURVE IT LOOKS SO FINE

Microthin is way too in
I�m not so sure
I�d rather just be me
Seems everybody in the world
Thinks that x-ray girls
Are the only way to be

CLOTHES HANGER LOLLIPOP
MAGAZINE PHOTO OP
BUT I�D RATHER BE A PIN-UP GIRL
THAN ZERO SIZE

THROW ME A CURVE NOT A STRAIGHT NARROW LINE
THROW ME A CURVE AND I�LL SHOW YOU MINE
GET THE MESSAGE IT�S DIVINE
THROW ME A CURVE IT LOOKS SO FINE

|1.19.05 @ 3:45PM|#

Smacky,

Never ever ever ever date down. We don't have a royalty in America.

I am not intimidated by anyone. If I dated the female version of Bill Gates, I wouldn't feel like I was dating up. I value myself in who I am, and whether I think that I am reaching my goals. And in the case that I am not dating the female version of Bill Gates, I value myself in whether I can provide for any future family, as I would expect the girl to not work when having kids, and when the kids were in critical early stages. So that might make me sexist. I don't know.

I feel like the Maureen Dowd types are bitter feminists not because they feel they should be evaluated on what they have achieved, and I don't think men usually value a woman in those terms.

To me a woman is not more or less valuable whether she has a GED or ten PhD's. She is not more valuable if she works at Starbucks or if she owns it. She is evaluated on her looks, on how much fun she is to spend time with. And when looking for a life partner, she is valued on how good a mother she would make.

Maureen Dowd and the other chick want to be valued by the same things that men value eachother by, and/ or by the same thing that women value men by. and that isn't the way we are programmed.

|1.19.05 @ 3:47PM|#

Dude,
does anyone read these anoying ass songs?

|1.19.05 @ 3:55PM|#

"Maureen Dowd and the other chick want to be valued by the same things that men value eachother by, and/ or by the same thing that women value men by. and that isn't the way we are programmed." - Kwais

You speak as if these women are not human, or as if women were supposed to be competition dogs or breeding animals at the County Fair. I think this is what "feminists", i.e. respectable women, have a problem with. Do you check your women for fleas and/or worm shots, too?

Moreover, if by saying "that isn't the way we are programmed", you are saying your malehood overrides your reason and logic, then you really oughtn't to be posting on this message board. Especially if you're speaking on behalf of all other men. Dude.

|1.19.05 @ 4:07PM|#

addendum: What "feminists" have a problem with is that women AREN'T judged by their accomplishments. When this attitude is perpetuated, it is thereby excluding them in essence of the greatness that people are capable of. Most unenlightened women (housewives, maids, etc.) accept this blindly as their fate, simply because it is status quo. That is their own fault.

I don't know why Maureen Dowd sharing some statistics elicits such defensive comments from men, anyway. In the spirit of non-biasedness, why should women be held to different standards?

|1.19.05 @ 4:12PM|#

malehood is the cause of reason and logic, just like your femalehood is the cause of your reason and logic.

I don't litteraly check women for fleas and worms, but I do figuratively, just as you do the same for men. Part of the millions of things that our minds check for when viewing another person. The sum of all the things we check for is what we evaluate as beauty.

What makes the feminists the way they are is the desire to win in the so called competition of breeding dogs. But they feel like they have a disadvantage, or they feel like they would or should have a bigger advantage.

The same thing for guys who label male models as 'fags', or other males who have a percieved huge advantage in what they percieve are the rules in the so called breeding competition.

|1.19.05 @ 4:28PM|#

Re-addendum,
They aren't judged by their accomplishments as a women, because that is not their value as a woman. That is the way it is. (generally speaking), that is why they are bitter.

