What is the general psychology behind a womaniser/player?

[LynnLLL]

[Telekinetic-Potato]

We see girls who we think are hot and chase them. It's that simple.

If I see a person who is standing next to my favorite car like he owns it, looking under the hood. Well, I like that car too, I want to talk to that guy. So I do.

If I see $20 on the ground, I'd like 20 bucks. I'll pick it up.

It's not complicated. We see a girl, we say "I'd really like to have sex with her" and we try to have sex with them. Depending on how far some dude is willing to go usually dictates how much of a piece of shit he is. But there are a lot of players who make great companions.

In fact, I realized that most of the relationships I've ever seen that are successful were ones which the guy was a player who decided to stay with a girl because he thought she was really cool.

I'll give a perfect example.

I used to work at this place where we drove a lot of places so I would have long conversations with a lot of people. Many of whom were married. One thing I learned during my time on that job which really surprised me was how many guys cheat on their wives. Even though they have kids. In fact, the only people who didn't admit to cheating or weren't always looking at pictures of girls on their phone, were guys who were in serious relationships with girls who were total players.

Those guys agreed with my strongly in my disgust for the other guys. Not all players are bad guys. Most of them are just people who go after the things they want which isn't the quality of a bad partner, it's the quality of someone with a lot of personal, mental strength.

It's not easy to find the right guy because girls seem to just naturally fall for the wrong people. When looking for a partner, you need to find someone who you have respect for, who respects you (even if it's only in their own way) that when you look at them and picture all the problems you might encounter later on in life, you can say "I could live with this person for the rest of my life"

[LynnLLL]

Non-judgemental. Earn respect. :)

[10dsw]

I'm a massive player: over 1000 Tinder matches and at least 200 dates in my life time.

The reason for me is quite simple: I simply don't prioritize relationships in any way, shape or form. The effort I could be putting into a relationship I'd rather put into myself. And in many ways it's benefiting me: I say this on G@G a lot but I'm half way through my PhD at 26 years of age.

Moreover, why would I spend a bunch of time, money and effort into a relationship with ONE person when I can get all the intimacy I want from multiple people and more or less for free?

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

[LynnLLL]

👏🏻 Hi I have to say this.. before I focus on your contexts, your willingness to show your cards has started to catch my attention. I respect your bravery to share. 👍 Thank you. :)

[10dsw]

Haha thanks

[BrittBratt2416]

1. He's been burned in the past and has trust issues with women. Maybe he felt like being himself didn't give the attention from women he liked so adobted the player attitude instead based off how other guys get women by showing very little respect towards women.
2. He's just a selfish fuckboy who don't care about emotions or the consequences of his actions cause all he wants is some vagina.

[LynnLLL]

Could you kindly identify what are the trust issues? Thank you.

[azzntittiz]

He's generally an asshole that you should close your legs to, his dad should have used a condom but just wanted to make the world more crowded with his bastard child, also his daddy doesn't love his mom and his sister is a whore.

[Like-Me]

The only dad who should have used a condom is yours.

[azzntittiz]

@Like-Me For the sake of GAG, the prophecy sent Azzntittiz here to make your lives worth living. Be grateful you blasphemous fool.

[rafflesia]

isn't a womanizer and a player the same thing?
i mean dont they play the same game?

[MartinMarinov]

Womanizer or player may fall under many different mindsets. If you are one of these does not mean you won't fall in love or you are looking to fill your ego, many people got this stereotype wrong, cuz they don't understand the mindset of a guy like this. Not to brag, but most girls would probably put me in this category so here's my mindset since you asked. Im young and i want fun, doesn't mean no girlfriend, but its not a priority. I understand that girls are human and have insecurities, fears, urges, just like we guys do sometimes. I know every girl wants to meet an attractive guy. So if big part of looks is genetic, the other most attractive thing in a guy is behavior and mostly confidence. I understand what confidence mean and how to get it, which can not be fully explained with words. We all know how to be confident, we just need to get the things that's stoping us out of the way. Shortly i like the interactions with girls, there is sexual energy and also i like the fact that i know how things work, which makes me want to go after numbers if girls, its not sex or ego. When i meet a girl i can tell all about how she feels, i can understand her and i know that it doesn't take much to make her attracted, confidence, smile, eye contact, humor, being real and natural, nice haircut and fit body, with good taste of style, not putting standard for myself. In 1 sentence a "player" knows that he is attractive and doesn't ask himself if the girl is attracted, he just have it for granted.

