https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/3tpy7e/i_was_groped_at_a_gay_club_socan_we_talk_about/
Gay men BTFO
Why are homos so muhsoginist
Because they're still men. Is it really that hard to figure out?
women go to gay bars all the time and start harassing the guys there, they can fuck off
>5268877
Do they go around slapping people?
>>5268838
>I was in a gay bar
There's your problem cunt fuck off
>>5268910
Care to explain why it's okay for straight men to be at a gay bar?
>>5268917
Where did I say that? I don't really care about straight people in gay bars, but if we're such misogynistic monsters kindly fuck off and leave where you weren't wanted in the first place.
>>5268917
Because they are atleast in the EQUATION.
Women have no fucking place there.
Also, LMFAO @ them bitching about gay misogyny. Us fags dont have a horse in that race, so we're as impartial as possible... So they really should shut up and listen cause we're the onyl ones who'll tell them just how fucking delusional, entitled, arrogant, and full of themselves they are.
And yeah, i'll admit it, i have a VERY poor opinion of women in general, but especially ones who would post to that subreddit and hearing them get a dose of unfiltered reality makes me smile.
The way they have coopted the gay rights movement is the biggest reason I want nothing to do with it anymore. Seeing their floppy breasts at the gay clubs is bad enough...
Heres a cool thought experiment...
askwomen is a fericly feminist sub. They subscribe to the idea that to be racist or sexist, there must be POWER + Prejudice.
They use that as a way to excuse when blacks go off on whites, or when women go off on men("gosh, thats terrible... but its not really racist/sexist because ______ does not have institutional power.")
When its gay men(the most marginalized of the marginalized. Still okay to murder on the streets in some countries) who are hurting their feelings though, all of a sudden THEY are being sexist.
Watching these social marxists constantly move the goal posts sure is funny. They really are an ethically bankrupt group of clowns.
>>5268838
>>5268960
There were obviously straight men there (or at least non-straight men who exhibited blatantly straight behaviors). If someone isn't attracted to women, why would they touch a woman's boobs or slap her ass?
>>5268977
How are straight men "atleast in the EQUATION"? They're STRAIGHT. Not GAY. It's a GAY bar. Do you understand?
>>5269045
What do gay men what?
You cant be that simple, right...?(I'm not saying they should get comfortable, but if they want a quick blow job, they'll have more luck there than just about anywhere else short of paying a hooker)
>>5269109
Then they're at the very least bi. And it still doesn't make sense to be ACTING straight in a GAY bar. If you're going there, you're going there for GAY stuff, not to do STRAIGHT stuff.
>>5268917
It's not. Not that they go there anyway. The ones that do aren't really straight.
>>5268917
"straight men" in gay bars
uh huh
they're probably bi or just deep in the closet about being gay
>>5268838
As a dyke I totally appreciate gay dudes making straight girls uncomfortable in a gay bar.
>feminists
>gay men are misogynists and have no problem voicing it
no bitch we don't want your pussy so we don't sugarcoat everything for you.
>>5268838
>https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/3tpy7e/i_was_groped_at_a_gay_club_socan_we_talk_about/
now removed within minutes
what you fags do
>>5270066
>no bitch we don't want your pussy so we don't sugarcoat everything for you.
Then why would they grab her tits and grab her ass?
>>5270104
cause dudes were prob drunk and tits are funny looking
it's also kind of a swishy thing ime. unaware mtfs being jelly? who knows
>>5270104
have you ever played with tits? theyre like squeaky toys. she is probably lying anyway. Women got offended when I didnt touch their tits at the bars here. Most women in the bar scene are whores who like it. They shouldnt go to a gay bar and expect to not be touched. really they shouldnt be let in, but i dont own a gay bar
That said i wasnt referring to the op I was refering to a reply and rose mcgowin
>>5270166
>They shouldnt go to a gay bar and expect to not be touched.
If I was a woman going to a GAY bar, I wouldn't expect to be touched by MEN.
>>5270213
that's your first mistake
>>5270272
Why? Gay men aren't attracted to women, if they're touching women sexually they're only doing it to harass women for the fun of it. Of course, they could be bi, but it would seem to be out of place for them to act on the "straight" aspects of their sexuality in a gay bar.