Maybe it is that they value men that way, and they feel that is the problem. And maybe they think that most women value men that way, which I am not so sure is true actually. But it is probably true that to some extent women do value men as a partner and father of their children for their acomplishments.

|1.19.05 @ 4:29PM|#

I support a lot of what Maureen Dowd said, and I think you're making a big assumption that most "feminists" are ugly. I don't agree with what she said because I feel I'm in competition with other women: I'm secure with my looks, and frankly I couldn't give a fuck about what other women do with their appearance. I don't feel disadvantaged at all, at least in the looks department. So there goes your theory. Women like her are pissed because they ARE alpha females - some of them possessing brains and beauty (not all of them are attractive, I'll grant you that) -and they're lamenting it because they're being ignored for women with ONLY beauty. In other words, let's breed our women to be stupid, since all they're good for is rearin' piglets and makin' snacks.

Kwais, don't assume that everyone selects their partners based solely on looks. In fact, if every man thought like you, it would be the case that men are chosen for their personality, success, and oftimes looks, while women would be considered only for their sexiness. What a lark that would be!

|1.19.05 @ 4:40PM|#

I guess, to sum up my point, "feminists" are upset with this: Paradoxically, it pays off for a woman to be stupider. If anything goes against human evolution, I'd say this would be it. And it's the toughest to reconcile myself with.

|1.19.05 @ 4:43PM|#

Smacky,
I think that we posted at the same time.

I don't think that Maureen Dowd is ugly, if she's the one I see on tv. She is somewhat attractive. I wouldn't hook up with her that way, but I am sure that on looks alone she could find a good man. If she drops the whole 'demand that I am better than anybody else thing'. Or whatever. Maybe she can find someone who is into the whole 'bitter feminist' thing.

|1.19.05 @ 4:46PM|#

"What makes the feminists the way they are is the desire to win in the so called competition of breeding dogs."

kwais, you don't know very many feminists, do you?

|1.19.05 @ 4:53PM|#

I don't really think that it pays for a woman to be stupid. I think it might help at some point to be non confrontational, and that might come out as being stupid. Guys don't want to marry a headache.

I don't like going out with stupid gils, I don't even think the feigning of ignorance is cute.

I really don't think that most guys do either. I what you were saying was true, there wouldn't be the majority of students in college who are women. There wouldn't be the large quatity of women with PhD's. You wouldn't be around with your problems.
Maureen Dowd wouldn't have her 'issues'

|1.19.05 @ 4:58PM|#

Joe,
I have met a few. I am a son of one. My girlfriends friends have been feminists. I read their articles, I see their dominance, and the dominance of their fantasies on tv

|1.19.05 @ 5:21PM|#

Kwais, you are hilarious. How do you define a feminist, as in your mother and girlfriends?

|1.19.05 @ 5:28PM|#

Kwais' definition of feminist: any chick who thinks she's anything other than a stewardess for her man.

|1.19.05 @ 5:47PM|#

So Maureen Dowd uses anecdotes from real life and the movies to prove that ALL men are immature babies who don't want a woman unless she's a stupid, sexy hot-babushka type. Of course, I could use the same technique to prove that all women are bubbleheaded gold-diggers (i.e. Anna Nicole Smith) who won't pay attention to even the greatest man unless he's loaded. And yet I need only look in the mirror to see that's not true, just as I need only look at my One True Love and various friends of his to see that men aren't all like that, either. I'd have more sympathy if these complaints came from Southern women, but even then most men deserve a lot more credit than they're getting.

Every woman has met her share of jerks, to be sure, but most of the men I know want the same thing that the women do--somebody to find stimulating sexually AND intellectually, somebody to have fun with (sexually AND intellectually), somebody with whom you have enough in common to be compatible, and yet have differences enough to keep from being a carbon copy of each other, et cetera.

I would be extremely insulted if some guy here mentioned the dating history of someone like Paris Hilton, say, and then drew from that unflattering assumptions about MY character.

|1.19.05 @ 5:55PM|#

Jennifer,

If you are implying that I am using this article or the related columns to deride Kwais' character or view of women and feminists, I am not. I would never take a generalization and then throw it in some individual's face as if he were to blame for the mistakes or quirks of other men. I am simply deriding his view of women and feminists based on his posts. :)

|1.19.05 @ 6:12PM|#

Oh, I don't think Maureen Dowd was saying something about all men, Jennifer. She was just noting the trend among powerful men to prefer younger, caretaking wives to women with fame and accomplishment similar to their own. It may all be a bit pointless because people make their individual choices, but Maureen's schtick is to be amusing more so than incisive, and she does it well.