[Dio1982]

The psychology is as follows:

The prize of a man is his commitment. Why should he part with his prize when women are to be had in supply?

It is the psychology of abundance... basically a playa has flipped the script on women, but unlike women, he is actually keenly observing his options and exercising those options. And a man is as valuable as are his options.

It is a self reinforcing mechanism:
Options -> high sexual value -> more options -> higher sexual value

More on the theory of abundance can be read here:
therationalmale.com/2011/08/19/plate-theory-2/

[WalterRadio]

I can't speak for all, but for me it is about power. There is a certain satisfaction when I can watch tv, see a girl on it that I think is attractive (along with literally millions of other guys) and within a few weeks be having sex with her. I can make many women do exactly as I wish them to, and they do it thinking they are the lucky one. The question is not why guys like me have sex with lots of women, but why in the world would beautiful, smart women line up to have sex with guys like me?

Sometimes, it is just a game. There is one city I sometimes visit where I would give myself four hours to randomly meet a girl with whom I would be having sex with by the end of the day (no bars, alcohol or drugs are involved). I usually win.

[lewisab87]

A womanizer is a guy that just gose for the hottest ladies, he has no disregard for the ladies personality or feelings and only wants one thing,

A player is a guy who cares about sex and racking up numbers, the more he has the better is what he thinks 😂🤣😅😆

[Prof_Don]

To be blunt... most of them are sex addicts.

These guys are addicted to not just sex, but "new pussy", as in the conquest of having sex with a new woman. Even for a guy that is NOT a sex addict, the ability to bed another woman is such a natural high. :)

[hiphopbean]

well in guy world being a player shows dominancy. People become like your fans lol! And besides that womanisers not only just conquest women but also every individual they encounter in their lives. It's kind of a stron leadership skill and is a personallity trait in like 0.1% of population. Such kinda people are extroverts and diplomats and their strategy is people mastery (One of them lol).

[Anonymous]

Selfish, not comfortable being vulnerable, and has the power to do so. By withholding, they seem more attractive to many women.

The flip side is why women value such men. It feels masculine, mysterious and powerful. They don't see the immaturity and insecurity.

[Nephilim000]

I think it's a combination of selfishness and insecurity. I feel that guys that get women and use them only to move on to the next do it so they can feel good about themselves for being able to get a girl

[Browneye57]

That women aren't worth committing to. That they are good for casual pleasure today, nothing more.

The FI has gone a good job at convincing women this is all they're good for. That they don't need no stinking man. :)

[Telekinetic-Potato]

what's the FI?

[Browneye57]

@Telekinetic-Potato FI = the feminine imperative. Or 'feminism'.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I'd agree that that's definitely a big part of it.

[reptocarl]

Nothing surprising. Just a guy that enjoys playing games with women's minds and emotions for the sole purpose of sex. They're selfish and think the sun rises and sets on them

[Sn0wst0rm]

U mad?

[reptocarl]

Why do you ask?

[Anonymous]

Most men start good, then they see how women really behave and they learn which ones deserve relationships and which ones don't.

[LynnLLL]

Have enlightened me :) Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Toxic masculinity. They want to gain status by 'conquering' a lot of women while not appearing outwardly emotional. Added to that they don't have many socially acceptable outlets for their need to connect to others outside of sex.