>>5270366
>>5268838
>implying women havent ruined the gay bar scene
>implying there arent a shit ton of hetros at gay bars now
I've met more gay hookups at barcades than gay bars. Gay bars are really bars that also happen to have gay men there sometimes, it's so ruined now. Every woman wants to be that "fag hag"
>>5270428
This shit is why I don't mind swishy fags and over the top sex shit cause it makes heteros uncomfortable so they stay away a bit more. Kind alike how /gore/ keeps away more normalfags from some of 4chan.
>>5270166
Yeah, plus read up on 'hen parties'. If ANYONE in a gay bar should be complaining about unwanted touching, it sure as fuck aint the straight girls.
Its a GAY bar. The fact that you're a women in there is offensive enough(imagine if straight guys showed up at a lesbian bar... or ANY guy for the matter) but you feeling like you can somehow not get involved in what is pretty fucking common(its a gay bar, tons of people are feeling each other up) makes you a bit of a cunt....
Also, i'm pretty skeptical about it even happening in the first place, and if it did, i wouldnt be surprised if it was a subversive way of trying to discourage her for hanging out there.
Women in straight bars are treated like princesses, that kinda attitude isnt gonna fly in a gay bar.
>>5270366
Because she has no business being there. Gays dont exactly have many 'safe' spaces.
I'm not some regressive liberal kek either, who thinks everyone NEEDS a dedicated safe space and everyone needs to worry about others feelings over actual rights... but when a woman enters a gay bar, with the knowledge about hen parties(and having seen stright women act like spoiled brats in the few i visit) its hard not to get on edge, or atleast get ready for some truly asinine behavior.
>>5270442
maybe 15 years ago. some of the biggest queens i know hang out with more straight guys than woman. Plus a straight guy will go through a lot for puss.
>>5270456
Truth be told I fucking hate most women. Not because theyre women, but becausethey act like theyre entitled to everything they want. It's mostly straight men and feminists fault though. They aren't fucking children, but a lot act like it
>>5270490
Women always talk about privilege and entitlement in men but can never see their own shit. They love to bring up the injustices women faced in the past, it suck women had to stay in the house. But you know what sucks more? doing back breaking labor and going to war. women ask for so much but it is men's blood, sweat and tears that built every thing you see around you.
>>5270577
"male privilege" is such BS.
https://youtu.be/cRsYwu8uD4I
The reality is there is no more privileged class of people now a days than western middle class(or richer) women.
>>5270366
>All male touch must be for sex or harassment. Womyn did nothing and very much raeped by gaytriarchy
>>5270577
Historically, women had better lives but men still had more actual rights. Historical women were "privileged" in the sense that precious works of art were privileged - they were protected, but had little control over their own fate.
>>5270705
You can't define gendered privilege with social class as a qualifier. Social class already carries inherent privilege, which COMBINES with gender privilege. Either women of all social classes are more privileged than non-women of the same social class, or they're not.
>>5270746
Touching a woman's boobs or ass without her permission isn't sexual or harassment? Please explain how you justify that.
>>5270750
>they had better lives
>they didnt have rights
pick one.
Also "rights" like voiting, wasnt given to most men either in american history, if you were going to pull that out of your ass. Women had literally everything given to them in history. and housewives, while more common and considered proper in say the 1950's, women still had every right to have a job
Women were teachers, librarians, store owners, clerks, factory workers, and entertainers to name a few.
Those women you are talking about that lead a better life, in historic time were always upper-middle class or the rich class. The same women who fought for those "rights" you say they didnt have, were also only fighting for the "rights" of only upper class women. The only time in recent history this isnt true is in WWII, when war propaganda of rosie the rivitor was a thing, mainly to encoruage these women who had to enter the work force, while their men went to die in battle, could support their families in a field that needed workers.If you ever read a history book, you wouldnt be ignorant on this topic
>>5270750
Do you think if men had control over their fate they would allow their conscription to war? How much rights do you think a farmer had? Do you think he had any say in politics? Its not like he could use his maleness to vote in a monarch. Consider the majority of men fighting in WWI could not vote. It was only after that that all men could vote and shortly after all women could, but women didn't need to fight in war to get the vote.
>>5270814
>pick one.
