It is starting: PEOPLE WHO DON’T DATE ARE VICTIMS OF ‘ASEXUAL MICROAGGRESSIONS’

[RhinoParticipant 3477]

OldBill already pointed it out to some of you brothers and yet you still continue to post misinformation. If you only read the article title without actually reading the full article you fell into the click bait trap and bought into the garbage without reading what came next.

Foster’s thesis was basically saying that those who are asexual in nature (like some brothers here) tend to find microaggressions (what we call s~~~ tests and shaming language) thrown at them that can cause mental distress when confronted. Although this study was based on young white women as the main focus of her research candidates she is suggesting that asexuality should be normalized instead of ridiculed and shamed in all demographics and not just for women.

Here is the direct quote from the article:

According to Foster, the research is important because microaggressions, she claims, cause “psychological distress,” “emotional difficulty,” and “depressive symptoms.” She adds that asexual individuals deal with higher rates of anxiety and stress than heterosexual people due to stigma and marginalization.

To fight against this, Foster is advocating for the normalization of asexuality, stating that “further study of the impact of these microaggressions and macroaggressive experiences would be another area of next steps.”

The researcher also calls on researchers to embrace an “intersectional” approach that incorporates other venues of oppression, as most of her research candidates were “young white women” who may not share the experiences of others.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22521]

I see it now. With ‘Yes means Yes’ laws, a woman can all the event rape after the fact. But, if a man says ‘no’ in the first place to prevent the event from happening that should be a crime.

[MonkParticipant 16978]

As Moresky and OldBill point out, the article is about asexuals, not about heterosexuals who choose to avoid involvement.

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

Monk wrote:

As Moresky and OldBill point out, the article is about asexuals, not about heterosexuals who choose to avoid involvement.

Sure, but nobody can’t tell the difference between a man who is asexual and a man who claims he’s asexual but in reality an heterosexual who choose to avoid involvement.

The article just proves that we can use some or even many portions of feminist ideology against them.

This isn’t a great discovery: feminists always used many portions of tradcon ideology against men. In example the depiction of the supposed negative aspects of masculinity and men made by feminists is extremely similar to that of tradcons…

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[goodkid43Spectator 550]

OldBill wrote:

MoreSky wrote:

The thesis is about discrimination against asexual people which by their definition would include MGTOW monks and, of course, some women who choose not to date.

That’s exactly what the thesis is about and it’s stated very clearly in Milo’s article. Of course, you were to determine that because you actually read the article and instead of just reacting to the click bait headline.

The idea of microaggressions is nonsense, the doctoral candidate’s thesis casts asexual people as victims and not the other way around.

It appears that reading is fundamental.

Thanks, Oldbill. You beat me to it. I noticed the same thing. Your last line made me chuckle.

God bless, Michael

[OneLaneOnlyPlsParticipant 1747]

Anonymous wrote:

Even though the article uses gender neutral pronouns we all know who she means is the ‘victim’.

So, gents if you don’t waste your resources on cupcakes you are an oppressor. FFS.

Fks sake… they are getting desperate.

I would rather invest in 5 min fap daily, than deal with the minefield of clusterfuks that comes with a female. I honestly don’t know how ANY man does it nowadays.

Went to see Blade Runner yesterday, in the bar beforehand a women was ordering for her man. Another woman looked at me expecting me to have a woman attached. Go into movie, and on the other side, a woman kept yapping to her man, all I heard him say was ‘yes dear’.

Fk. Dat.

The women who write these articles, are in complete denial. If they just realized they are annoying, controlling, manipulating, self-entitled evil cuunts, perhaps the space can be used for more important stuff, like male suicide rates.

[MGTOW NinjaParticipant 34]

AGREED! Feminism sucks & majority of women dont do sh!t for men. In this day in age MGTOW is the best choice. “The best way to win the game is to not play the game at all!”

GH0ST

[foghornleghornParticipant 3449]

F~~~ that, I’d like to meet this professor so I can make this into a full blown aggression with a punch.

[OldBillParticipant]

goodkid43 wrote:

Thanks, Oldbill. You beat me to it. I noticed the same thing. Your last line made me chuckle.

MoreSky, Rhino, yourself, and I have all pointed the misunderstanding out and yet they’re still posting comments which assume the opposite.

Not only is reading fundamental, it’s not actually practiced much on these boards.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

Here’s the only kind of a date I can stomach:

date: the brown, oblong edible fruit of a palm

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[FullMetalExoParticipant 2383]

Im a witness of Macroagressions of c~~~s towards my friends and me. Stockholm syndrome is not strong enough so Im OUT.

-----------

[CataphractParticipant 2656]

If anyone ever gets on my back about not being in a relations~~~, I will just claim to be asexual which is not hard for me as my sex drive is pretty much in neutral anyhow.

Marriage: About as appealing as wood-chipper diving.

[sjt1975Participant 2536]

Eric Lauder wrote:

Monk wrote:

As MoreSky and OldBill point out, the article is about asexuals, not about heterosexuals who choose to avoid involvement.

Sure, but nobody can tell the difference between a man who is asexual and a man who claims he’s asexual but in reality an heterosexual who choose to avoid involvement.