[FreedomByChoice]

or, maybe they just like sex

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice there's nothing wrong with casual sex of course but the implication with 'womanizer' and 'player' are that there's some deception involved, which is sad. Casual sex is fine if everyone involved consents to it (ie. informed consent), but if a someone pretends to want a long term and/or monogamous relationship just to get sex and/or just doesn't respect their partner then that's pretty shitty.

[FreedomByChoice]

yeah, its kinda crappy, but players are that way for a bunch of different reasons.

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice what other reasons would you say?

[FreedomByChoice]

they like sex, peer pressure, a ego boost, they like to purposely deceive others or they see some materialistic gain from it.

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice 'ego boost' surely comes under gaining status? If sex alone weren't seen as a status symbol then it wouldn't be such an ego boost? Similarly with peer pressure, that comes from cultural expectations of masculinity. I guess the person might just get a kick out of lying and manipulating :/ , but it seems like that would be rarer. Materialistic gain how?

[Like-Me]

"toxic masculinity"
What a joke. Is there such a thing toxic femininity?

[Opinion Owner]

With them liking sex, the implication is they can't have the casual sex they crave while also being honest? I think for a lot of people that's not true. But the situations where it is, I reckon we can bring that down to the shaming of women's sexuality. Women are shamed for having lots of sex, having no sex, enjoying sex, not enjoying sex, etc. etc. But especially the 'slut' label is thrown around, so a lot of the time women feel like they can't enjoy casual sex without stigma, or, more disturbingly, without putting themselves in danger, re. the whole 'a girl who acts like a slut is 'asking for' rape and sexual assault' argument. The idea of purity around sex leads to this toxic model where women are meant to withhold sex for as long as possible while men are meant to pursue and 'conquer' women, which is predatory af as an idea and really dehumanising to people of all genders.

[FreedomByChoice]

people get ego boosts for different reasons. Some people love the self validation rather than the peer pressure of being a outcast which is why I made those two categories exclusive to eachother. Some people are just so messed up that they think they accomplished something by hurting someone else or playing them. then the others, try and fit in but really do have some form of empathy towards them. most people hurting girls in the dating scene were hurt themselves and became bitter which is entirely different than peer pressure. this is actually really common. Besides that, I would say female toxicity exists too. Now, materialistic gains just like with girls being gold diggers, some guys date due to status of the girl, her accomplishments, her future etc.. Leeches come in both genders

[Opinion Owner]

@Like-Me An interesting point. My knee jerk answer is no because toxic masculinity is a manifestation of Patriarchy that harms men and causes men to be violent and aggressive against women and other men. It's a patriarchal construction of masculinity which enables oppressive gender based power structures, whereas femininity is merely placed in opposition to this form of masculinity and shamed. The only equivalent would be 'benevolent sexism', whereby individual women take advantage of sexism to get away with bad behaviour, crime, and/or abuse.
However I could get on board with a well made argument for toxic femininity; eg. the way women are socialized to believe they're in competition with other women (though I'd attribute our messed up culture of competition more to capitalism it is all connected). The way we equate femininity with frailty, or applaud women for 'strength' when they perform problematic behaviour considered more masculine eg. being ruthless in business, or violence

[Opinion Owner]

Toxic femininity could potentially also be how women are made to feel pressured into very narrow societal expectations for their looks and behaviour; eg. being expected to be thin, wear make-up, wear high heels in a work setting, shave body hair, as well as smiling and being accommodating, even submissive, being nurturing, etc.
I could see how that's comparable to how men's self esteem is assaulted by pressure to conform to hegemonic masculinity

[Like-Me]

Fuck off with you victimization bullshit.
Stop blaming society for all your problems you delusional retard.

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice Well okay on the material gains but you have to admit the idea of a gold digger is gendered; it's based on the idea that women can't earn as much money as men, going back to a time when women couldn't legally own their own property at all?
Do you mean hurt in a general sex as in by anyone, or specifically in a romantic and/or sexual context? I'm not denying either happens, just clarifying.
The thing is though why is sex validating, and why are men pressured to have lots of sex while women are pressured to preserve their 'purity'?