I don't have to. Children have an easy life with no responsibilities, but they have no power over anything.
>>5270821
Most people didn't have control over their fate. But what power existed rested firmly in the hands of men. For much of history, women were completely excluded from politics, land-owning (with a few very specific exceptions) and so on. Feudalism is perhaps one of the few cases where the average man and the average woman had roughly equal rights.
>>5270814
Let me rephrase one thing
Women had the right to be housewives, men have never been given that option
>>5269045
>"what are bisexual men?" the post
>>5270753
This is my point. You've been so brainwashed you can't even accept another scenario than raep. Do feminists believe there's any place in the infinite MULTIVERSE where women aren't victims?
>>5270845
That kind of applies to both genders. Both had a single valid role, with positives and negatives, and couldn't choose the other gender's role. Though when it came to marriage, men had slightly more options because they needed marriage less. Men could choose not to marry, the family might look down on them for it but they'd be able to support themselves. Whereas women pretty much had to marry (or otherwise indirectly attach themselves to a man in some way) as there weren't really many options for women to support themselves.
>>5270855
>Do feminists believe there's any place in the infinite MULTIVERSE where women aren't victims?
Of course, and I don't think in this case she was victimized in a major way. It's an annoyance, not a crime. But can you please provide a potential scenario where this behavior was NOT motivated by sex? I always understood the desire to touch women sexually to be an expression of sexual attraction towards woman. Or are you going to argue that in this instance the touching wasn't sexual?
>>5270835
>children have an easy life but no power
again. a privilege of western countries being rich you fucking retard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour
In a rich country, children only have to worry about school.
>>5270871
You must not be a faggot. This has already been explained by other faggots. Whether provoked requested or demanded, some fag will play bongos on teh bitties. It will happen. Probably after shooters. Not sexual. Boobs are funny to us. Sane women understand its not sexual or threatening. Thats why they often provoke it. The end.
>>5270871
Tits are weird, when I was a child I used to have an urge to squish them like plushies, drunk people often act like children. There you go, no sex involved.
Besides, I know some guys who would do that to make her feel uncomfortable and leave the place.
>>5270863
>literally didnt read my post
Women had jobs. Do you think windows and divorcees married someone the next day? what if they were too old to bare children at that point? Women had jobs and had the ability to support themselves it just wasnt common in richer communities. again, read a history book you idiot
>>5270882
Not sure what your point is, yes there have been times when children didn't have an easy life, but I'm talking about how they are today. I was merely using the modern status of western children to demonstrate that you can be protected but powerless.
>>5270883
>>5270884
Okay, what about the ass part? And btw, if it's done specifically to make her uncomfortable and leave, that is harassment (arguably sexual harassment), though whether it's actually "wrong" is another matter.
>>5270890
Maybe in the like industrial revolution and stuff, but that was fairly new, and women were only working because of extreme poverty. In terms of subsistence farming, women alone couldn't farm crops as effectively as men, and upper class women were primarily wives, there weren't really that many jobs available for them, not ones that they could reliably support themselves on.
>>5270908
>children have no responsibilities
>except when they do
>I-i don't see your point anon
I even mentioned a case where children have responsibilities outside of the house in western society, but you brought up women not having "rights" in history and moving the goal post and i've been still making touchdowns
And yes in history women did farm, not common, but it was a thing. they also took care of cattle, a lot more common. Women didnt just sit around and do nothing as pop culture likes to pretend.
They don't just let the crops die when they are alone, they were useless or retarded and jobs like teacher and clerk predate industrial era. The "housewife" is a new thing in terms of history. Even with children lower class women have always had to help their husbands work. The only instance where this was not the case was with young children during the nuclear era, then it was almost never the case to see even lower class women working for those few years.
You are a fucking retard or b8ing at this point. Bravo either way because they are an accomplishment in their own right
>>5270908
That post was deleted so I can't even actually argue much about it, but in some gay bars it's literally impossible to look properly at someone, so her from her back might even be mistaken by a very femme twink.
Then again there are bisexuals at gay bars.
Then again, gay bars are basically a "groping allowed" zone.
Then again she shouldn't be there in the first place.
And yes there was a wide variety of jobs for women, from manufacturers to healers and yes even farmers.
>>5270908
>Okay, what about the ass part?
