gender views cause of incel.

I don't have an opinion on the meaning of the word 'normal'. I am referencing the 'actual, factual, literal' meaning of the word. You need to do the same.

Re teens (in my experience) YES over 50% are angsty, their hormone changes make it so. It's distinctly 'abnormal' to go through teenage years without some angst

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You may have noticed Gamelord, posters here are somewhat pedantic. I was here many years ago and I learned that you have be very 'precise' in your use of language. Always opt for the literal meaning .. because generally it will be taken as such. A lot of disagreement can be avoided just be choosing words more carefully. It's a learning curve. I come across 'words' (as posters can also be verbose) that have me diving for my dictionary as I don't want to be lacking in understanding or misunderstanding. If I don't reply to a post sometimes its because too many such words and not enough time for me to look them all up! I'll get back to it though eventually.

A lot of posters disagreeing with you, I also disagreed with in my time but believe me when I say they're actually mostly right. They're very old (dinosaurs

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) and they have the education, work experience and LIFE experience to qualify what they're saying. Listen ... and Learn. Especially to Bells .. a very wise bird!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree. You seem like one of the first posters in this thread who seemed to be reasonable and obeyed the rules of debate. I think people need a balance of pedantic and casual, but if I had to choose I would choose your pedanticism over their casual. Because when people read into stuff and inject emotional bias, and make up fake accusations based on loose interpretations, they aren't being pedantic or logical enough in my opinion.

Now the other thing is, dictionary definitions can only go so far. For instance, in terms of normal, was is abnormal for men (at least in the past) to like the color pink. But you couldn't say what color was normal for men, they are all equal in normal. Similarly, I take it to mean normal doesn't always mean 50%, all it has to mean is a big chunk of the population.

Now, most of the people in this thread say they are against rape, but when they post stats that 1 out of 4 women get raped, such a stat as that seems to normalize rape. And I am not the one posting these stats.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree 'reading' into things is mind bogglingly frustrating. Which is why I am advising a more careful use of language it helps remove (lessen) ambiguity. Believe me it will help! Not completely ... but somewhat.

For the sake of debate let's take normal to mean what's happening 'now' not what 'happened' in the past and in the majority ...

As noted before 1 in 4 isn't 'normal' (let's stick to %'s also, so this would be 25% ...note it now sounds MUCH smaller than 1 in 4) and I'd be looking at where and how those stats were arrived at which are rarely reliable. I know females who have been raped, but they're not in a ratio of 1 in 4 as per the number of women I know well enough to know this about them. There may well be some cultures where it is the 'norm' (but remains morally wrong) but in civilised Western society 'today' not 'yesterday' it is not the norm.

In our past rape was not illegal but WAS always morally wrong...

It is also important to note why we are discouraged from referencing criminal antisocial acts 'as normal' based on the 'animal' within etc. It is because historically this kind of dialogue can be VERY damaging and dangerous and so regardless of the 'science' one must steer away from those dialogues. This is I believe what has been communicated to you previously here. We need to ensure all are educated in this regard so this deviant behavior ceases.

 

The type of normal I was referring to was statistics, not any kind of emotional injection about what is normal psychologically.

Second I never said rape was normal, my precise words was that if 1 and 4 women are raped then it sounds like the norm. And I did not state any moral views of right or wrong, good or bad, or whether or not it was moral or evil, that is the job of the other people in this forum, who can't be objective and control their emotions. It's like I'm spock trapped on the enterprise full of Kirks. Now you and I can have a nice conversation without getting rude, and we came to the conclusion that we simply have different definitions. Your definitions are rigid and mine are more flexible. An example is, if 1 out of 4 people got in a fatal car accident before age 25, there is no way I would ever set foot a car, because in my mind, dying in a car would be the norm.

The other thing is, why do people think I owe them any kind of emotional outrage or concern. Noone has concern or care about me or all the heartbreak I had to suffer, I have actually been molested and raped, robbed, assaulted, betrayed by friends, treated like trash, etc. and noone actually cared. So why am I expected to feel a care about murder in the news, or assault, or anything really. That being said, I can say on paper, in terms of conventional human morality, rape is wrong, because it causes pain and suffering, and in terms of conventional human morality, causing pain and suffering to other human beings is wrong. But human morality is usually selective, they pick and choose which kind of pain and suffering is right and wrong. For example, banning prostitution and banning weed, causes pain and suffering to depressed people, but they view it as morally right, largely because, society does not feel sympathy for males, because they are not as cute as females, and people generally feel more sympathy for cute things than uncute things.