[FreedomByChoice]

''However I could get on board with a well made argument for toxic femininity; eg. ''

thats exactly what I was implying so the other point of claiming it was put in place to be a ''opposition'' doesn't really hold under that sense. its still toxic, femininity is not a benevolent trait and neither is masculinity. there is no such thing and won't be for a long time as long as stay in this state, male or female. I dont like when people try and pull down on others and then say ''this is the right way to live'' I know what masculinity is and I know what femininity is. They are two behaviors of primitive apes. Also, patriarchy doesn't exist, its a bunch of scrabble funded by a guy named gorge sorrows who capitalized off a bunch of peoples feelings. I bet the top 1-10% women of the world would laugh if they heard the word patriarchy. they aren't for you or me, It is either you are rich, or you have no rights. There is no grey area besides the superficial perks that comes with it.

[Opinion Owner]

@Like-Me I see. You didn't want me to engage with your argument, you wanted to be abusive. Shame.

[FreedomByChoice]

''why are men pressured to have lots of sex while women are pressured to preserve their 'purity'? ''

depends on the culture you are in. For example? certain cultures in the united states actually have no problem with women sleeping around but its more of a european influence that says women should have purity. This goes back to the neolithic days. Now, gold diggers, come in both genders. Gold diggers in the modern world have opportunity, they just seize it in their own way.

[Like-Me]

I've already dealt with my share of stupid for today.
I don't want to waste brain cells on you.

[FreedomByChoice]

@Like-Me why so angry man, go drink some milk and chill down a bit

[FreedomByChoice]

@Like-Me a nice.. tall... glass... of... milk. That sound good?

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice You misunderstand what I meant by opposition- I just meant, under patriarchy, there's a false dichotomy between femininity and masculinity. Men and women are seen as the 'opposite' of one another, when if anything gender's more of a spectrum that's not at all accurately described with just those two concepts.

I know little about Gorge Sorrows (you mean George Soros?), but I doubt he'd be too keen on socialist or marxist feminism which is how I'd tend to describe my views

I'd again agree mostly that class is kind of the 'main' inequality people face, however there are other intersecting inequalities based on gender, disability, race, sexuality, age, etc. You don't think so?

[Like-Me]

@FreedomByChoice After having gone through her pathetic arguments that's definitely i'm going to do.

[FreedomByChoice]

@Like-Me lol...

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice I'd say it's more rooted in religion, or at least the actions and teachings of the powerful people within many major religions. For example prior to the spread of Abrahamic religions a tonne of cultures worshipped some form of mother Goddess, and there's even evidence of holy temples where priestesses would have sex with worshippers as a spiritual ritual. Those cultures were post neolithic and didn't shame sexuality

[FreedomByChoice]

''I just meant, under patriarchy,''

there's that word again lol. A small group of men and their family (including women) own most of society, the rest are crabs in a bucket. Take the bush family for example, the fords, rothschilds etc.. Look at the members, the wealth, the power they own. There are plenty of women involved, but the people who control things are not public figures, there is no such thing as a male dominated rather than the richest families who orchestrate the majority of the things you see. as for the gender point you made I can agree with that.

''on gender, disability, race, sexuality, age, etc. You don't think so? ''

and there always will be. But patriarchy implies a injustice to women, and advantage to men. This is not the case. For example, disabled people no matter what gender are not treated right. A white guy Is seen as privileged where I am from? sometimes they are denied education, work etc.. because of a quota and I can go on all day about any group

[FreedomByChoice]

but the main point is, all of this patriarchy, males are doing this wrong etc... is just more distractions towards the orchestrates of this entire freak show. george soros, yeah I butchered his name lol

[FreedomByChoice]

'' I'd say it's more rooted in religion, or at least the actions and teachings of the powerful people within many major religions. For example prior to the spread of Abrahamic religions a tonne of cultures worshipped some form of mother Goddess, and there's even evidence of holy temples where priestesses would have sex with worshippers as a spiritual ritual. Those cultures were post neolithic and didn't shame sexualit''

this is basically neolithic culture in a nutshell. Religion was a important part of their everyday life, and it was carried over here. Thats their culture.