|1.19.05 @ 6:19PM|#

Smacky--
Oh. Y'know, I'm wondering how much of this is just a matter of semantics. There seem to be two definitions of 'feminist'--people like us, who think that women should be men's legal equals, and the radical feminists who seem to get most of the media attention these days. I mean, did you read the essays mentioned in this posting? Any woman who wants to look attractive is the victim of some slave mentality? Any man who would like to be a father denigrates and objectifies women? Bullshit. And I say that as a woman who wants no babies and never has wanted any.

|1.19.05 @ 6:57PM|#

You know, it would be great if one of you babes would stop yakkin' for a minute and run get me a beer.

:)

|1.19.05 @ 7:12PM|#

Jennifer,

I completely agree with you on all counts. People use the word "feminist" without first agreeing upon a definition, and then chaos ensues.

I, also, disagree with the notion that a would-be attractive woman is "a slave" to her looks. I like to look nice. And whenever I feel I'm spending too much time and effort on it, I stop myself. And I don't blame anyone except my own occasional breakout for needing to apply makeup. It's important to seek personal happiness/balance: That's a crucial point of libertarianism, ne pas? So is not lumping oneself into a collective term such as 'feminism', a generic and confusing catch-all word that I find usually puts me mistakenly in a pen with screeching malcontent piglettes with whom I mostly disagree. Again, I, as you, also don't think men should be resented for wanting fatherhood: it's the purpose of their existence, more or less. Perhaps if our differences with the self-proclaimed, well-known radical feminists are many, maybe "feminist" is not what we are at all? (I do not really consider myself much of an "-ist" of any sort, except maybe an individualist....)

( Of course, never mind that I don't call myself feminist; many progressive ideas I have about women in society are invariably written off as 'bitter feminist', simply because the term "female" is involved in the thought.)

This whole hullabaloo is a matter of semantics, but also due in part to biased reporting, gender stereotypes, and general confusion of posting topic. I question also whether some people here (including the investigator) cry "feminist" and mock "men are pigs" simply because of personal bias. This is discussion, people. I didn't hear pigs mentioned in the column anywhere...Be REASONable. :D

And all this time I thought that no man could resist the wiles of Princess Leia....I'm sure many Star Wars geeks are crushed only to find out she's...... (shakes head solemnly)...well, you label her whateva you want.

|1.19.05 @ 7:20PM|#

Has anyone considered that it is easier for a person with a high powered-time consuming career to schedule off time with a partner who has a less scheduled life style.

The odds are that two such people (even if perfectly matched psychologically, physiological, educationally and emotionally) would not be able to maintain enough simultaneous off time to maintain a relationship.

Too much of Feminism is like Marxism, based on a pseudo science that describes humans as they should be (according to the philosophy) and is not based on the reality of what humans are.

|1.19.05 @ 7:25PM|#

Second paragraph refers of course to two high powered career driven individuals.

|1.19.05 @ 7:35PM|#

Yeah, I heard Rush talking about this article and Reason magazine. He has more libertarian leanings than he lets on to but he usually steers away from the 'L' word just because the capital L movement has turned into such a freak show.

A few years ago I noticed Walter Williams' name in the mast head of Reason on-dead-tree as some sort of Foundation member and started listening closer for clues to Rush's latent libertarianism. His is the basic, common sense classical liberalism of individual rights and free markets. Not the fringe stuff that has taken over the movement since earlier times when the L word was more closely associated with Hayek and Friedman than pot and abortion.

|1.19.05 @ 7:40PM|#

NoStar-
But when you say "Feminism is like Marxism in its unreal view of humanity," you're making the same semantic mistake mentioned already. For all the jokes that have been made, I'd wager that all the men who generally post here--even the dreaded Kwais--fit *my* definition of a feminist. We might disagree on some relatively minor matters like women in the military, say, but I think we all share the same views on whether women should be allowed to vote, get an education, earn a living, live an independent life if she so chooses, and so forth.

