Why Do Men Keep Falling for Women's Manipulative Shaming Tactics?

[betterdeal]

Fair enough.

[Emilia]

Bitching, crying and posting 3,400 posts on dating forums...very constructing time management for today's cold sore covered females...

 

You must be close to that number yourself alas under different identities

[Emilia]

Fair enough.

 

I think the more you experience, the stronger you get, wouldn't you agree?

[Mme. Chaucer]

I'm no expert on PUA (DUH!) but from what I gather, it's just like "The Rules" was for women. An artificial construct based upon regular old marketing ploys that uses good bait and has a huge and hungry customer base - lonely people looking for marriage, sustained attention from the opposite gender, and / or sex.

 

I watched some PUA videos on YouTube before posting this.

 

An evidently popular "body language" video I watched would probably have disastrous effects if employed my most men.. Only a rare man who was unusually confident and attractive could get away with repeatedly invading another person's personal space so disrespectfully. Truly. And if he did it to a man - he'd get punched.

 

It could "work" if the guy was profoundly cocky and had the physical appeal to back it up. Are lots of guys like this signing up for this type of "training"?

 

Some of the "instructors" did appear to be putting women in a sort of "prey" or "victim" category, which I think would be very destructive in many ways for guys and women alike. As others have posted here before, "success" in that sphere could not lead anywhere further than a one night stand with a woman who had low self esteem or was chemically impaired, likely both, which I think is the primary goal. Am I right?

 

Other "instructors" seemed to actually like women; one guy even said his "assistant" in the demos was a good friend of his. (From LS, I've got the impression that PUA guys would never consider any woman a friend, unless she were too ugly to be targeted as a sex receptacle.) I felt kindly towards that guy. He was playful. He had a positive energy and did not seem threatening or hateful. I think plenty of women would respond to that guy, but I also doubt that an insecure introvert could adopt any of his moves without coming off like a clown or a concerning weirdo. Unless the insecure introvert had innate talent as an actor.

 

On the positive side, even though I have to laugh at the whole idea of PUA as a "movement" (and they even have a "summit," evidently!), if it really helps some unhappy and lonely guys get to a better place and those individuals manage that without being hateful and vengeful towards their "targets," then good. Kind of like those old Dale Carnegie courses, except only geared towards half the population.

 

I felt like that about "The Rules" for women, too. I thought it was a dumb laff riot, and also insulting - but if happy couples resulted (I mean HAPPY COUPLES, not men getting roped into something they did not want to do because of trickery - which I doubt happens much anyway) then, good for them too.

[Taramere]

So anger is the innate response of people and only by conditioning do some people - maybe the majority - learn not to react angrily.

 

I'd qualify that as "learn not to react so angrily that they become perpetually unhappy and ridiculous."

 

Anger is a normal emotion that everybody gets. Surely there isn't anybody here who hasn't snapped in a stressed out moment then later on had to apologise to the innocent party they picked on. "Sorry, you caught me at a bad moment." Or engaged in a bit of passive aggression/condescension.To me that's normal anger. Or...as with a lot of people I know, anger might often be be something that is exaggerated for the purposes of entertainment. A lot of good comedy, satire and music comes from anger.

 

More problematic anger, to me is where people seem pathologically incapable of taking responsibility for their own anger. Seeing it as something other people draw out of them, while they sit back helpless to do anything about it. Or where they genuinely seem to believe that the get special powers (Incredible Hulk style) as a result of their anger. Or else when they deny vehemently that they ever feel such a thing, and devote a lifetime concealing their cauldron of rage with

[betterdeal]

I think the more you experience, the stronger you get, wouldn't you agree?

 

Not necessarily. The kid who used to bully me relentlessly when I was eleven probably isn't much stronger now for all the anal rape his Sergeant Major father subjected him to, for instance.

[Emilia]

Not necessarily. The kid who used to bully me relentlessly when I was eleven probably isn't much stronger now for all the anal rape his Sergeant Major father subjected him to, for instance.

 

How do you know? If he learnt to deal with the abuse his father subjected him to he is probably stronger than he was before. It is about gaining perspective over our experiences. When they are extreme it obviously takes much longer to get that perspective and in some cases it never happens but in many cases people grow. Not every abused person ends up being an abuser

[betterdeal]

I'd qualify that as "learn not to react so angrily that they become perpetually unhappy and ridiculous."

 

And it's how they learn how to respond differently to events that I'm interested in.

 

Anger is a normal emotion that everybody gets. Surely there isn't anybody here who hasn't snapped in a stressed out moment then later on had to apologise to the innocent party they picked on. "Sorry, you caught me at a bad moment." Or engaged in a bit of passive aggression/condescension.To me that's normal anger. Or...as with a lot of people I know, anger might often be be something that is exaggerated for the purposes of entertainment. A lot of good comedy, satire and music comes from anger.

 

Sure, we've all had a fit of pique. I used to be a very explosive individual, either because people really were taking the piss, or I had misread the situation, but always because I didn't know how to express myself differently.

 

More problematic anger, to me is where people seem pathologically incapable of taking responsibility for their own anger. Seeing it as something other people draw out of them, while they sit back helpless to do anything about it. Or where they genuinely seem to believe that the get special powers (Incredible Hulk style) as a result of their anger. Or else when they deny vehemently that they ever feel such a thing, and devote a lifetime concealing their cauldron of rage with

 

It almost always derives from something that can be addressed. Even if someone ignores advice as to how to shrug it off / stand up for themselves / deal with it differently, it plants seeds, and is less likely to entrench their misconceptions.

[betterdeal]

How do you know? If he learnt to deal with the abuse his father subjected him to he is probably stronger than he was before. It is about gaining perspective over our experiences. When they are extreme it obviously takes much longer to get that perspective and in some cases it never happens but in many cases people grow. Not every abused person ends up being an abuser

 

Sure, both my parents were sexually abused and broke the cycle. People can and do survive it. However, children who were sexually abused are more likely to suffer serious mental health problems, commit suicide, or sexually abuse children. The more chronic the abuse, the more likely these kind of consequences. So yes, he has probably not had his life enriched by the experience.

 

And, more pertinently, his anger expressed as violence against me was almost certainly related to the violence he was experiencing at home.

[Emilia]

Sure, both my parents were sexually abused and broke the cycle. People can and do survive it. However, children who were sexually abused are more likely to suffer serious mental health problems, commit suicide, or sexually abuse children. The more chronic the abuse, the more likely these kind of consequences. So yes, he has probably not had his life enriched by the experience.

 

And, more pertinently, his anger expressed as violence against me was almost certainly related to the violence he was experiencing at home.

 

For sure. I would imagine abuse like this often would result in someone becoming a social outcast eventually.

 

However I really do think this is a bit of a straw man for this thread because most posters would not have sexual abuse in mind when they discuss strength/weakness/experience/perspective, etc here

[betterdeal]

For sure. I would imagine abuse like this often would result in someone becoming a social outcast eventually.

 

However I really do think this is a bit of a straw man for this thread because most posters would not have sexual abuse in mind when they discuss strength/weakness/experience/perspective, etc here

 

I don't see it as a straw man because it was in response to your assertion that whatever we experience makes us stronger, not the central topic of the thread.

[Emilia]

I don't see it as a straw man because it was in response to your assertion that whatever we experience makes us stronger, not the central topic of the thread.

 

Actually, you are probably wrong. There are a lot of people in Africa that are sexually abused as a matter of course (in many countries rape isn't actually recognised as a crime) and they learn to deal with it. So even though your point is only good for preventing a sensible discussion where you would actually need to take responsibility for your thought process, it is probably still wrong.

[betterdeal]

Actually, scratch that. I did relate it to the topic, but a straw man is making a fallacious argument, which was not my intention and behind most anger there's something that can be addressed. How to address it is interesting in itself but I'm outta here for a bit. Time to go outside and get the last of the sun.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I have a bone to pick with the whole concept (as appropriated by the "mens right movement" or whatever) of "SHAMING."

 

How has this idea come around to be something exclusively done BY women TO men?

 

I see SO much "shaming" going on here by men towards women, usually employed by the very fellows who are constantly b***hing about women doing it to them.

 

If a woman responds negatively to a man who is trashing women, or wallowing in self-pity, or displaying blatant bigotry - she is "shaming" him. In fact, around here, a woman disagreeing or arguing with a man about anything is "shaming" him.

 

But the kind of talk about women - especially in relationship to sexuality - extremely "shaming," or at least intended to make a person feel ashamed.

 

One of the most vocal complainers here about woman on man "shaming" has said something to the effect of "what value could a used up middle aged ex stripper and drug addict bring to this discussion" in a thread, to me.

 

Same guy has frequently belittled other women posters here for having "casual" sex with a man … and posted that a woman who was unfaithful should be subjected to formal public shame and shunning.

 

Whatever. My point is this question:

 

Do you guys think that a woman arguing or disagreeing with you is equivalent to "shaming" you? Or, maybe you are ashamed of YOURSELVES if a lowly woman can win an argument with you? If a woman calls you out on some BS - is that "shaming" you? Have you ever done anything or said anything at all that you actually felt ashamed of? Are you fine with guys "shaming" women? If so, in general, or just about certain subjects, like sex?

[dasein]

There was another thread (now deleted) by some troll going on about how all women over 40 are ugly, revolting, stale vaginas etc. A few women posted along the lines of "where's my blue hair dye". I'm sure I can recall dasein, or one of the other posters on this thread, expressing approval of women being able to show a sense of humour about being regarded in this way once they're past 40. Yet employing a pink fist logo to define the brotherhood of men who are angry about their involuntary celibacy is, apparently, a cruel and low blow that no man should be expected to have a sense of humour about.

 

Either double standards are firmly at work....or we're being asked to accept that men are more emotionally fragile than women and require more kid glove treatment than we do.

 

Trying to make a connection between a very obvious troll thread from some unknown nut passing through, bound for deletion, that could not be directed at specific LS posters (who's to know how old specific female posters are here?) via another non-troll but partially tongue-in-cheek thread (directed at no one in particular), and yet a third thread containing a graphical depiction of masturbation, a directed, non trolling effort to humiliate and degrade a small, readily identifiable set of specific posters by a well-known, "veteran" LS poster (who should know better), is disingenuous and unreasonable of you.

 

I was encouraged that the female posters in the troll thread responded in kind to an obvious troll, as opposed to making it about "It saddens me that this forum has been overtaken by hordes of bitter men who hate women blablabla." It was refreshing, and not in how they responded to the absurd insults themselves, but merely in how they avoided making a "patented LS female victimization statement" over an obvious troll.

 

So no, no double standard is at play, in rational land anyway, and I have no idea whether or not men are more sensitive or emotionally fragile than women are.

 

However, I will tell you that I like grapefruit. Since "fruit" is a component of grapefruit, and "fruit" is also a pejorative for a gay man, gay men are perceived to be more sensitive, then I must be more sensitive, and if one man is more sensitive, then all men must be more sensitive, so based on the level of reasoning in vogue here, you may be onto something, men may indeed be more sensitive. So please do treat us with kid gloves, I am sure we will all appreciate it.

[Taramere]

Trying to make a connection between a very obvious troll thread from some unknown nut passing through, bound for deletion, that could not be directed at specific LS posters (who's to know how old specific female posters are here?) via another non-troll but partially tongue-in-cheek thread (directed at no one in particular), and yet a third thread containing a graphical depiction of masturbation, a directed, non trolling effort to humiliate and degrade a small, readily identifiable set of specific posters by a well-known, "veteran" LS poster (who should know better), is disingenuous and unreasonable of you.

 

I was encouraged that the female posters in the troll thread responded in kind to an obvious troll, as opposed to making it about "It saddens me that this forum has been overtaken by hordes of bitter men who hate women blablabla." It was refreshing, and not in how they responded to the absurd insults themselves, but merely in how they avoided making a "patented LS female victimization statement" over an obvious troll.

 

What exactly was absurd about the post? Essentially he was stating the position that a woman's value declines with age. It's not an uncommon position. I've heard and read a lot of men express it. He simply did so in cruder terms than are usually used.

 

The reaction of the women on the thread indicated, to me, gestures of philosophically shrugging off of a reality that we're all very well aware of and reminded of on a regular basis.

 

In truth, if women were able to shrug such things off so easily, billions wouldn't be spent on anti-ageing remedies and cosmetic surgery. However, while all that frantic paddling goes on under the surface, on the surface it's all "ho ho...aren't these 'you ugly old bag' troll posts a riot? Best get my blue rinse perm done" to reduce any potential discomfort such a post might create - presenting, as it does, a very real and common male perspective of older women, in more unpalatable terms than are generally used.

 

So I rather think you're the one being disingenuous here.

[Anela]

Some people are born strong and other, like human females..are born weak..in emotion, logic and dating site post counting...

 

The strong don't make fifty accounts on a message board, in order to put down both men who like women, and women in general.

[Anela]

Because it has. There are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking, it's been done by women to men, especially if he's a nice guy.

 

 

 

And women never shame men? They have done so for the last 40 years through the media, magazines, talk shows and the like. You constantly hear women tell everyone that men are this and men are that, a lot of it not complimentary. So why should we be silent about that?

 

Every guy in here has had his heart carved out by some woman who used an a Swiss Army knife. There are two things a guy can do about that. One, come in this forum and complain about how he can't get laid and how he's such a nice guy and can't understand why women don't consider him as someone who's a nice catch. He's always put in the friendzone and becomes depressed and introverted. Or he can do what I do: become an a-hole, show little to zero respect for women and get more ass than a toilet seat because of it and be proud of it. Women show little respect for nice, good, virtuous men who have great intentions of treating a woman the right way. Instead, they reject those guys, only to care about them finally when they're in their 30s when the crows feet and the turkey neck becomes prominent, after she's had the wildest, hottest sex with all the bad boys and irresponsible reprobate in town. Women view nice guys are their gay friends. They see them as their pink diaries who they can talk openly about all the fun they're having with the men who society says they shouldn't be having sex with.

 

 

 

 

 

You're absolutely right. But when women shame men, they expect us to keep our mouths shut and our wallets open. When a nice guy does this, women go for the cash and credit cards that are in their instead of the condom. They go for the condoms if they're with a man who doesn't spoon feed them politically correct bullsh-t.

 

 

 

 

And I LOVE it!

 

 

 

 

To answer the first question, yes. To answer the second question, for me, no. For other guys, perhaps. I'll explain why in a minute. To answer the third question, while I was a nice guy, yes. Since then, no. To answer the fourth question, yes. To answer the last question, certain topics, especially sex.

 

Women have shamed guys for generations on time. It's time to hear the other side of the argument. That side of the argument explains why there are so many relationship disharmony nowadays.

 

To expand on the second question, let me copy and paste something I said not so long ago on this forum.

 

The problem here is people are afraid of hearing the truth, or they're afraid of others hearing the truth. They don’t want to damage their own egos by admitting they’re wrong, or having some spoiler like me coming in here and ruining everything for them.

 

The great example of this is the never-ending debate on who gets to pay on dates. When I express my view that women should pay for their own ways in the dating world, I won't be surprised if I get responses in the way of shaming statements. They might say that I either have never gotten laid or that I never went out on a date, etc. If I get these statements from women, it’s because they enjoy having their dates paid for. And the last thing they need is some a—hole like me giving other men ideas. If I get them from men, it’s because they don’t want to admit that they don’t have the confidence to attract women without waving a lot of cash in their faces.

 

So, one party wants to shut me down because I’m killing their Golden Goose; the other party wants to shut me down because I’m killing their egos. And, boy, I just live for situations like that. Gold diggers, meet your nemesis.

 

In matters sexual, relational, and gender related, women are so used to society agreeing with whatever they have to say, that they have lost the ability to argue effectively. The logical muscle has become atrophied. In its place, the flab of unquestioned subjective is in their brain, claiming moral superiority by virtue of reproductive function.

 

In the Women’s Study lecture hall, the professor says, “We are women, and we’re all oppressed. Men are evil. This is true because I say it is.” In the courtrooms, the judges say that the natural place for a child to be raised is with his mother, regardless of any evidence to the contrary in specific situations. In the media, fathers and husbands are portrayed as bumbling fools; so of course they must be. After all, those media folks are so much smarter than the rest of us.

 

Hence, the culture has created an atmosphere where proof or evidence is never required of women. Women are morally superior to men because, well, they just are. And men are icky, anyway.

 

It’s no wonder that women, and not just feminists, react with horror when a man stands up and says, “Wait a minute. Something is not right here.” A man MUST understand that merely having a contrary view to women when it comes to relationships or matters of gender, then it’s a violation of what most women consider their birth rights.

 

And so the usual comments from women ensue.

 

And when women stand up and say, "Wait a minute. something is not right here," we're accused of shaming men.

[dasein]

What exactly was absurd about the post? Essentially he was stating the position that a woman's value declines with age. It's not an uncommon position.

 

No, what the troll said, the actual thread title, was that 40+ year old females should not be allowed to "troll" the forums, absurd and also amusingly ironic on its face due to its issuing from a very obvious troll. "Women declining in value with age" is a convenient red herring for you in a transparent attempt to relate to prior "women's sexual attractiveness declines with age" subtopics in threads. Sorry, not buying. No reasonable poster here without an axe to grind would perceive the troll thread in question as a legitimate thread even remotely similar to other threads where the statement "women decline in attractiveness with age," is dishonestly contorted into "older women are garbage" for the purpose of convenient straw man fodder.

 

The reaction of the women on the thread indicated, to me, gestures of philosophically shrugging off of a reality that we're all very well aware of and reminded of on a regular basis.

 

To me, they were poking fun at an obvious troll while avoiding the obnoxious, repetitive tendency here of complaining about and vastly exaggerrating a supposed "hateful men" problem here on LS.

