Manosphere Marijan Šiklić (ThatIncelBlogger)

Who is Smarter, TJ Church or Marjan Šiklić?


  • Total voters
    342
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seriously... for all that he preaches about the two scientists he brought up, I don't think Holden has actually read anything they wrote... I'm sitting here, reading an excerpt from their own book of research.. and it literally disproves everything Holden has said.
"Our friend was emotionally scarred by her experience: she became anxious about dating, and even about going out in public. She had trouble sleeping, eating and concentrating on her work. Indeed, like some war veterans, rape victims often suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, in which symptoms such as anxiety, memory loss, obsessive thoughts and emotional numbness linger after a deeply disturbing experience. Yet gruesome ordeals like that of our friend are all too common: in a 1992 survey of American women aged eighteen and older, 13 percent of the respondents reported having been the victim of at least one rape, where rape was defined as unwelcome oral, anal or vaginal penetration achieved through the use or threat of force. Surely, eradicating sexual violence is an issue that modern society should make a top priority."

"And women today prefer successful men (not jobless men) because the females who passed on the most genes, and thereby became our ancestors, were the ones who carefully selected partners who could best support their offspring. That is why, as the anthropologist Donald Symons of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has observed, people everywhere understand sex as "something females have that males want." (sound familiar? Holden quoted this very thing)

"Not surprisingly, females prefer voluntary mating to mating by force:"

"Rape can be understood as a third kind of sexual strategy: one more way to gain access to females. There are several mechanisms by which such a strategy could function. For example, men might resort to rape when they are socially disenfranchised, and thus unable to gain access to women through looks, wealth or status. Alternatively, men could have evolved to practice rape when the costs seem low--when, for instance, a woman is alone and unprotected (and thus retaliation seems unlikely), or when they have physical control over a woman (and so cannot be injured by her). Over evolutionary time, some men may have succeeded in passing on their genes through rape, thus perpetuating the behavior. It is also possible, however, that rape evolved not as a reproductive strategy in itself but merely as a side effect of other adaptations, such as the strong male sex drive and the male desire to mate with a variety of women.
Take, for instance, the fact that men are able to maintain sexual arousal and copulate with unwilling women. That ability invites inquiry, according to the psychologist Margo Wilson of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and her coworkers, because it is not a trait that is common to the males of all animal species. Its existence in human males could signal that they have evolved psychological mechanisms that specifically enable them to engage in forced copulation--in short, it could be a rape adaptation. But that is not the only plausible explanation. The psychologist Neil M. Malamuth of the University of California, Los Angeles, points out that the ability to copulate with unwilling women may be simply a by-product of men's "greater capacity for impersonal sex." More research is needed to decide the question of whether rape is an adaptation or merely a by-product of other sexual adaptations. Both hypotheses are plausible: one of us (Thornhill) supports the former, whereas the other (Palmer) endorses the latter. " (Not sure I like this one, or agree with it... but whatever, not like my opinion matters to Holden anyway)

Too long to quote, but essentially it goes on for 10 paragraphs about how women do not like rape and how even their bodies reject it by making them sick, ill, and traumatized.

"Among the women in the study, psychological pain rose inversely to the violence of the attack. In other words, when the rapist exerted less force, the victim was more upset afterward. Those findings, surprising at first, make sense in the evolutionary context: a victim who exhibits physical evidence that sexual access was forced may have less difficulty convincing her husband or boyfriend that what took place was rape rather than consensual sex. In evolutionary terms, such evidence would be reassuring to a pair-bonded male, because rape is a one-time event, whereas consensual sex with other partners is likely to be frequent, and thus more threatening to paternity." (there's this, I understand it, and I guess I get it... but I'm sure people like Holden take it to mean that women like rough sex. But it doesn't holden. What this showed was that women showed more fear (mentally) when the rape wasn't damaging because they feared no one would believe them that it wasn't consensual. Whereas if there was proof of them fighting back and being against it, people would be more apt to believe it was rape and not consensual sex)

Then they kinda go off into a rape-victim-blaming thing, like how women shouldn't dress to show knees and shit because that puts them at risk for rape. Basically, they say that we should teach women how NOT to be raped instead of teaching men not to rape because men can't help it. They rape because evolution.
TL;DR: Rape is bad. Women do not like it. Evolution shows that they do not like it. As it is, some of their stuff I disagree with... but as I said, they aren't peer reviewed and they are only two men writing about what they think about rape history and rape evolution. I'm allowed to disagree with it because most of this is their opinion, not scientific fact. It's how they interpret the data they got, not the actual data they got.
 
fschmidt read a synopsis, ranted using a misreading of the synopsis as evidence, and then Marijan parroted what fschmidt said. So no, @Holden didn't actually read anything they wrote.
InB4 Holden comes back and says that all he's using these guys for is to show that rape isn't about violence or power or some shit.
 