The type of feminism you're talking about is the self-parodying fringe element who, for example, reason that since women are 51% of the population they should constitute 51% of all personnel in all career fields and extracurricular activities and so forth. And yes, the fact that women lose their childbearing abilities at some point is viewed by some as a patriarchal conspiracy rather than a fact of nature.

But embarrassing nutjobs who go too far are to be found in ANY philosophy, idea, political group or organization.

|1.19.05 @ 7:47PM|#

www.ifeminists.net

|1.19.05 @ 7:58PM|#

Jennifer and smacky, you've hit it on the head--semantics! From my experience, many men think that feminism = female machismo. Every time I hear the word feminism, I think: masculinism. I prefer egalitarianism. The word feminism seems to imply female superiority. From reading Dowd, I get the feeling that she is a female version of an assholish macho male. Could it be that her problem is that she's just a sexist pigette?

|1.19.05 @ 8:13PM|#

Jennifer,
By "Too much of feminism" I was refering to the headline grabbing element of feminism like the RadicalWomen organization I encountered at the University of Washington.

It doesn't bode well for any cultural movement be it Feminism, Islam or Libertarianism when the movement is allowed to be defined by its most rabid foam-at-the-mouth segment.

Truth be known, I consider myself a Feminist. Also a Humanist albeit of a non secular variety, and a born again Christian. But above all, I remain a Smart-Ass-Libertarian.

|1.20.05 @ 3:51AM|#

There are libertarian feminists. They even have their own club. http://www.alf.org

I followed the links in Cathy's article to a Salon piece about Brad, Jen and babymaking. Smack-dab in the middle of it was a South Beach Diet ad.

I've met some very attractive feminist women. Some of them were even libertarian-ish. It's my own damn fault that I'm too much of a scrub to reel one in. :)

Kevin

|1.20.05 @ 4:07AM|#

Serafina
asked me what my definition of a feminist is. I'll go with what The Real Bill described, sexist pigette. As in the silly notion that if women were in charge there would be no wars, as in the tough girl on tv (eg xena) that no guy could ever beat.

Also feminists are the ones that would deny biological differences between men and women except where they benefit women.

Also the women that get upset when a guy likes a submissive woman. Not my thing but if they are both into that whose buisness is it?

|1.20.05 @ 5:46AM|#

The first and second point were to answer the Serafina,

The last point was to address Smacky's concerns.

The dreaded Kwais

|1.20.05 @ 5:51AM|#

Smacky,

" I am simply deriding his view of women and feminists based on his posts"

What pray tell is my view of women, based on my posts?

|1.20.05 @ 7:13AM|#

>>You know, it would be great if one of you babes would stop yakkin' for a minute and run get me a beer.

|1.20.05 @ 11:16AM|#

Soon as I finish the dishes -- er, finish watching Most Extreme Elimination Challenge.

Hey, I have to agree with the point that just about everyone here is a feminist, at least in terms of what feminists fought for in the 1970s. Legal equality, no arbitrary discrimination on the basis of gender -- that's mainstream now. I remember in Virginia Postrel's book The Future and Its Enemies she talks about Patrick Buchanan on a TV program arguing the dangers of unrestricted immigration, citing an anecdote about a native-born American woman with two kids who lost her job to cheaper Mexican immigrant labor.

In other words, one of the most famously rightwing men in America was now operating on the unspoken and unquestioned assumption that a wife and mother has a right to a job outside the home.

Nowadays many women say, "I don't consider myself a feminist, but ..." What they really mean is, "I'm a 'feminist,' just like you and almost everyone else we know, but I'm not a radical, angry man-hater like some vocal activists who claim to be feminists."

|1.20.05 @ 1:24PM|#

Caveat: In the above post, my recollection of the passage in Virginia Postrel's book is approximate only. I may disremember the details. But generally, you get the point.

Reason.com

New at Reason

TWC|1.19.05 @ 12:45AM|#

TWC|1.19.05 @ 12:47AM|#

Warren|1.19.05 @ 9:34AM|#

Warren|1.19.05 @ 10:33AM|#

Warren|1.19.05 @ 11:50AM|#

Warren|1.19.05 @ 3:32PM|#

Leave a Comment

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices: