Hot Scientist Babes Gate
July 19, 2010
Some fuck-up skepticatheist or whatthefuckever published a blog post last week entitled “15 Sexy Scientists (with pics, of course)”, in which he embedded photos he found on the Web of female scientists that he apparently considers “sexy”. There has been a fuckton of discussion of this on various blogs–including that of the skeezbag motherfucker himself–about the significance of this blog post. Notwithstanding all the bloviating going on about this, it is really quite simple.
The fucking skeevd00d’s post is leering. Leering tells the person being leered at that their value as a human being is defined by how much other people want to fuck them. That is not a compliment. It is an oppressive boot on the neck designed to put women in their place. The internal mental state of the leerer and his “intentions” are wholly irrelevant to any of this.
Comradde RisottoProffe 
July 19, 2010 at 10:47 am
[…] Hot Scientist Babes Gate by Physioprof […]
July 19, 2010 at 11:14 am
Yeah and it’s JUST SO WEIRD how there’s so few women in the “atheist movement.” Wonder why that could be. Between this and the shitshow over at Bad Astronomy, what was that, last year? it’s no surprise at all and anyone who keeps asking “Why” is a total fucking dumbfuck.
July 19, 2010 at 12:13 pm
You hit the nail on the head. The post was completely inappropriate.
July 19, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Well now, but how can we tell the real women scientists from the faux pretender wannabe whiners who see sexism everywhere and want to emasculate science, if we don’t have some d00dche to sort them out for us on the hotness scale? He was just trying to make the world of science a more attractive place for mankind, and any True Woman(TM) would be honored to so serve in that role. Not a hairy-legged feminazi bitch like me, obviously, but then, I’m too ugly to get laid, which is why I’m so angry.
July 19, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Reason 11 why people who trumpet their SkepticLabelTM give me the skeebiejeebies.
July 19, 2010 at 1:38 pm
You rock, CPP.
July 19, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Maybe he’s a regular reader of Isis’ blog.
July 19, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Hahaha I just checked it out and the first photo WAS on Isis’ blog! But of course, that was all in the interest of feminism. Just like posting a pic of a sexy blonde in a tiny bikini fingering her crotch as she splays her legs in a post about pregnancy test kit prices is all about the feminism! You go girl!
July 19, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Thanks for this.
Like DrugMoney, I look askance at those who blogularly trumpet their SkepticLabelTM for all to admire. I find such folks frequently can’t see things from any POV other than their own privileged one.
July 19, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Hey, that list didn’t even have Lisa Randall on it, and I just verified that she still shows up with most of the top hits if you Google “harvard theoretical physics”.
July 19, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Excellent dissection of the issues CPP.
July 19, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Skepticism could be changed if more diverse people ascribed to it. I still stick with it, despite being a really harsh critic of the mainstream. The stated principles are things I agree with (the unequal application of the principles are the problem imo).
It is also worth noting that the super enthusiastic factions of most groups are fucking creepy in general.
July 19, 2010 at 6:46 pm
what a prick! holy shit I totally missed the initial post but wow, what an effing prick!
July 19, 2010 at 7:24 pm
How suckening.
Towards the end of the comments, he whines that people criticize him “without knowing anything” about him. That post was pretty revealing, as was his “How to Seduce Women with Body Language” video found under his “about me page.”
Why don’t you have that here, CPP?
July 19, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Wait a minute. Where are the SciDoodz complaining that CPP didn’t get the joke? That it was a compliment to the laydeez? That posts like this make everyone everywhere hate feminism and laugh at it? That posts like this show how totalitarian and anti-sex the feminist movement is? That feminists are in totes denial about teh facts about evopsych which proves everything for all time? Where are the comments that PhysioProf is wasting his time talking about sexism when he should be writing about science, or the Yankees, or something?
Did I miss something? Is this not a SciBlog?
July 19, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Perfect, perfect, perfect. Leering = Boot = Everything Besides Your Fuckability is Totally Irrelevant. Thank You.
July 19, 2010 at 10:13 pm
“Did I miss something? Is this not a SciBlog?”
Uh no.
But what I am still waiting for is an explanation of why Isis’ use of anonymous womens’ pornified cheesecake photos on her blog is totes cool and feminist to boot.
Next time maybe Isis could spread her legs and finger her own pubes and take a picture for her blog, rather than exploiting other women.
July 19, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Hey, The Goddess–you stay classy, now!
I guess a woman invoking gender and/or a feminist analysis can’t go unattacked! Thanks for the confirmation of that fact.
July 19, 2010 at 11:08 pm
You’re welcome. And no worries, ‘class’ is my middle name!
July 20, 2010 at 7:54 am
U R jus a jelus h8r, Zuska, cuz they didn’t pick U as a secsy science babe. Or something.
July 20, 2010 at 10:18 am
Oh, *he’s* the HtSWwBL video guy! I remember seeing that, but hadn’t yet made the connection.
Okay, it all clicks. Gracious sakes.
July 20, 2010 at 10:27 am
Agreed Goddess. Not only was Isis’ article using a sexualized image of a woman to capture reader attention, the article isn’t about science.
But I guess with the downward spiral of SB reaching hurricane speeds, they should be glad they have any writers posting content at all.
July 20, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I am amazed at how petty this community can be. Everything I see from everyone in the whole Atheist and Scientific community makes me feel like I am back in high school. Grow the hell up people. Not EVERYTHING is an insult. Not EVERYONE is out to get you or your cause. Fuck, I am sick and tired of hearing the bitch and moan session every fucking time someone comments on something remotely associated with females or their “big brains”. I still don’t understand how so many unhappy people can stand to be around each other like these communities are.
July 20, 2010 at 2:12 pm
[url=http://bioenergyrus.blogspot.com/2010/07/hotties-of-science.html]The Hotties of Science[/url]
July 20, 2010 at 2:12 pm
The Hotties of Science
July 20, 2010 at 7:06 pm
[…] EDIT: Physprof keeps it short and sweet: […]
July 20, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Good post. What I tried to say too, but in a more concise and slightly more profane form.
July 20, 2010 at 7:45 pm
I always value the input of dudes to help me realize that I am taking this whole “existing as a woman” thing way too seriously. Thanks for letting me know how to be a woman the correct way, brad!
July 20, 2010 at 8:40 pm
A hot-shoes message for all you hypocrites.
July 20, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Ew.
And I did not have enough alcohol prior to reading the comments– it takes a lot of booze to make me comfortable enough to read about other people’s pubes.
July 21, 2010 at 7:13 am
Guess what? YOU don’t get to tell another group how to act and feel in response to their own experiences. Sorry if our perspective is makes you have to think/question/rationalize/defend your “objective” worldview. And being on the outside looking in doesn’t make you objective, it just gives you another PERSPECTIVE.
July 21, 2010 at 7:17 am
Excellent summary of the dustup, Comrade…I wish I would have read your succinct summary first instead of wading through all those comments. As a female in science, I expect my co-workers as well as others to keep their nonprofessional observations and opinions to themselves unless specifically requested and to treat me like a PERSON, with respect and dignity, just as I strive to do. You can broadcast your opinions if you want, but don’t offer your public opinion and get all butthurt when someone doesn’t agree with you. And didn’t making lists of “hot girls” and “hot guys” on the internet get silly after high school?!?
July 21, 2010 at 7:18 am
(Intended as a reply to brad, not skeptifem)…mea culpa.
July 22, 2010 at 2:06 am
You know, there’s a lady named “Isabel” you really ought to meet. “Class” is her middle name, too.
July 22, 2010 at 2:38 am
“You know, there’s a lady named “Isabel” you really ought to meet. “Class” is her middle name, too.”
Isabel is awesome! Her posts rock. Man if I could ever meet her, I would be her BFF!
July 22, 2010 at 7:16 am
Yeah, I figured you two had a lot in common.
July 22, 2010 at 12:22 pm
[…] to say my post sparked more controversy than I had anticipated. Much of the response was juvenile name-calling: Some fuck-up skepticatheist or whatthefuckever published a blog post last week entitled “15 Sexy […]
July 22, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Ha ha don’t tell Nails though!
July 22, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Sorry Goddess, but I’m hopin’ Jocelyn of Jocelyn’s Corner will be my new BFF, so I guess I’m taken. Cuz you can only have one BEST friend, right? And she’s the BEST!
Thanks to whoever posted the link on Pharyngula the other day. My reward for making it all the way to the end of a comment thread on that blog. Now I have an even better way to procrastinate!
http://www.filthyrichmond.com/
July 23, 2010 at 9:43 am
Posting photos of sexy women encourages leering, lechery, and lust, all of which are obviously sinful. It would be better if we heeded the advice of the prophets (and our grandparents) and kept women covered up and safely away from the company of men, so as to protect the fairer sex from our untrollable male libidos.
July 23, 2010 at 9:44 am
Moreover, if men see women as sexy we will immediately forget that they have brains as well. This is why I only date ugly but brilliant women.
July 24, 2010 at 7:47 pm
“”The fucking skeevd00d’s post is leering. Leering tells the person being leered at that their value as a human being is defined by how much other people want to fuck them.””
Yep 🙂 And I’m loving every moment of it 🙂
“”That is not a compliment.””
Who are you to speak for the entire human species? I find it a compliment every single day. I love it when women run up to me and start stroking my six pack while commenting on my biceps.
Guess what. Some of us love being objectified. Me? I was a shy geek to whom no one paid attention most of my life, I only became popular/attractive 2-3 years ago. Guess what? I have dreams and visions, I have projects and skills I’ve been working on for years. My looks are just 2% of my achievements.
When random women approach me and compliment me on my looks, give me the “f eyes” for 30 minutes across the room (leering in your lingo) or run up and start rubbing off me without exchanging a single word… Do I care they recognize none of my other qualities? No.
I go out with a bunch of male models, and they get objectified much more than I do and have their entire life, so can’t be the novelty factor… They love it.
“”It is an oppressive boot on the neck designed to put women in their place.””
So wait, I guess the women who leer me didn’t get the memo? Or maybe they’re confusing me for a woman?
You do not speak for the entire human species, nor for even one gender. You do not get to define what objectification or leering is or what effect it has on every single person on the planet and whether people are to like or dislike it.
Sorry, you’re not dictator yet… Though you’re most likely going to exercise that want on my comment by censoring it…
July 24, 2010 at 11:59 pm
I agree that “objectifying” is not always bad but make people feel good about themselves. As long as neither gender is censored about “objectifying”. And neither should be. However, I would not identify “objectifying” with “leering”.
” leering”, unpleasant, malicious or lascivious look
” objectifying”, degrade to the status of a mere object.
Obviously, the definition of “leering” is bad. I would not want anyone leering at me because, according to the definition, it involves a somehow aberrant, abnormal experience (malicious).
In contrast, “objectifying” allows for a “pleasurable, desirable” interpretation. “Degrade to the status of a mere object”. I am sorry Sir, but there are objects which do not leave room for degradation. Let’s look at the Monalisa or The Statue of Liberty or that piece of stunning road driving from La Jolla to Del Mar in South California. A painting, a sculpture, a road are all objects and yet there are no signs of degradation but a superb calling for admiration, if not adoration, of what humans and/ or nature can achieve unpretentiously.
So, I am a woman and would not want to be leered at but would not mind to be objectify if my human appearance can cheer up the human spirit.
July 25, 2010 at 12:15 am
It should read instead ” would not mind to be objectified”
sorry for the error
July 25, 2010 at 7:14 am
“My looks are just 2% of my achievements”.
That’s not for you to say since nobody has objectivity about oneself’s looks.
You are bering very modest.
July 25, 2010 at 10:46 am
M Curie = Point is simply this. My looks are just a TINY fraction of all that I am and have achieved in my life. Is it 2%, 10% or 1% is irrelevant, it was meant to be illustrative, not a scientific measure. I’m more successful than most people out there (objectively), and in a dozen or so areas. I’m very proud of who I am as a person and the road I took to get here and how much I’ve achieved in life.
Yet, I don’t seem to mind when women reduce me to a mere sex object.
@Bystander “”””Obviously, the definition of “leering” is bad. I would not want anyone leering at me because, according to the definition, it involves a somehow aberrant, abnormal experience (malicious).”””
We were using physprof’s definition. He simply says someone was leering because he, had a list of people he found attractive. In essence physprof had the audacity to read the minds of 16 people and decide what everyone of them feels.
Because that’s what leering is… Its subjective. If you like the attention, its leering, if you don’t like it, its not.
I’ve seen my female friends get approached in the exact same way, with the exact same words by different guys… When they happened to like the guy “the approach was romantic”… When they didn’t like the guy it was “creepy, dumb” etc…
The ONLY way to ensure NO MAN EVER leers is simply to deny all male sexuality and to allow no man to sexualize or objectify any woman, anywhere… Ok, so we’re joining the catholic church now are we?
Point is, sexualization is either good or bad, right? The only way to know if its bad is after the fact. We have two choices. Castrate every man and allow only women to objectify… Or, women can grow up and deal with unwanted attention.
July 25, 2010 at 10:48 am
The “he” was a slip. I don’t know phys-prof’s gender.
July 25, 2010 at 2:04 pm
“Because that’s what leering is… Its subjective. If you like the attention, its leering, if you don’t like it, its not.”
Hey goofballs, that is the point. Ask the women if they like it i.e. are comfortable with their workplace photo, with a link to their contact info, being featured on some horny dude’s blog.
If they like it, fine. If they are uncomfortable with it and do not agree, find someone else. Is that so hard? Really, is it? Why? All that work trolling lab websites for hot chicks – and now he has to go through the whole grueling process again. Poor baby!
“Castrate every man and allow only women to objectify…”
Obviously the only other choice Hahaha.
“Or, women can grow up and deal with unwanted attention.”
Or…YOU ALL could grow up and ask permission before including someone’s workplace photo and personal links on your publicly available blog. It’s common courtesy, you rude pig.
And maybe you could grow up and realize unwanted sexual attention MIGHT feel more threatening to many women than flattering, for obvious reasons. Posting someone’s (man or woman) workplace photo along with a link to their personal and contact info without permission, and even refusing to take it down when those people complain, in a post about what gets you off sexually, is rude and super-creepy. And btw, has nothing to do with the purported subject of the blog.
So, in conclusion; Get lost! We don’t need your kind around here if that’s the way you are going to be.
July 25, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Thanks for the insults G. I appreciate it 🙂
As for asking for permission to admire someone, the world would come to a stand-still if everyone asked everyone else for a list of things that offend them and a permission before doing any action that potentially offends someone.
I understand that you personally might have it on the top of your list of things you find offensive, but you are not representative of every woman on the planet, nor a spokesperson of such.
There really is three options when it comes to being offended…
1)Fascism (someone else decides a universal list of offensive things and what’s doable or not in the personal sphere)
2)People grow up and realize that by virtue of living in a DIVERSE world you’re going to continually dislike and be offended by what other people do
3) Nobody does, says or attempts anything without first asking for permission.
You might say “but I’m only talking about asking for permission on putting a list!!!”. That’s the point, you assume the thing you ***personally*** find offensive enough to require a permission to be worthy enough. However, if you put together a list of what everyone in society thinks people should ask permission for, that would lead to fascism.
July 25, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Here’s another example. Flirting. I know women who get offended by a man asking for permission to flirt with them. I know of women who get offended by a man coming out of nowhere and flirting with them.
That’s ok, since we’re meant to be diverse and have different preference. The issue is, a lot of women act as if their preference is the only RIGHT preference.
I have a friend who gets MAD that a man approached her directly, without beating around the bush and slowly and subtly eye-ing her first etc…
Another friend gets MAD if a guy (even one she likes!!) first looks at her, than smiles, then slowly tries to work his way towards coming over to flirt.
Both of them, when a man does something SHE personally doesn’t prefer, act with outrage “WHY DOES HE DO THAT!! Does he not know that’s stupid!”
Point is, there no ONE way for men to act around women, without offending most women. Every one woman has her own preference. And for some reason, most women seem to believe their own preference is the only right one… and any man who does things differently is a pig.
July 25, 2010 at 5:17 pm
How about #4? Try to read the social signals around you, respond to them appropriately, and don’t be a fucken gratuitous douchebag.
July 25, 2010 at 5:17 pm
If you go left, you offend Jane. If you go right, you offend Marge. The only way for a man to not enrage any woman seems to be to lock himself at home?
Actually no, he then offends Jennifer who hates guys who lock themselves at home instead of meeting women (those dumb boy-men who won’t grow up!!!).