Oh, sorry! I thought I interpreted it correctly. Obviously I didn’t. But I understand the distinction now. Sorry, OldBill.

But would heterosexual males who choose to avoid involvement, like Celibate MGTOWs, not also be possibly subject to such ‘micro-aggressions’, then? Because they chose to specifically not involve themselves in ‘the game’?

Does this ‘Thesis’ really matter, when you don’t give a toss about women, as a MGTOW?

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

sjt1975 wrote:

Eric Lauder wrote:

Monk wrote:

As MoreSky and OldBill point out, the article is about asexuals, not about heterosexuals who choose to avoid involvement.

Sure, but nobody can tell the difference between a man who is asexual and a man who claims he’s asexual but in reality an heterosexual who choose to avoid involvement.

Oh, sorry! I thought I interpreted it correctly. Obviously I didn’t. But I understand the distinction now. Sorry, OldBill.

But would heterosexual males who choose to avoid involvement, like Celibate MGTOWs, not also be possibly subject to such ‘micro-aggressions’, then? Because they chose to specifically not involve themselves in ‘the game’?

Does this ‘Thesis’ really matter, when you don’t give a toss about women, as a MGTOW?

Women who are (or claim to be) asexual are subjected to microaggressions.
Men who claim to be (or are) asexual are subiected to MASSIVE SHAMING, REAL VERBAL AGGRESSIONS.

Needless to say that those sort of thesis could be used against feminists themselves, accusing them of being “anti-feminists” everytime they try to shame men who aren’t interested to sex/relationships with women.

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[IRuleMeParticipant]

Eric Lauder wrote:

Monk wrote:

As Moresky and OldBill point out, the article is about asexuals, not about heterosexuals who choose to avoid involvement.

Sure, but nobody can’t tell the difference between a man who is asexual and a man who claims he’s asexual but in reality an heterosexual who choose to avoid involvement.

The article just proves that we can use some or even many portions of feminist ideology against them.

This isn’t a great discovery: feminists always used many portions of tradcon ideology against men. In example the depiction of the supposed negative aspects of masculinity and men made by feminists is extremely similar to that of tradcons…

There’s nothing different between an asexual and a heterosexual inherently aside from the fact that an asexual has ZERO INTEREST in sex. An asexual person isn’t driven by sex, and is largely indifferent to the act of sex. It has nothing to do with avoiding females, it simply means the guy derives no fulfillment or excitement in sex. Does that means they don’t have it? No. Not always. It just means they don’t care either way.

[sjt1975Participant 2536]

IRuleMe wrote:

There’s nothing different between an asexual and a heterosexual inherently aside from the fact that an asexual has ZERO INTEREST in sex. An asexual person isn’t driven by sex, and is largely indifferent to the act of sex. It has nothing to do with avoiding females, it simply means the guy derives no fulfillment or excitement in sex. Does that means they don’t have it? No. Not always. It just means they don’t care either way.

Well, that explanation would imply that I am correct in saying that a heterosexual male who chooses to not involve himself in sex/women (like a MGTOW Monk) is effectively the same as an asexual person, since both types have no interest in sex whatsoever.

[IRuleMeParticipant]

sjt1975 wrote:

El C~~~o Punto wrote:

There’s nothing different between an asexual and a heterosexual inherently aside from the fact that an asexual has ZERO INTEREST in sex. An asexual person isn’t driven by sex, and is largely indifferent to the act of sex. It has nothing to do with avoiding females, it simply means the guy derives no fulfillment or excitement in sex. Does that means they don’t have it? No. Not always. It just means they don’t care either way.

Well, that explanation would imply that I am correct in saying that a heterosexual male who chooses to not involve himself in sex/women (like a MGTOW Monk) is effectively the same as an asexual person, since both types have no interest in sex whatsoever.

The difference is the MGTOW mindset is RATIONALIZED. It’s not the same at all. Asexuals aren’t indifferent to sex because wimmin are toxic and they want to avoid them. Asexuals inherently feel this way.

[AttonParticipant]

I’m asexual and this s~~~ offends me.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[sjt1975Participant 2536]

IRuleMe wrote:

sjt1975 wrote:

El C~~~o Punto wrote:

There’s nothing different between an asexual and a heterosexual inherently aside from the fact that an asexual has ZERO INTEREST in sex. An asexual person isn’t driven by sex, and is largely indifferent to the act of sex. It has nothing to do with avoiding females, it simply means the guy derives no fulfillment or excitement in sex. Does that means they don’t have it? No. Not always. It just means they don’t care either way.

Well, that explanation would imply that I am correct in saying that a heterosexual male who chooses to not involve himself in sex/women (like a MGTOW Monk) is effectively the same as an asexual person, since both types have no interest in sex whatsoever.

The difference is the MGTOW mindset is RATIONALIZED. It’s not the same at all. Asexuals aren’t indifferent to sex because wimmin are toxic and they want to avoid them. Asexuals inherently feel this way.

OK, I get the fundamental difference. Sorry for my mis-understanding.

Atton wrote:

I’m asexual and this s~~~ offends me.

Sorry, Atton, is my confusion in this topic has offended you. I meant no offence to anyone. I was just trying to clarify my understanding of the topic.

[Author]

Posts