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice even given that paradigm, don't you think it makes sense that these other unequal power structures exist as like a divide and rule tactic? Much like the whole 'A rich man, a poor man and an immigrant are given a plate of 10 cookies to share. The rich man takes 9 and warns the poor man 'look out! The immigrant is trying to steal your cookie!''

Again, here is where intersectionality is a useful concept. Oppression isn't a competition, but different forms of oppression do intersect. If a women receives ableist abuse, it is very likely to be gendered, for example.
I think the scope of members of privileged groups being disadvantaged by affirmative action is widely exaggerated. But yeah, I don't want quotas. I want to remove systemic barriers to success which cause the inequality in the first place. And also redefine 'success' under a socialist model as opposed to the capitalist one in which everyone must constantly compete with one another in order to succeed.

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice the concept of patriarchy isn't about blaming men for societal ills, it's blaming unequal gendered power structures in which a toxic form of masculinity is valued, aspired to, and acted out to the detriment of society.

I think you're misusing the word neolithic. The neolithic period was the stone age. Mother Goddess worshippers were (and are, the ones who still exist) sophisticated cultures. And the Arahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam

[FreedomByChoice]

''like a divide and rule tactic''

exactly, one example is the history of war where rich families would fund both sides fighting against eachother and there are even records of families like Rothschilds even placing bets on who will win them. Its a sick thing to think about.

''action is widely exaggerated''

not to sure about widely exaggerated because I have never experienced it myself although I have heard ridiculous stories like a white man pretending to be back to get accepted into a school, a bunch of males being denied work at stem because they wanted to get women instead etc.. . Its basically, the 60s but in reversed. Two wrongs dont make a right. Either way, everyone deserves the same treatment, the motives are right in most people, but the steps to be taken are not done right by these exclusive groups that fight for subjective rights

[FreedomByChoice]

''I think you're misusing the word neolithic.''

sorry, I mean post neo its pretty late here and I am slipping with my terms. My bad.

''it's blaming unequal gendered power structures in which a toxic form of masculinity is valued, aspired to, and acted out to the detriment of society.''

masculinity is not valued when we have people on tv finding it acceptable to say words like ''mansplanning'' I would say its about half and half. The thing about the west is there are a bunch of cultures meshed in with eachother. Its not fair to claim one culture overall. At this moment though, the mainstream media takes the side of femininity while bashing males

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice different forms of inequality are still very much experienced though, you agree? But you don't think they're worth addressing because they distract from recognizing our true 'masters', if you like, the rich?

I think these are stories you need to fact check, and also put in a wider context- if the individual cases are making the news then it's because they're rare, if it were an everyday occurrence it wouldn't be news after all.

Have you considered that if we were to put an end to other forms of inequality we'd be better equipped to work together to overthrow the rich?

[FreedomByChoice]

'' But you don't think they're worth addressing because they distract from recognizing our true 'masters', if you like, the rich?''

no, I said the motives are right, but the people who we point the fingers are are irrelevant. Sure, democrats and republicans are a bunch of males, they seem like they have power, so patriarchy, a society where men rule. The only problem is, all those government officials are just being paid by lobbyists by both rich men and women who are a tiny group of people.

''I think these are stories you need to fact check,;''

that one story of the man pretending to be black was one story out of the ordinary but one story is all that is needed to show the backwards logic of equality where someone has to pretend to be a certain color to get into a school but the men being denied stem is a common thing in fact, its not just stem. the facts are checked already. Look up the quota stats

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice Well terms like 'mansplaining' are a reaction to phenomena that are widely experienced.