What then? How does he offend no women? Commit suicide? No, he is then a coward coz he took the easy way out. He’s again wrong in some woman’s eyes.
Being a man and trying to please women is an impossible, frustrating task… Because women are all diverse (good thing, diversity is always great)… But at the same time, most women act like their own preference is the only right one, and any man who doesn’t follow her own preferences is a pig. Hence, there is no way for a man to not be a pig.
July 25, 2010 at 5:24 pm
“Try to read the social signals around you, respond to them appropriately”
Great point. Except studies continually show that:
1) Men’s brain are literally retarded when it comes to reading social signals. Only 7% of men can read social cues from women. These are the type of cues where she thinks she’s clear as a day, but to 93% of men, these signals are invisible.
2) ***Women are diverse!!!***
No two women have the same set of signals! When Jane grows silent, she means “kiss me”, when Marge grows silent it means “get away, I lost interest”.
I see it constantly with female friends. One will act in one way, expecting a certain response from a man. Then another will act in the EXACT SAME way, and expect a different response.
Diversity is great! The issue is women forget there is no universal code. Every woman is different, yet a lot of women seem to think their own set of signals is the only one on planet earth.
Women come from different cultures, and each culture has a different set of signals. In a multi-cultural society its impossible to master reading signals. That’s all fine. What’s odd is though, when a woman gets enraged that a man didn’t read her signals.
I’ve seen a friend turn her back on a man, look away from him giving “yes and no” answers, and then be enraged why he left instead of asking her out (he thought she was signalling “get away from me”). She thought she was being “cute”. Another woman uses the same signal to mean “get away from me”, and gets enraged if a man doesn’t read it that way.
July 25, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Your #4 is awesome CPP. Because there are people who intentionally ignore what makes other people mad. Yet they keep doing the same thing all over again and again…. They are just oblivious to other’s sensibilities.
July 25, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Dude, you are confusing your own social incompetence and consequent frustration with a gender universal. Instead of listening to PUA gibberish that preys on your insecurities, try just relaxing and being yourself and interacting with women like they are human beings, and not fucken meatsocks.
July 25, 2010 at 5:33 pm
“”Because there are people who intentionally ignore what makes other people mad. Yet they keep doing the same thing all over again and again….””
What proof do you have of this? I’ve seen plenty of proof to the opposite.
A woman signals A thinking that its clear A means “abc”… And if a man doesn’t read it that way, she immediatelly assumes he’s doing it on purpose… when
A) I can’t find two women who have the exact same set of signals
B) Men can’t read subtle signals
I’ve seen one female friend do one action, and if a man doesn’t pick up what SHE means by it. She gets enraged and lashes out, projecting that everyone know what she means.
Then another female friend doing the EXACT same action, expecting a completely different reading by a man. And then getting enraged if it isn’t read that way.
Men just simply don’t read non-verbal signals. It isn’t to spite you. Its not because of an evil conspiracy to annoy women. They just don’t. Its like getting mad at a color-blind person for not reading that the light is red or green. Top on that, that different women use different color for different meanings…
July 25, 2010 at 5:35 pm
No. You don’t. Stop listening to PUA charlatans who are exploiting your insecurities and weaknesses, and try to grow the fuck up.
July 25, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Where does, “Don’t publish photographs that don’t effing belong to you without express permission of their owners” belong on this rubric?
“Fascism,” presumably.
July 25, 2010 at 5:39 pm
“”try just relaxing and being yourself and interacting with women like they are human beings, and not fucken meatsocks.””
Sorry, wrong assumption, but nice try.
I grew out of that phase 3-4 years ago. Its been a while since I’ve ever pursued women. Right now the only thing I ever do with women is socialize. I don’t “pick up” women, pursue women, or try to “get” women. I interact with women in the exact same way I interact with an old granny, the neighbor or my little sister.
“”Dude, you are confusing your own social incompetence and consequent frustration with a gender universal. “”
WHAT? You’re the one acting like there is a gender universal! I’m the one saying every single one woman is an individual? Are you confused? I’m the one saying that women are different. You’re the one who say a man should know exactly what women think, even though there’s 3 billion of them.