Seriously... for all that he preaches about the two scientists he brought up, I don't think Holden has actually read anything they wrote... I'm sitting here, reading an excerpt from their own book of research.. and it literally disproves everything Holden has said.
"Our friend was emotionally scarred by her experience: she became anxious about dating, and even about going out in public. She had trouble sleeping, eating and concentrating on her work. Indeed, like some war veterans, rape victims often suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, in which symptoms such as anxiety, memory loss, obsessive thoughts and emotional numbness linger after a deeply disturbing experience. Yet gruesome ordeals like that of our friend are all too common: in a 1992 survey of American women aged eighteen and older, 13 percent of the respondents reported having been the victim of at least one rape, where rape was defined as unwelcome oral, anal or vaginal penetration achieved through the use or threat of force. Surely, eradicating sexual violence is an issue that modern society should make a top priority."

"And women today prefer successful men (not jobless men) because the females who passed on the most genes, and thereby became our ancestors, were the ones who carefully selected partners who could best support their offspring. That is why, as the anthropologist Donald Symons of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has observed, people everywhere understand sex as "something females have that males want." (sound familiar? Holden quoted this very thing)

"Not surprisingly, females prefer voluntary mating to mating by force:"

"Rape can be understood as a third kind of sexual strategy: one more way to gain access to females. There are several mechanisms by which such a strategy could function. For example, men might resort to rape when they are socially disenfranchised, and thus unable to gain access to women through looks, wealth or status. Alternatively, men could have evolved to practice rape when the costs seem low--when, for instance, a woman is alone and unprotected (and thus retaliation seems unlikely), or when they have physical control over a woman (and so cannot be injured by her). Over evolutionary time, some men may have succeeded in passing on their genes through rape, thus perpetuating the behavior. It is also possible, however, that rape evolved not as a reproductive strategy in itself but merely as a side effect of other adaptations, such as the strong male sex drive and the male desire to mate with a variety of women.
Take, for instance, the fact that men are able to maintain sexual arousal and copulate with unwilling women. That ability invites inquiry, according to the psychologist Margo Wilson of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and her coworkers, because it is not a trait that is common to the males of all animal species. Its existence in human males could signal that they have evolved psychological mechanisms that specifically enable them to engage in forced copulation--in short, it could be a rape adaptation. But that is not the only plausible explanation. The psychologist Neil M. Malamuth of the University of California, Los Angeles, points out that the ability to copulate with unwilling women may be simply a by-product of men's "greater capacity for impersonal sex." More research is needed to decide the question of whether rape is an adaptation or merely a by-product of other sexual adaptations. Both hypotheses are plausible: one of us (Thornhill) supports the former, whereas the other (Palmer) endorses the latter. " (Not sure I like this one, or agree with it... but whatever, not like my opinion matters to Holden anyway)

Too long to quote, but essentially it goes on for 10 paragraphs about how women do not like rape and how even their bodies reject it by making them sick, ill, and traumatized.

"Among the women in the study, psychological pain rose inversely to the violence of the attack. In other words, when the rapist exerted less force, the victim was more upset afterward. Those findings, surprising at first, make sense in the evolutionary context: a victim who exhibits physical evidence that sexual access was forced may have less difficulty convincing her husband or boyfriend that what took place was rape rather than consensual sex. In evolutionary terms, such evidence would be reassuring to a pair-bonded male, because rape is a one-time event, whereas consensual sex with other partners is likely to be frequent, and thus more threatening to paternity." (there's this, I understand it, and I guess I get it... but I'm sure people like Holden take it to mean that women like rough sex. But it doesn't holden. What this showed was that women showed more fear (mentally) when the rape wasn't damaging because they feared no one would believe them that it wasn't consensual. Whereas if there was proof of them fighting back and being against it, people would be more apt to believe it was rape and not consensual sex)

Then they kinda go off into a rape-victim-blaming thing, like how women shouldn't dress to show knees and shit because that puts them at risk for rape. Basically, they say that we should teach women how NOT to be raped instead of teaching men not to rape because men can't help it. They rape because evolution.
TL;DR: Rape is bad. Women do not like it. Evolution shows that they do not like it. As it is, some of their stuff I disagree with... but as I said, they aren't peer reviewed and they are only two men writing about what they think about rape history and rape evolution. I'm allowed to disagree with it because most of this is their opinion, not scientific fact. It's how they interpret the data they got, not the actual data they got.