Personally I believe rape is about power and control, and sexual gratification. So its obvious to see that an emasculated male, who is controlled by others, feels powerless or oppressed, and who is sexually frustrated, would turn to rape. Again, this has nothing to do with the morality, or emotions, or how I feel about it, I am simply listing cause and effect. If people can't handle a discussion without resorting to emotional bias and acting the equivalent of a nun angry holding up a prohibition sign then I don't want to hear it. And then they accuse me of 1+1=20, when it is they who cant handle their emotions and get hysterical when I list obvious things like 2+2=4.

 

And statistically 1 in 4 is NOT a reflection of 'normal'.
And as you keep saying it 'sounds like its normal if its 1 in 4' then 'you' are saying it is normal because the stats are NOT saying that.

No you're not Spock, Spock would use 'normal' in its literal and correct sense

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And you're far too emotional in your replies to be Spock. As a trekky I can confirm this is correct

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When you say a thing is normal, some take that to mean it is 'acceptable' which you are correct in noting is NOT what you said or inferred (unless you inferred it in other ways as I didn't read all your posts). Normal is not the same as 'acceptable'. In some cultures it is 'normal' to prohibit women from driving. It is not however 'acceptable' that women are discriminated thus.

So if when you say 'normal' you simply mean in the majority that is one thing and in this case as I've said repeatedly it is NOT in the majority and THUS not normal. Neither normal nor acceptable is correct and Spock I am sure would agree.

I am very sorry you've been through these horrific things and now we have context.

You're rationalising traumatic experiences in order to better be able to deal with them. I can relate to that. You're emotive on the topic because it is close to your heart. There are those posting in response to you who've had VERY similar experiences. Their response is in condemnation of your words and yet their response is prompted by the same experiences that prompted your own controversial posting style. What a pity as in reality you're equally hurting and surviving and are 'attacking' each other from the same side of the fence.

I can understand too why you don't want to 'care' about others similarly afflicted. YOU haven't properly taken care of yourself, allowed yourself to hurt and heal. If you addressed the feelings of other you'd have to address your own. Their experiences are too close to home, better to bat them away, belittle and ignore than face them as to do so is to face yourself.

Its very painful and complex and no one can criticise your choice of 'self protection'. But .. you can heal. Its a long process. Not blaming yourself, not rationalising and accepting some people are just evil shits ... helps. I think ...

True and as a male who has been raped, you should receive no less care, attention and justice than a female. But as you note (rightly) life isn't always fair or equal. BUT do not let that turn you to resent the female. Rather let it help you empathise with the female because since time began these things were 'acceptable' and 'legal' and still are in some parts of the world, so never ever resent the lot of the female. No one is more discriminated against (globally) than females. That remains the case.

As an emasculated male who feels all the above IT remains the case it is NOT obvious that they would turn to rape to regain their control and satisfy their resentment towards women. Their resentment should remain with the criminal who assaulted them. Being hurt NEVER justifies hurting others and the vast majority of people who have been abused DO NOT go on to be abusers. The ones in the system caught for abuse may have been abused but that doesn't mean all abusers abuse it just means the mainly abused were abused. There is a BIG difference.

You have a choice, we all do to do the right thing or the wrong thing. If you're having such thoughts, seek help with your trauma, possible PTSD and do not let it get out of control

 

If "normal" had anything to do with statistics, homosexuality would not be normal, left-handedness would not be normal, Caucaians would not be normal.

 

All however are 'acceptable' 'today'. Bearing in mind that wasn't always the case

 

That's the point. In the past, statistics may have been used to decide what was "normal" but today there's no excuse for that.

