2211301200W AROUSAL, DESIRE and OBJECTIFICATION?

Why isn’t ‘chivalry’ benevolent sexism just as ‘feminists’ proscribe that it is? While MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) don’t consider ‘chivalry’ to be sexism, they do consider it wholly unwarranted gynocentrism? Not as a mater of misogyny, but as undue (undeserved) female privilege? In short, do nothing for or against a female one wouldn’t likewise do for or against another male human – what feminism says it wants, or so I thought?

Then there’s the dilemma between ‘male desire’ and ‘male arousal’? You do understand that they’re not the same things don’t you? Without their subtle distinction ‘rape’ of a male human would be nae-on-to impossible to be raped by a female human? But since it is possible for a male human to be raped without insighting his desire one must concede that the distinction does exist?

What is this ‘objectification’ that feminists harp on about incessantly – if not a supposed acknowledgment of ones desirable appearance? What I’m asking, does such acknowledgment, absent desire and/or arousal actually constitute a compliment as to ones appearance? And this thing I keep hearing about called ‘wolf whistling’ again absent ‘arousal’ and/.or ‘desire’ constitute a compliment?

It does appear that what feminists want from men is ‘arousal’ on demand without ‘desire’ – but isn’t that rape? Or don’t men have the same right of refusal as women? I do believe that men are even more subtle and gentle with their refusals than women – least ways that’s been my lived experience? Admittedly some refusals might be crass, socially inept as it were?

I for one don’t consider that a woman’s assurances that copulation with her would be alright because of the large number of abortions she’d already had – that’s just not the least bit attractive, is it? I found it ironic that she also told me about her having cervical cancer in her pursuit.

Contrary to assumptions by Professor Peterson, MGTOW (in general , of course) don’t and/or haven’t had trouble (as he put it) with women. {Genesis 19:31-38}

PS. MGTOW is not an excuse for ones social inadequacies – never may that be so?

Posted by: DoctorRandomercam ~ 5 years ago ~ 75K views
“Why Not MGTOW (Response to Jordan Peterson)”

Please do correct for me any errors that you discern – thanks in advance?

#LETSGOBRANDON ~ A Male-Feminist.
#MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) an individualist philosophy of life.
#USEFUL-IDIOT-CLIMATE-CHANGE-SOCIALISM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Genesis 19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 37 And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day. (kjv)