Rape is a reproductive strategy in some species but not in humans. At least I wouldn't consider it a viable one. Many evolutionary scientists think humans fall into a grey area between a tournament species (males complete with each other for mates) and a monogamous species, which could explain why some men are more interested in loving relationships than others.

That said, I really can't see non-consensual sex as viable in the environment where we evolved. Human infants are born severely underdeveloped, unable to survive on their own, so a lone female would have great difficulty caring for her child, assuming she survived giving birth (the mortality rate for mothers is about 20% in undeveloped countries, I think). Children with two parents would naturally have a much higher survival rate than those with only one, so few rapes would result in successful offspring. Hell, all you have to do is look at how cultures all over the world treat rape to see that we don't like it. Even in cultures where women are stoned for being victims of rape you have a clear indication of just how nonviable rape is as a reproductive strategy. I know I'm looking at it from a callous perspective here, but it should be obvious to anyone with a brain that rapists can't possibly pass on their genes if their society kills their victims, not to mention the stigma both mother and child will face in more civilized cultures.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and there's also the fact that non-consensual sex can damage a woman's reproductive organs, which in the good ol' days of natural selection could mean a slow and painful death via infection. If rape was a viable strategy (it's not) women would have evolved bodies that can handle it.

tl;dr: Rape is a bad reproductive strategy for humans. It's also terrible.
 
Last edited:
Did you know (Part 2) . . .

. . . that Holden still can't figure out how quotes work?
. . . that Holden is not a lobster?
. . . that Holden can't keep his own life straight, and has to be reminded about things that he has and has not done by strangers on the internet?
. . . that Holden considers history and reality as subjective?
. . . that brave Kiwis have drawn and photoshopped Holden as a goldfish, a bratwurst, and a rape train, among other things?
. . . that we still don't know how Holden's mom is?
. . . that Holden compares being a taxpayer to having somebody shitting in your mouth?
. . . that Holden can't give a single good reason for why he can't have a job, or travel, or get over his fear of female anatomy?
. . . that Holden's Governments Get Girlfriends plan indirectly funds feminism?
. . . that Holden secretly worships truckers?

lead.png
 
So @Holden aspires to be a "trucker god"? The most important man in my life just happens to be one! He is hardworking, honest, has a wicked sense of humor ( seriously, no one makes me laugh harder ), is a great provider to his beautiful daughter, watches out for motorists in trouble on America's highways, literally called in a kidnap victim i shit you not, treats women with kindness, respect, generosity and most importantly like people with their own desires and lives, loves his mother, and trains other people who would like to be the trucker gods of the future. Plus I cannot imagine living without him seeing as i never have.
So, @Holden, what first step do you have in mind towards your goal of being a trucker god?
 
women in work positions they're not suited for
I'm not going to comment on your opinion on what jobs women are "suitable" for, but you can thank your hero Hitler for the huge increase in women's employment, since almost EVERY SINGLE ABLED BODIED MAN in the allied nations was off to war at one point or another from 1939-1945. You don't just take that away from people at the drop of a hat.
 
I'm not going to comment on your opinion on what jobs women are "suitable" for, but you can thank your hero Hitler for the huge increase in women's employment, since almost EVERY SINGLE ABLED BODIED MAN in the allied nations was off to war at one point or another from 1939-1945. You don't just take that away from people at the drop of a hat.

I am. @Holden, what jobs do you think are suitable for women?
 
It doesn't matter if I agree with them. I don't think one should support such behavior in sane societies but that it is to be supported in sick ones, since it is exactly what modern sluts want.
Also, how do you "deserve" a woman? You make 10 push-ups and get a "deserved a woman" stamp?

No, the way you would deserve a woman is by dropping your attitude toward women, especially women on this board who are sharing personal and upsetting information with you.

Women are not going to want to go out with a guy like you, and it's not sluts that like rape. I think you're getting yourself confused there.

Go get a job, be a respectable person, and then maybe a woman might want a relationship with you.

Till then, Be nice to my friends, especially the female members as they don't need you insulting them because they have told you about their rape experiences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back