 

technically, some statisticians may correct me...
"normal" is not a scientific word when it comes to statistics.
standard deviations define normal ranges ... ?
thus deviation IS normal. thus "normal" on its own means nothing as it holds no actual value.

thus normalising is to reduce quality and reduce detail by its nature of rendering.(linguistics specialists may correct me here)

society as it gets more technical is embracing greater technicality.

thus "normal" is by its nature of association & use, cultural ...(psychological-anthropologists may correct me here)

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click to seek Babylon.​

We can only wonder whether it would have really made any difference. I mean, right up to the part where you explicitly made the point, the self-aggrandizing, delusional hatred seemed rather quite indiscriminately worthless.

Okay, okay, okay. Seriously, though: No, really, we don't wonder; it's rather quite clear giving a damn, on this occasion, is futile.

 

i always pictured Tiassa as a super hot guy that could walk into a bar and get any man or woman he liked.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Poor Him: Click to go all night.​

It's an old joke: Dude walks into a gay bar, nobody notices. Or those Weiner cartoons↑ I posted; the contrast is even funnier than either of the strips alone. And as to waterslides and disappointment, I don't know whether I'm more confused or worried at the emerging sector of masculinity whereby it is some sort of undue effort to be suffered that one should have to jam their cock down someone's throat with reckless abandon for the sake of feeling better. The idea of some dude sighing and hunching his shoulders in resignation, like, "Fine, if I absolutely have to get off cramming you deep throat like I never remember any guy in history ever wanting to in any movie, joke, or locker room tale, sigh, I guess I can endure this trial", is both ridiculously absurd and easily accessible. And don't get me wrong, in my cohort, desperation is deadly, and pride is boring. But the idea that men somehow have become weary of sticking their dicks in human holes is one of the most insidiously confusing social phenomena I've witnessed. There is a bizarre something occurring within masculine object and identity relations that is really hard to explain because it is so riddled with multivalent and diversely vectored contradiction as to seem impossible, but is easily enough illustrated simply by suggesting the idea of a man or men cultivating self-loathing in order to blame women for hating all men.

Something goes here that ought to be irrelevant, but, to the other, I can't quite explain how superficial demonstrative symptomatic behaviors of insecure and unstable masculinity seem to have become. Seriously, not getting laid has apparently become a masculine identity movement. I start to wonder about "Cat Scratch Fever", or maybe even "9 pm ('Til I Come)", and wonder if someday I'm going to hear some bitter man complaining that she left marks or wanted to fuck all night.

But that's another thing these discussions never really get around to. Sticking their dicks in holes? Sure, but not all intimacy involves fucking. It isn't worth digging up the posts, but something about women not liking sex with men at all; much like identifying incels and their godawful attitudes, the problem here is that men need to learn both how to be intimate, in general, and, more particularly, how to fuck.

It would seem almost absurd to imagine, but this apparently this weariness about sticking bits in holes has actually led some of these men to forget ... er ... no, I'm sorry, I just can't do this. I just ... I mean ... there are some things I just shouldn't have to say. Not me particularly, but anyone. Oh, hey, I got it: What if the problem is that men haven't wearied of sticking dicks in holes as much as—oh, God help them—somehow ... I mean ... I mean, fuck: What if they don't know they have dicks?

No, really, it's in there. I tried to address this earlier in the thread, and it's true I had a run-in with a couple of mgtows a some months back that sort of clued me in to watch for this, and, well ... it's not universal throughout identity masculinism, but there are some really angry men out there who apparently don't know what their dicks are.

 

Normal does not have the same meaning as 'acceptable', therein the problem lies with these discussions, people taking 'normal to mean acceptable'. In the past yes 'normal' was used as a barometer for what was 'acceptable' in 'some' cases, nowadays NOT so much and we are talking about today not yesterday.
Normal = what is 'typical' not what is 'acceptable'.

 

Definition is available via a dictionary https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/normal (there is a 'new' normal which is ridiculous as no one will ever be able to communicate effectively if we keep redefining the meanings of words. Personally I will only accept it's true and original meaning.

 

I didn't say anything about acceptable. I said you can't use statistics to define normal. Left-handedness is statistically a minority. It is not typical but it is normal. Whether or not it's acceptable is irrelevant.

 

No its not typical, right handedness is what is typical. Normal is what is 'typical'. I'm done arguing this point. There's a dictionary ..

 

Not necessarily. That's why we have separate words.

I'm not done pointing out errors.