I don't agree that the mainstream media takes that view at all. Why do you think that?

I agree to an extent with what you said about cultural mixing, however, you can't deny the influence of imperialism; that the culture of the imperialists is dominant

[FreedomByChoice]

you can't just change things by marching on the streets. Why did women get rights? because men and women marched on the streets and the government decided to be compassionate, or were they just thinking about taxing the other 50% lol.

[BrittBratt2416]

Toxic masculinity? Really?

[FreedomByChoice]

''Well terms like 'mansplaining' are a reaction to phenomena that are widely experienced. ''

such as what? this is the equivalent to telling a women she is ''womensplanning'' because that same ''phenomena'' occurs with women too, even children but to tie it in with a gender is something that you claim to be fighting against. its sexist under any sense possible.

''that the culture of the imperialists is dominant''

I can't say im to sure about that. There have been other cultures such as black americans who have a really wide reach of influence over the west due to things like music which also transcends into everyday life with the way we act. Minorities have actually seemed to still keep what they had over the last few generations still intact. Its mostly european culture thats being poked at.

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice Well okay but as I said, patriarchy is about a society where a form of masculinity is privileged, not a society where every ruler is a man. Poverty disproportionately affects women, because of sexism.

Do you agree with what I said about quotas vs systemic barriers? Quotas are much like when big companies give to charity; it's an illusion of 'benevolent capitalism', when in fact capitalism is inherently sexist, racist, abelist, heteronormative, cisnormative, etc.

[FreedomByChoice]

''patriarchy is about a society where a form of masculinity is privileged, ''

its not black and white, masculinity is not privileged in the meida, university gender studies, articles etc.. poverty disproportionately effects women? lets tell that to the men who are homeless on the street who make up 70% of the people who were denied access to a shelter or the men of detriot, chicago, bronx, south central, baltimore etc.. I can go ALL day.

''Do you agree with what I said about quotas vs systemic barriers? ''

I think it goes both ways

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice Well arguably largely because of the influence of the war, plus the civil rights movement (to include WOC)- which included riots. The government in that case didn't decide to be compassionate, they backed down in the face of mass dissent. But marching on the streets is by no means all feminists do any more than it's all socialists do.

'Mansplaining' is a sexist microaggression where women are patronized and talked down to by men based on their gender, because of the assumption that men are always more competent and knowledgable. What would womansplaining be?

European culture is what's being 'poked at' because Europeans are the ones who invaded most of the world and tried to force their culture onto the people there who they didn't murder. I'm sorry but how is that not obvious?

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice How about worldwide, where women are overwhelmingly denied an education? How about how the majority of single parents are mothers? Again, it's not a competition. Feminists want to help everyone, we're specifically against pitting men and women against one another.

It goes both ways how?

[FreedomByChoice]

''he government in that case didn't decide to be compassionate, they backed down in the face of mass dissent.''

in that case, what about all the times where we had hundreds of thousands marching on the street not to invade countries? the government still did what it wanted. things do not get passed unless there are beneficial things to look back on.

''
'Mansplaining' is a sexist microaggression where women are patronized and talked down to by men based on their gender, because of the assumption that men are always more competent and knowledgable''

correlating a term with men that have been displayed by both genders and all ages is sexist, period. Womensplanning would be the same exact thing, ''mother knows best'' or the teenager who thinks they know it all while blaming parents for things etc. The problem is not the behavior, the problem is when a gender acts above and self righteous when they are guilty of the same thing.

[FreedomByChoice]

''I'm sorry but how is that not obvious?''

didn't say it wasn't, but my point wasn't to to bring it to imperialism which the white people alive today, have nothing to do with. I dont hold any of them accountable.

[FreedomByChoice]

but since you think men are such mansplanners, I will be on my way.

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice true, it was a cost/benefit decision. But protests in some cases have still caused social change because those in power are being hit by them too hard not to implement change. That's not to be take lightly.
How would you suggest bringing about change instead? Or do you think we're just all doomed?