Sigh. I'm done. Good luck overcoming the adversity of autism.
>>5270945
>I even mentioned a case where children have responsibilities outside of the house in western society, but you brought up women not having "rights" in history and moving the goal post and i've been still making touchdowns
I was merely using the example of modern children to demonstrate the difference between protection and power. I was not at any point trying to claim that children have never had responsibilities.
>>5270835
>Children have an easy life with no responsibilities, but they have no power over anything.
>>5270954
> I was not at any point trying to claim that children have never had responsibilities.
>>5271011
Okay, you're being overly literal, I meant children TODAY. Perhaps I should have stated that to begin with, but regardless, you're derailing this discussion over an issue which I've already explained to you.
>>5271011
Dude you're arguing with a 15 yo on the debate team with nothing better to do. Or a feminist. Pointless either way
>>5271020
>you are being over literal
backpeddiling
>i meant children TODAY
>>5270882
I gave an example of children today
>>5271021
I like to argue drunk on the internet. It's fun pointing out literal retards cause when i do it in real life people get pissed off and that's how jobs are lost
>actual feminists
>on 4chan
All is lost.
This never happens when I go to normal bars.
Girls don't like it when gays touch them.
>tfw not straight and never get trouble like in dumb reddit story.
This happened be cause of gay guy and reddit
>>5268838
good, maybe now you wont come to a gay bar with your gurlfrends and act like entitled cunts.
>>5271626
Personally I blame the trannies. This shit wasnt going on a year ago.
>>5272463
no, it was here about 2 and a half years ago... but it was brought in by the tranny community(with many arguing its their right to not disclose their birth gender until the guy figures it out. Some delusional ones thought that if someone could pass well enough to get BEYOND sex(so like... none) they would never have to tell, and just pretend they were infertile)
Either way, its made /lgbt/ the most SJW-ish board on 4chan, and most fervently anti male(including gay male, which is probably why so many fags like myself do better on /pol/ than here.)
>>5272476
That's still /soc/ babe. they got tumblrs. But we need to separate the T and GLB from the board
>>5272499
That only fixes half the problem. The real man hating seems to come from the L in the LGBT.
Gay men dont mesh well with any of the community anymore, but the lesbians seem antagonistic towards anyone they cant treat like pawns... Since gay men have NOTHING to offer to them, and they were most likely educated with the fucked up notion we live in a patriarchy and all men are evil rapists, its easy for them to justify their hate in their fucked up minds.
Meanwhile gay men perform better in society(healthiest, wealthiest, best educated, etc...) and lesbians the worst(least healthy, most domestic abuse, etc...) that they somehow try to argue its the fault of the patriarchy, even though they're the one coupling that completely removes men from the equation.
>>5272574
to quote south park: Who actually gives a fuck about dykes?
Honestly i think the man hating in the L comes from the same place a lot of gays act honestly towards women, we dont really need the other gender to be happy in life
women just happen to be cunts in life
>>5271029
Okay, I meant children TODAY IN FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES. Can we just accept I wasn't clear enough and drop this dumb debate? I already made my point, that there's a difference between power and protection. You're just focusing on this semantic argument to avoid addressing my actual point and pretend women have always been more privileged than men.
>>5272878
>I MEANT SOMETHING I DIDNT SAY
doesnt matter I gave an examples from first world countries.
>can we just drop the debate ;-;
did i trigger you? go back to tumblr then
>I made my point
and then backpedaled and moved the goal post on every account.
>you arent addressing my point
I did, then you tried to move the goal post but i pointed out again, that i still made an argument against that as well
>pretend women have always been more privileged than men
I gave several examples of how it is true
now get out, youre a joke in this thread already
>>5272936
>doesnt matter I gave an examples from first world countries.
Where? Where does child labor occur in first world countries?
>I gave several examples of how it is true
Give me one example of a pre-1850 society where women had more power than men, after adjusting for other factors like race social class etc. And don't say "privilege isn't about power" because then you'd have to concede that in many cases children and animals, and even inanimate objects, are more privileged than men.
>>5272955
>where does child labor in first world happen
>not reading the next line down where i talk about first world responsibilities that kids today have
nice meme
>GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE
I gave you several. read nigga read
you made the claim
>
Historically, women had better lives but men still had more actual rights. Historical women were "privileged" in the sense that precious works of art were privileged - they were protected, but had little control over their own fate.
