Comment by grey-area
5 days ago
Yes, a lot of it involves denigrating women and an entitled and very rigid attitude towards the male place in society (alphas etc).
This is incredibly toxic for young men growing up and the women they interact with.
Some of the more prominent proponents are actual pimps (the Tate brothers).
Is manosphere related to "red pill"?
Yes
How is that different than pervasive pornography though? Many young boys now think it’s normal to ask girls for sexual acts before having ever kissed a girl.
It is, as pornography is about sexual acts, while the manosphere is discussing the role they believe men and women should play in all aspects of life, not just sex and romance. They believe and teach that women shouldn't be managers, knowledge workers, professors, politicians, shouldn't have a right to vote (at least not differently from the man who essentially owns them) etc.
Pornography may give some people some wrong ideas about sex and romantic relationships, might even instill some level of implicit misoginy in certain straight men, but I'm pretty sure you won't get the idea that women should be allowed in Parliament from watching too much porn.
> Many young boys now think it’s normal to ask girls for sexual acts before having ever kissed a girl.
This is a common media talking point, but are there any hard figures for this 'many'? The type you're describing existed when I was young, long before the internet. My impression of boys and young men today is that they are generally just as decent, cautious, respectful and idealistic as they ever were - but that a small crude and unpleasant minority taints the reputation of the whole generation.
I don't think it's a "reputation" issue, more of a what they're being exposed to and what it's normalizing. From studies I've seen it's a significant percentage (from a random Google search [1]):
The review talked to young people aged 13 to 19 and surveyed 1,000 young people aged 16 to 21. Over 6 in 10 (64%) said they had seen online pornography. Of these:
1: https://www.fpa.org.uk/rshe-for-teachers/uk-online-child-sex...
2 replies →
Huge gap between producing material that depicts (presumably) consensual sexual activities between adults and telling young boys to commit rape.
Practically speaking there's not much difference since there's a large amount of violent or extreme pornography which also teaches boys that directly or indirectly. It also teaches girls that it's "ok" cause they see it online.
There's many studies and organizations who publish warnings about violent pornography and young adults:
Dr Ruth Weir of City St George's, University of London, said extreme porn had been "normalised online" and was now "playing out in young people's relationships". [1]
1: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8e82pwyg33o
3 replies →
The Manosphere is going to convince the impressionable young boys and men they are entitled to be treated in the same way as the men in the porn videos, consent be dammed. This is the main problem.
Seems like they could use some sex ed courses
[flagged]
Incel is a subculture.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel
The point is that virgin men or single men get called "Incel", because of how it stings as an insult, not because they are part of a subculture or have the mindset of that subculture.
Imagine being lumped in with crystal meth addicts because your friend gave you a cigarette once.
I want to be excruciatingly clear: Andrew Tate is a sex trafficker that tells millions of impressionable boys they are owed sex and that women should not be permitted to vote or hold positions of influence, and that they cannot have platonic relationships with women.
The word incel, on the other hand, describes men who are disgustingly behaved and as a result are unable to have romantic relationships.
These are not, in any way, the same thing. This is NOT an example of horseshoe theory.