I said:
1) Women are different
2) Many women act enraged if a man doesn’t do exactly what her preferences are
Notice I said “many” or “most” never “all”. You are the ones acting like you are the spokesperson for all of womankind, and what every woman on the planet likes or dislikes. You are the ones trying to create a gender universality. I’m saying women are UNIQUE individuals, with unique personalities, preferences, and wants… and you have no right to speak for all 3 billion women.
July 25, 2010 at 5:41 pm
“Stop listening to PUA charlatans who are exploiting your insecurities and weaknesses, and try to grow the fuck up.”
Interesting assumption, but dead wrong. In fact, entirely upside down. I infact spend 90% of my time online talking against PUAs and such charlatans, and trying to rescue men away from them.
What I am sharing with you is solid science… Not pseudo-science by dating gurus online.
Just because you wish that men thought like women, will not make it happen. Men’s and women’s brains are wired differently. For more information read Susan Pinker’s book.
July 25, 2010 at 5:46 pm
“”Stop listening to PUA charlatans who are exploiting your insecurities and weaknesses””
You have more in common with those charlatans than anyone. They believe there is a “woman code” to crack, and that there are things to do, to get “any woman”, know what “any woman” wants.
You believe there is a universal code just like those charlants. I don’t. I believe the opposite of you and the charlatans. There are no two women who are alike.
Every woman is a unique individual. There is no formula to either “get” a woman, nor to “please” a woman. All women are different. To get enraged that a man didn’t do exactly what you want, is rather arrogant, because the odds of him doing exactly what you as a unique individual want is rather impossible.
July 25, 2010 at 5:50 pm
“I interact with women in the exact same way I interact with an old granny, the neighbor or my little sister”…
Sounds familiar……..like Francis D’Assisi…. Fratello Sole, Sorella Luna
July 25, 2010 at 5:59 pm
“To get enraged that a man didn’t do exactly what you want, is rather arrogant, because the odds of him doing exactly what you as a unique individual want is rather impossible”
What a fantastic excuse ” a woman, as a unique individual”, to keep doing what I like regardless….. That sounds like a charlatan to me..
July 25, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Basically… There is no one formula to stop you from offending women, then there is one formula to attract women.
There is no one formula to make sure you do what women like, no more then there is a formula to “get” women.
Getting enraged that a man did x, since it offends you is arrogant and assumes you’re the spokesperson of any woman, from any culture.
Its extremely ethnocentric and egocentric. It makes your own personal morality and values the center of the earth. What you personally dislike is what no man should do, as if though you speak for all 3 billion women.
July 25, 2010 at 6:04 pm
AMEN CoryWinn !
July 25, 2010 at 6:05 pm
How is it an excuse? Do you disagree that different women have different preferences? Do you disagree there are thousands of cultures on the planet?
If… You verbally let a man know that you dislike B. Verbally and directly, and he continues doing it, he is a JERK. And if I was talking about that situation, then I would be making EXCUSES for a jerk.
However, most women that I’ve seen get enraged, get enraged that a man didn’t pick up a non-verbal signal or know in advance what she likes or dislikes.
This is the situation I speak of. Most times that I see women get enrage, they get enraged in an ethnocentric manner. In one culture to give a woman too much attention is offensive, in another to not give her enough attention is offensive… Yet a woman will get offended and enraged if a man doesn’t do exactly what she expects, without her **letting him know**.
July 25, 2010 at 6:16 pm
I agree that you are making EXCUSES for a JERK.
July 25, 2010 at 6:20 pm
How so? I specifically said that my discussion only applies for non-verbal and assumed rules.
If a man BREAKS a rule after you verbally spelled it out for him, yourself, personally, then he IS a jerk, and he deserves no defense. He is a jerk, no excuses.
If however a man breaks an invisible rule, that’s only unique to you, and you’re the only one who knows that rule, and he doesn’t know he’s breaking it… Then he isn’t a jerk. He simply lacks the skill of mind-reading and telepathy. Not invented yet.
July 25, 2010 at 6:39 pm
“As for asking for permission to admire someone,”
Yeah, rude pig, what anummabrooke said (btw there were some copyright violations there as well) I was SPECIFIC. As far as admiring (respectfully) – admire away. Do we really need to spell out every fucking detail for you nudniks before you can figure out how to act?
July 25, 2010 at 6:40 pm
You have a LOT of weird friends, loser. We really can’t help you with that here.