It's not the same thing. And also, 'mansplaining' as a term doesn't exist to insult men, it's pointing out a sexist behaviour and trying to get people to regognize and stop it. The goal is not some gender war, it's to stop sexism.

You don't think that imperialism is ongoing? For example, the current war in Syria?

I actually have to go too because my boyfriend and I are going to bed, but think about it

[FreedomByChoice]

''How would you suggest bringing about change instead? Or do you think we're just all doomed?''

the only thing that can be changed is separating the market from the government. As long as things like the federal reserve thrive, there isn't anything to look forward too. The government is not scared of the people because the people who are the ones influencing things are mostly foreign investors. When they sickle the last dollar out of this country, the people can riot in the white house for all they care.

''The goal is not some gender war, it's to stop sexism.''

I find it weird how its acceptable to put derogatory terms and mix them with a group of people yet find it acceptable. would that term sound right with other groups on front of it? or would that not fit the narrative? There are a wide variety of men out there and yes, just simply putting men, in front of it as if its exclusive is insulting in any manner.

[FreedomByChoice]

''You don't think that imperialism is ongoing? For example, the current war in Syria?''

75th regiment rangers deployed in syria is not the imperialism of white people, its the imperialism of the U. S. gov and a special military force. The majority of people never even heard of 75th regiment troops. This goes back to my other point. Its only acceptable to be sexist, or racist if it fits a narrative. For example, the imperialism topic that was brought up, then, that disgusting, vile term called ''mansplanning'' I dont tolerate it.

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice okay but how do you propose we separate the market from the government?

What derogatory terms have i used? 'mansplaining' isn't derogatory to men, it's a term used to critique a sexist behaviour. And 'toxic masculinity' as i've explained isn't a term branding men as toxic, it describes the cultural construction of hegemonic masculinity as linked with stoicism, violence, predatory secual behaviour, physical strength, etc. A construction which is harmful to everyone.

I didn't say it was the imperialism of white people, i said it was imperialism. You seem to be using 'european' and 'white' interchangeably, which doesn't really work.
But the imperialism happening today is at the hands of those decended from the imperialists who took control of the 'new world' via genocide.
White people and those of European decent may not all be directly responsible for imperialism but we are complicit on it and we do benefit from it

[FreedomByChoice]

''mansplaining' isn't derogatory to men,''

its the equivalent of correlating a B! tch with a mean girl. its derogatory under any sense. I already stated three times this behavior is not exclusive to men and gave clear cut examples, its a trait found in most humans, and to correlate man with it is not being truthful under any sense. Its just making things one sided. this is like me nitpicking behavior with certain groups, coming up with a term with their groups name in it knowing that others also display this behavior.

''I didn't say it was the imperialism of white people, i said it was imperialism''
European culture is what's being 'poked at' because Europeans are the ones who invaded most of the world and tried to force their culture onto the people there who they didn't murder. I'm sorry but how is that not obvious?''

Caucasians make up the vast majority of imperialists coming out of Europe. As a matter of fact, please do find me the group you were referring too that also...

[FreedomByChoice]

related to european American culture.

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice no because 'bitch' is dehumanising and refers to the person, while 'mansplaining' refers to the behaviour. It's called mansplaining because it's something specifically men do to women because of gendered prejudice. Your examples do not equate.

Well exactly, both points stand. Not all white people and people of European descent are actively making the decisions which amount to imperialism, but the vast majority of the people taking those actions are white and European and as a result European and white culture benefits and dominates. Diversity challenges this dominance, but you seen to see that increased inclusivity as a threat.

Just fyi I'm from the UK so rather than American culture when I talk about our assumed shared culture I'm really meaning western culture in a more general sense.