>>5270750
I destroyed it. on all accounts. Now you are moving the goal post again because you are asshurt that i made you look like a retard while i was shitfaced last night.
>>5273029
>>not reading the next line down where i talk about first world responsibilities that kids today have
The only "responsibility" you mentioned is going to school.
>I gave you several. read nigga read
Point to them then. I don't see them. Point to just one, or we're done here.
>I destroyed it. on all accounts. Now you are moving the goal post again because you are asshurt that i made you look like a retard while i was shitfaced last night.
Privilege is not about being protected, do you understand this? Otherwise artworks would be more privileged than men, which even you would probably thing is absurd. There is no privilege without power. Either show me evidence of women traditionally having more power than men, or admit that you don't have such evidence. Don't just say "hurr durr I win" without actually supporting your claims.
>>5273102
>implying i need more than one example
>point them out then
I did, it's your problem if you want to argue and not read the other side of the argument like a feminist
>you are now making this privilege argument after I made my case a day ago and you got mad and stormed off
unfortunately your claim was women had no rights and had no control over their life. i proved you wrong. get over it
>>5273102
>unironically believing what you are saying
>not being bait
>>5273198
>I did, it's your problem if you want to argue and not read the other side of the argument like a feminist
Okay, where did you point it out? Give me an actual link to where you said it.
>unfortunately your claim was women had no rights and had no control over their life. i proved you wrong. get over it
That certainly wasn't what I intended to claim. Women obviously have always had SOME kind of rights and control over their life, but if it's less than what men have that hardly makes women a comparatively privileged group.
Also I didn't "storm off", you ever heard of something called going to bed?
>>5273221
>give me a link
your on the page babe, figure it out.
>that wasn't what i intended to claim
literally moving the goal post. It doesnt matter what you are saying now, because your argument and credibility are gone. This is the third time where you act like because i argued to exactly what you said, im wrong because you didn't mean X you meant Y, you just said X.
>>5273221
>that certainly wasn't what i intended to claim
holy shit, this is the most retarded thing i've ever read.
please be b8 anon, please. no one is this retarded, I wont believe it
>>5273274
>your on the page babe, figure it out.
I meant a link to the specific post, so I don't waste the time refuting something that you weren't even referring to.
>>5273322
>it's your job to read this for me
no, you can find it yourself, mainly cause your an idiot who could use this time to read. It isnt my fault that you didnt read direct posts sent to you and just argued buzz words again like this was college or tumblr or something equally unchallenging
>>5273293
The feminazi is right, aspie gay man. The original post was that women had "little rights" not "no rights".
>>5273360
I read through this whole thread last night, and I don't know which actual post you're referring to. Just make it clear and unambiguous which claim you're talking about, and I'll address it, okay?
>>5273361
>the word little and no was the argument here.
I still proved that dyke wrong
At some point you move the goal post far enough, it becomes impossible to touchdown. Im still waiting for that to happen considering
>>5271011
>>5271020
>>5271029
>>5272878
that cunt literally cant make up her mind. pretty much all her posts are this anon
>>5273394
then read through it again. not my job to make an argument for you
Post was removed. Does anyone have a screenshot or something?
>>5273425
All of those posts are about a shitty metaphor. You're not even addressing the actual argument regarding whether women are privileged.
>>5273461
I did and then you mentioned children as a metaphor in an attempt to move the goal post which i also destroyed
>>5273442
I can read through your arguments, but that still wouldn't tell me which specific one you're talking about.
>>5273470
The whole thing about children was to demonstrate that you can be protected but powerless. It was not "moving the goal post", it was never intended to derail the original argument. It's certainly not worth having an autistic 25-post argument over.
>>5273472
yes it would
It isnt one post. it's multiple examples where you asked for one. so no i dont need to link anything
>>5273483
also, preindustrial was what you were looking for because i destroyed post and during
>>5273425
I don't think you proved anything really. In factuality women and men of the lower class were equally powerless, amd women of the upper class were certainly barred from power in various legal and social ways. Legally, male inheritance by default concentrated power in mens hands. Socially, for example, it was always comparatively quite difficult for females monarchs to retain power because they would be met with default antiwoman hostility. The female monarchs you see are generally fairly good stateswomen for that reason.