July 25, 2010 at 6:44 pm
if, after telling the man that you don’t understand chinese and please to try to speak english, he continues speaking and rumbling in chinese, what would you say ?. He deserves no defense because he has no interest in being understood or communicate in a humane way. He just wants to make you mad. Period !
July 25, 2010 at 6:48 pm
And by the way, he is not chinese……., so you can imagine the kind of chinese that he’s speaking being such a phonetically different language from english… just a nightmare…. but no he continues to rumble in chinese
July 25, 2010 at 6:51 pm
First of all you have changed the subject and are running at the mouth, replying to your own posts, so that no one knows what the hell you are talking about any more.
Do you do this with women? No wonder they’re turned off!
So, in conclusion:
1) Don’t plaster their pics and personal info all over the internet.
2) Let the women get a word in edgewise.
That should help.
Good Luck!
July 25, 2010 at 9:13 pm
CoryWinn,
It’s unfortunate that you are so confused. The fact is, there is broadly accepted skeezy behaviour that any decent man should refrain from.
For the reasons already pointed out ad nauseam here and elsewhere, posting the pictures and links to personal info of professional women in a “here’s who I’d like to fuck” list without their permission is creepy. There are a number of reasons but the starkest is simply that women are more at risk of escalating creepy behaviour, like this.
Similarly, in the real world, women may respond to some approaches differently (or maybe they’re just not into you), but the basics are pretty straightforward. Yelling at some woman you don’t know across the straight “Hey baby, I’d really like to fuck you tonight”, isn’t appropriate and probably won’t go over well. There may be a fraction of women who do respond positively to that kind of advance, but most won’t because it’s obviously rude, creepy, reductionist, etc.
This weird false dichotomy you’re all worked up about between options (1), (2), and (3) simply doesn’t exist.
Asking women to just grin and bear it when guys are douchebags is pretty selfish and lazy. A little introspection, consideration, and social awareness goes a long way. It’s not that hard. And if you happen to offend someone, just apologize sincerely. It’s not the end of the world. If your intentions are good, and you are considerate, it’ll probably be fine. If Luke had just done something like this, things would have gone over much better. And if it doesn’t work out, whatever, it’s not the end of the world. Asking all women to accept whatever stupid bullshit guys inflict on them instead of trying to be a decent person is ridiculous.
And this characterization: “2) Many women act enraged if a man doesn’t do exactly what her preferences are”, sounds like a ridiculous straw man. Either you’re hanging out with an extremely rare group of women that all have BPD, or you and your friends are doing it wrong.
July 26, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Men don’t read non-verbal signals? I guess I need to inform my nigel that he isn’t a man after all, since he gives enough of a shit about what I enjoy that he *pays attention*.
There are so many shitty oppressive men out there that you all can band together and point at each other as proof of how shitty men are as a class. It isn’t true. You could do better, and choose not to, and then blame women for expecting you to not fuck them over constantly. You are an asshole.
July 26, 2010 at 2:11 pm
What the fuck are you talking about?
The problem is that women are assumed to be in a constant state of consent that they have to revoke when some dude decides to try some weird shit on her. There is no other interaction between people that works this way, I have to get more permission than that to draw a persons blood, for fucks sake.
Consent should be given enthusiastically, period. It isn’t something that you can assume. Approaching consent this way is what makes it seem like women are so hard to please.
July 26, 2010 at 2:14 pm
You didn’t fucking ASK though either, right? It is her job to revoke whatever thing you think she consented to, instead of asking beforehand, right?
This is what most people think consent means, so it isn’t like it is your fault that you think that. But it needs to change. This is why ‘gray rape’ exists at all, this is why people think that date rape is less serious. This is why no one takes rape seriously unless a woman has some kind of violent resistance. Wise up and ask women what they want. It is the best kind of conversation to have and it makes it clear that you give a shit about the person you are with.
July 29, 2010 at 2:07 am
Please die. Best wishes.
July 29, 2010 at 9:53 am
Come on anon,
you have been and are the happiest in the world without having anyone dying….
you simply need a vacation to clear your ideas
April 13, 2015 at 10:45 pm
Reblogged this on Blue Ball Skeptics and commented:
In which the good comrade takes a stand against the oppressive boots of leering skeevd00ds