 

In truth...

 

Mmmkay. Whatever you say. Wise to divert away from further talk of the logo by any means possible, no matter how overreaching, will give you that. And truthfully, I'd rather not discuss the logo further either, there's really no rationalization or even "grapefruit" level logic possible where that is concerned, nothing more to be said.

[TheBigQuestion]

While I don't agree that being an a-hole is the solution, a lot of what The Fourth Planet mentions in his post is correct.

 

I really do hate to bring this up again (trust me, I do, because I realize that my message got distorted), but he makes a good point about any thread on here regarding who pays on a date. I made the point that a man being expected to pay for a woman's expenses on a date when you barely know her and when she has not displayed any degree of commitment (or at least continued interest) is draconian and disadvantageous to men, and also had the potential to be demeaning towards women. I then shared a very loose "method" of being able to spend time with and attract women without going through any of the typical dating process. What happened in that thread? I think two or three women agreed with me.

 

The rest accused me of being cheap, poor, classless, "un-gentlemanly," and manipulative. The latter was the most hilarious accusation because (heaven forbid!) I found a way to romantically interact with women of all economic backgrounds without paying for much of anything, even women who may have been used to being paid for in the past. The fact that I was trying to share my experiences clearly threatened a large contingent of LS ladies. They could not logically refute anything I said, and when it became clear that appeals to emotion wouldn't cut it either, they starting insulting me.

 

In other threads addressing this topic over the years, the very same patterns always emerge. Sometimes, female posters have even implied that a woman who does not like being paid for in those scenarios are somehow cheating or demeaning themselves, or are otherwise used to "bad treatment" from men.

 

Bottom line, there is absolutely no justification for that pattern of behavior of the women here. And while some of the people who said those things weren't regulars (I think some were borderline trolls), there are LS regulars who did the same thing. Yes, calling someone cheap, poor, and manipulative because they dare share an alternate dating strategy that works IS shaming. It pains me to agree with a poster who is openly misogynistic, but when he's right, he's right.

[Woggle]

Fourth Planet is a bit extreme but I agree with the jist of what he is saying. For quite a while all we have been hearing was the woman's side in the battle of the sexes. We men constantly hear how we need to change this or change that and when we do we do find out that the rules have completely changed and many of us are just confused. We don't know what the hell women want from us and we are tired of trying to figure it out.

 

For the first time in a few decades we are hearing the men's side in the debate. Many men no longer give a damn about being called sexist or being called a misogynist when we speak our mind about gender issues. That is what shaming is. Instead of actually having real debate some people accuse us of hating women and hope it will just shut us up. It worked for a while but it no longer works anymore. Both sides are being heard in the debate and I guess that pisses some people off.

[Metis]

Shaming? Gee-whiz, I thought shaming constituted calling women diseased whores, manipulative sluts and gold-diggers. Because that NEVER-NEVER happens, oh, no.

 

And Woggle, I also thought that describing a woman a dirty, dirty slut simply because she is going to another country on business is shaming as well. Take the log out of your own eye, will ya.

[Woggle]

Shaming? Gee-whiz, I thought shaming constituted calling women diseased whores, manipulative sluts and gold-diggers. Because that NEVER-NEVER happens, oh, no.

 

And Woggle, I also thought that describing a woman a dirty, dirty slut simply because she is going to another country on business is shaming as well. Take the log out of your own eye, will ya.

 

When did I ever call a woman that because she went away on business? Shaming as I see it is a tactic used to stall real debate.

[betterdeal]

Actually, you are probably wrong. There are a lot of people in Africa that are sexually abused as a matter of course (in many countries rape isn't actually recognised as a crime) and they learn to deal with it. So even though your point is only good for preventing a sensible discussion where you would actually need to take responsibility for your thought process, it is probably still wrong.

 

You've completely lost me here. I said, "The kid who used to bully me relentlessly when I was eleven probably isn't much stronger now for all the anal rape his Sergeant Major father subjected him to, for instance." and you think I'm probably wrong about that because rape is more acceptable in parts of Africa?

 

Really?

[TheBigQuestion]

Shaming? Gee-whiz, I thought shaming constituted calling women diseased whores, manipulative sluts and gold-diggers. Because that NEVER-NEVER happens, oh, no.

 

And Woggle, I also thought that describing a woman a dirty, dirty slut simply because she is going to another country on business is shaming as well. Take the log out of your own eye, will ya.

 

The vast majority of posters who say that sort of stuff are blatant trolls who usually get banned within days.