I was merely pointing out that there are POC of European descent

[FreedomByChoice]

'' no because 'bitch' is dehumanising and refers to the person, while 'mansplaining' refers to the behaviour''

the ladder may be different but the relevancy in correlating terms geared towards certain groups still stands which was my point. my point was not to talk on the severity of the word, rather how it sticks to a group. There is no defending a insulting term and adding ''man'' in there as if it is exclusive to us, because its not, and anyone who even suggests is being dishonest. Anyone who claims to fight against sexism yet used this word that is to set us back 40 years is a walking contradiction

''but the vast majority of the people''

the vast majority of people taking that action are a small minority. This is the exact equivalent of trying to lump an entire group together due the behavior of very few, and then turn around to try and justify it. Whites were not the only ones invading throughout history by the way, I can easily name a bunch of non-white..

[FreedomByChoice]

civilizations that have done the same thing. This does not fit the routine narrative though, like I said before. its only acceptable to nitpick the behavior of white males now while telling other groups how righteous they are.

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice it's a behaviour only men engage in because it is by definition gendered; it's when a man patronizes a woman based on the sexist assumption that women are less competent and knowledgeable. It's not insulting unless that's something you do, and if you do then tbh you deserve to be made fun of for it because it's a shitty behaviour.

You seem again to be equating not having your race and culture treated as the default in society as some kind of punishment or hardship.

[FreedomByChoice]

' it's a behaviour only men engage in because it is by definition gendered''

that made no sense whatsoever. only men do it? I guess people like my mom, aunt or grandmother are just fictional characters? this is the real problem. we have people who are on self righteous high horses who think they are exempt from nasty behavior. What you said is sexist under any sense, and is a horrible generalization no matter what way you put it. Its insulting because its sexist, period.

''You seem again to be equating not having your race and culture treated as the default in society as some kind of punishment or hardship. ''

my race? im not even white, and even if I was, that makes no difference on how I see the hypocrisy of nitpicking racism and sexism

[FreedomByChoice]

so in that logic, I can say my mom, aunt and grandmother are womensplanning. this logic makes no sense AT ALL>

[FreedomByChoice]

and on top of it, you defend such behavior. I truly am done and lack the patience. goodbye

[Opinion Owner]

@FreedomByChoice yes, only men do it, because by definition it's sexism on the part of men. Much like POC can't whitesplain, or people who share a disability with someone else can't wellsplain. They're microaggressions by a person in an interaction who has a privilege the other person or people don't.

I think you know full well that I meant 'one's race' and you're the one nitpicking now rather than address what I actually said.

[FreedomByChoice]

I said I am done, I have no more energy for sexist individuals. you fail to see the fact that you are implying that only men are capable of nasty behavior simply for being male. This is the exact argument that would come from a racist. Just because you are a women, does not give you an excuse to be sexist. on top of that, you have even added another term ''whitesplain'' in your list to just add insult on top of injury to your stance. you cannot claim to be fighting against sexism when you monger it yourself. Im muting this now.

[BrittBratt2416]

You guys should continue through message lol

[Opinion Owner]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gha3kEECqUk

[FreedomByChoice]

sigh

[Cosytoasty]

It's a game, a fun ego boosting game. Once you become good at it, it is seriously addictive and you try to get harder and harder girls.

[Anonymous]

Read this and you will understand...

elitedaily.com/.../

[Anonymous]

He thins he could get whoever he wants. He's a bit narcissistic and arrogant. He also knows that this personality attracts women and the more women he dates the more this reinforces his view of himself.

[Gayview_Mahat]

Some guys just like some women wanna sleep around as much as they can and who am I to judge. Its their life

[jesquire]

They think that they are the most important person in the relationship

[dclark82]

They were never taught how to truly loveAnd if you don't know how to love your go looking for it anywhere you can Find It
especially if you wasn't getting that loved as a childAnd then there's those are just afraid of commitment

[VV3ZZY]

"I can't be in love, it's not safe." (for a secret agent)

[TotallyAlmost]

I actually think it is the sign of a low ego. Some guys feel they have to have conquests to validate themselves.