A deep review of radicalizing the romanceless by Scott Alexander ( second half in comments )

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless

it's a chance to talk about the very real problem of male sexual entitlement.

Sx happens when two people want to have sx. This statement was written by a feminist who thinks she is the only one who decides when s*x happens and there is nobody making a choice on the other side.

Their very heteronormativity betrays a shockingly narrow view of the world; ultimately, everything boils down to them and their needs, by which I mean their peepeees.

Yes, there are four things that keep society up and running, God, s*x, entertainment, and hubris. How many of these same feminists would support a woman living in a sexless marriage or as naturally discard an ugly woman never getting dates or laid? In their diseased minds male sexuality is naturally something dirty that takes meanwhile female sexuality is something that naturally gives and is pure.

A woman who has had 14 sexual partners is a slut.....................and he lives in a society where men are “supposed” to get what they want, and that simmer can boil over.

That's different from the average nice guy loser. The feminist knows so little about failed men that she doesn't even realize that the ones who are successful in life buttholes and the limp wristed stays in the basement all day losers are different categories. One is bitter because they did nothing but still think they are entitled to women, the other did all the things that they were told a woman would appreciate them for by their mothers or fathers and are still not getting laid. Wanting a relationship with the other sx and working to improve yourself for attracting a mate isn't some righteous entitlement, these men are literally willing to work to be better. An equivalent would be saying women who dress nice are whores because they are trying to attract the gaze of men which they do not deserve as life isn't about sx and they should be in the kitchen instead cooking for the family.

I've noted, too, that this kind of self-labeling comes up a lot in men engaging in grooming behavior. As part of their work to cultivate potential victims, they remind their victims on the regular that they're “good guys” and the only ones who “truly” understand them.

I have no idea about how groomers behave so maybe it's true. But then this is a third category of nice guy. So far they have described three different sub groups of nice guys who have different values and mindsets and put them all together in the same evil men basket.

It's honestly one of the biggest loads of crap I've ever heard. Nice Guys are arrogant, egotistical, selfish douche bags who run around telling the world about how they're the perfect boyfriend and they're just so nice. But you know what? If these guys were genuinely nice, they wouldn't be saying things like “the b-word stuck me in the friend zone because she only likes buttholes.” Guess what? If she actually only liked buttholes, then she would likely be super attracted to you because you are one.

“the b-word stuck me in the friend zone because she only likes buttholes.”

This sounds made up, like she is still describing men from her grandfathers time. I wish more women would actually interact with the world instead of treating their feelings as the truth about what actually happens.

Honestly. Is it really that unbearable to be friends with a person? Women don't only exist to date or have s*x with you. We are living, thinking creatures who maybe—just maybe—want to date and s*x people we're attracted to. And that doesn't make any of us bitches. It makes us human.

Yes. In initial experiences with desire and intimacy most people have trouble with ignoring attraction and overcoming it with logical reasoning and moving on to keeping a stable system. Also just because you denied s*x doesn't give you a right to somebody's friendship afterwards. I know women are thinking breathing creatures. I have women I care about in my life. I still wouldn't want to be just friends with a woman just because she said no to sexual interest.

We are living, thinking creatures who maybe—just maybe—want to date and s*x people we're attracted to.

And yet you are going "men bad" for doing the exact same thing from their end, while only using the worst of men in your examples of nice guys.

If a self-styled “Nice Guy” complains that the reason he can't get laid is that women only like “jerks” who treat them badly, chances are he's got a sense of entitlement on him the size of the Unisphere.

Probably. Most young men cannot differentiate between being assertive and being an butthole. Truth be told most women likely cannot either so it shouldn't come as a surprise that women end up with buttholes. That doesn't mean they wanted buttholes. It's like how if you were looking for a strong competent boss to work for and then later find out he's just feral. Now if feral is the only thing that keeps getting the job done or you got too used to it that's where you are going to keep going back aren't ya.

Guys who consider themselves “Nice Guys” tend to see women as an undifferentiated mass rather than as individuals. They also tend to see possession of a woman as a prize or a right…

True. My confusion is that do they really believe the not nice guys see things differently? Fricking by default requires "wanting a woman", or do they think every man they sleep with is cumming to their personality?

A Nice Guy™ will insist that he's doing everything perfectly right, and that women won't subordinate themselves to him properly because he's “Too Nice™,” meaning that he believes women deserve cruel treatment and he would like to be the one executing the cruelty.

Woman nonsense. Or maybe a woman from some backwards part of the world. Who knows.

A shy, but decent and caring man is quite likely to complain that he doesn't get as much attention from women as he'd like. A Nice Guy™ will complain that women don't pay him the attention he deserves.

Wish they would make that differentiation in practice. Feminism could probably win over half the male losers if they actively, consistently, and often pointed out this distinction when talking about "nice guys".

It was wrong of me to say I hate poor minorities. I meant I hate Poor Minorities! Poor Minorities is a category I made up that includes only poor minorities who complain about poverty or racism.

No, wait! I can be even more charitable! A poor minority is only a Poor Minority if their compaints about poverty and racism come from a sense of entitlement. Which I get to decide after listening to them for two seconds. And If they don't realize that they're doing something wrong, then they're automatically a Poor Minority.

This mansplains why the redpill is right at times. Just because you are complaining about being poor or a minority will not suddenly fix your problems. You can only work to adapt to the world around you. In the same way "nice guys" complaining about the problem will not solve the problem. Unless they are actively doing something to solve the issue. What he is saying here is actually as much a defense of feminist disdain of weak men as it is an attack on how women define weak men.

I dedicate my blog to mansplaining how Poor Minorities.................. epistemic charity, it is the make-fun-of-Poor-Minorities community!

Very good point in that para that destroys the feminist representation of nice guys.

But there are also social justice chaotic evil undead lich necromancers.

Scott. This is why you don't get laid. Talk less about undead liches, more about how you are doing shit that is improving your life and takes genuine effort or wealth to do so.

To tell you the truth, I resent the situation. It's not an all-consuming bitterness or anything – on the whole, I'm a happy guy – but I irrationally feel cheated of a fundamental human experience…

I know more men who will empathize with both men and women who say this than the number of women who will empathize with this when a man says this.

we do something called “signaling” a lot.

Learn signalling.

The manosphere has done something similar to unattractive men's romantic problems. They've flooded the discourse with misogyny and anti-feminism

That is true. Absolutely true. The problem is that those manosphere communities did get banned, but instead of feminists finding peace with that they instead started to find problems with smaller and smaller issues about men and treating them as big issues. The ride never stopped, only getting more and more extreme as to the definition of what a bad man is supposed to be.

No one says the only reason manospherites like to insult unattractive lonely women is because “it's hard for women to complain about how they're single without being mistaken for a feminist”, or that “the manosphere doesn't mean all lonely women, it's just talking about how offended they are that lonely women feel entitled to s*x and objectify men”. In the case of men, everyone pretty much agrees that no, if you're a certain kind of person, making fun of people for being unattractive and unhappy is its own reward.

Exactly. We are too forgiving of women being buttholes because we consider them harmless.

And I don't think there is some sort of deep genetic personality difference between the sexes that makes them do things for totally different reasons. For women just as well as men, for feminists just as well as manospherites, if you're a certain kind of person, making fun of people for being unattractive and unhappy is its own reward. Hence everything that has ever been said about “nice guys (TM)”

Bingo.

The only difference between the feminists and the manosphere here is that people call out the manosphere when they do it. But the feminists have their little Playmobil motte, so that's totally different!

Keyed virgin psychiatrist.