>>5273490
>you wanted an example of common woman
>most women were not rich
>you didnt argue anything
what?
>>5273504
I didn't want anything? I am new to this discussion.
As I said, common women and men were equally powerless, and the only classes with power and thus the only people of interest when we talk about historical power (merchant, lord, soldier) were dominated by men
Religion, too, universally emphasized male dominance.
>>5273483
None of the examples I saw yesterday when reading through this thread demonstrated that women as a group have traditionally had more power than men. If you can just link me to a single post of yours that argues that, I will examine it, and if I don't see any obvious flaws in it I will concede that you are correct.
>>5273518
sorry the person i thought you were has basically been moving the goal post this whole argument. that faggot wanted examples where in modern western society in the past women had rights. I gave that anon some. then wanted ones during and pre industry era, i gave that anon some. now anon is mad because a whole day went by of people calling him an idiot. It really depends on the society of where the place of men and women belong and it is like that for good innate reasons, but the anon who started this wanted me to prove women in western society had control over their lives and i already did. now im just shit posting because, lets face it one less feminist on this board is a good thing
>>5273528
Your original argument was about women having freedom of choice and i proved that you idiot. nothing else is need to prove
>>5273553
Okay, so that's all you're arguing against? I agree that women have generally had some amount of freedom of choice. But you're not claiming that women have traditionally had more power than men?
>>5270750
>they were protected, but had little control over their own fate.
>>5273572
>I agree that women have generally had some amount of freedom of choice. But you're not claiming that women have traditionally had more power than men?
I argued your claim and you have consistently moved the goal post. You can't change your opinions mid argument and act like im babbling at a wall, or feminist arguments as they are called
I proved you wrong in all classes of women. I proved you wrong im multiple societies. I proved you wrong in multiple eras of history. You are an idiot
>>5273633
"little control over their own fate" and "some amount of freedom" are not in any way contradictory. I apologize if I seemed to be indicating that women had NO control over their fate. All that I was trying to argue was that men have traditionally held more power than women.
Is it archived somewhere ?
>>5273456
Heres the google cache page
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RQb6ya3TktgJ:https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/3tpy7e/i_was_groped_at_a_gay_club_socan_we_talk_about/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
They really are a bunch of whiny entitled cunts.
>waaaaaaaahhhhh. I went to a mens gay club! They didnt buy me drinks, and one of them touched my boob!!!!
I wonder how many straight men go into lesbian bars? And if they could try to act like a victim when they told him to get the fuck out of their space?.. and if a gaggle of silly worthless feminists would get behind him and tell the dykes to open their minds and stop being so misandrist.
>>5274128
Feminists wouldn't, but MRA's are a thing, you know.
>>5274128 here
>https://www.reddit.com/user/KevlarSweetheart
So many posts to /blackladies.... I dont spend much time on reddit, but i know thats one of the shittiest, most full of whiny SJW cunts(which chips on their shoulders for being black, white, and more often then not, obese)
Shes basically human garbage.
>>5274140
I knwo about MRA's, but no one takes them seriously and they have zero political power.... so that wont work.
You cant claim to be a victim if no one takes you claim to that seriously(even though there are dozens of laws and schooling/hiring practices that put men at a disadvantage)
>>5274159
Do all these people on reddit have any real political power? I mean I know feminists as a group sometimes do, but is this reddit discussion really significant in any meaningful way?
>>5274182
Yup.. Its mostly a bunch of losers with nothing else going on in their lives... They are echo chambers. Any reasonable person who peers into them would probably be horrified.
That said, the whole mattress girl thing got a LOT of extra coverage because of reddit feminists.(It elevated it highly enough that she was invited to Obamas swearing in in 2012...
There was another thread on reddit about this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/3tu0h8/has_misogyny_in_the_gay_community_become_an/
A mod deleted most of the comments that were critical of the author though.
Cool reminder that on /r/lgbt it goes:
lesbian women > straight women > gay men
Its okay, i think most gay men are aware of where they actually stand in that movement. Also probably why most are moving away from it(What good does it do for them, other than saddling them with whiny feminists and trannies?)
