The unexamined brutality of the female libido

Snow White is a rapist, claim the Seven Dwarfs. Video confirmation follows below. 

In a bizarre and intensely sexist article in The New York Times entitled “The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido“, Canadian (of course) soy boy Stephen Marche posited all male sexuality was brutal and, echoing dead feminist Andrea Dworkin, that men need to have sex only with flaccid penises, if at all. Marche fulminated unironically against “the often ugly and dangerous nature of the male libido.”

Oh, please.

Feminists like Laci Green and even Jessica Valenti reacted with savage libidinous rage of their own.

Green tweeted dear , please do not compare men as a whole to the harvey weinsteins and bill cosbys of the world ever again. just because your writers are rape-sympathizing creeps doesn’t mean all men are. thx bye.

Valenti, who otherwise never met a problem she didn’t blame on men, nevertheless jumped in as if fearing a backlash. She tweeted

This is bad & dangerous: Men’s sexuality is not inherently predatory and claiming it is normalizes assault 

All this led me to wonder – what were these feminist women so scared of that they would jump to the defense of men they otherwise assail at every turn? Was it that, in a gender-equal world, the door was opening to explore the brutality of the female libido as well as the male?

Using Marche’s article as a template, let’s see what deep secrets of the FEMALE libido we can tease out, and how they compare to the hell of normal male desires.

Let’s start with Marche’s source Dworkin. In addition to her standard feminist man-hate, Andrea Dworkin was quite fond of incest and pedophilia, as she made clear in her 1974 book, and so her craving the flaccid penis of an unwilling underage boy is likely the origin of her limp dick fetish, and this suggests a feminine libidinal brutality on a scale far beyond that of a grown man pestering a grown woman for a date, a crime that would destroy a man’s career today.. That Marche writes approvingly of this lunatic is, at a minimum, concerning and if I were a parent living in his neighborhood, I would be unnerved by his proximity.

Marche gets a lot of other things wrong, and let’s go over a few of them. [Marche’s text in italics below.]

In the third century A.D., it is widely believed, the great Catholic theologian Origen, working on roughly the same principle [as Dworkin], castrated himself. 

Actually, in my Unitarian church, it is speculated that Origen, Arius and other early Christian teachers castrated themselves to avoid false accusations of sexual impropriety, since the religion classes they taught welcomed women as well as men. Modern college professors would do well to take note – a brutal maiming is the feminist ally new thing to do. This flips Marche’s reasoning on its head – self-castration was not about male libido but rather as a defense to the unstable behavior of libidinous women. It makes a lot of sense to me that Green and Valenti would be keen to cover this up.

Moving on.

Fear of the male libido has been the subject of myth and of fairy tale from the beginning of literature: What else were the stories of Little Red Riding Hood or Bluebeard’s Castle about?

The “beginning of literature” is The Epic of Gilgamesh, over 4000 years old and the second oldest surviving human story. Gilgamesh fends off the libidinous and marital advances of abusive Goddess Ishtar:

Ishtar, the goddess of love, invites Gilgamesh to her palace and proposes marriage. Gilgamesh turns her down, however, because she treated her previous lovers badly, often turning them into animals. Enraged by his refusal, Ishtar threatens to smash the doors of hell and release the dead unless her father, Anu, releases the Bull of Heaven to destroy Gilgamesh. Because of her threat, Anu does so.

So, if we are to compare – the male libido in Little Red Riding Hood devours grandma. In Gilgamesh, the frustrated female libido threatens the end of the world via zombies. That is harsh, ladies, and an echo of how society will collapse into chaos and starvation as men walk away.

And when it comes to fairy tales, in the latter half of this video, YouTube creator Sugar Tits does a good job compiling examples of expressions of the brutal female libido.

At this point in his article and after having made his flawed case, Marche mellows a bit, arguing that men’s independence and self-reliance makes men ignorant of the schemes and wiles of women. Of course, he says this in a quite roundabout way:

The men I know don’t actively discuss changing sexual norms. We gossip and surmise: Who is a criminal and who isn’t? Which of the creeps whom we know are out there will fall this week? Beyond the gossip, there is a fog of the past that is better not to penetrate….Very often, when I interview men, it is the first time they have ever discussed intimate questions seriously with another man.

This is the part that most deeply terrifies feminists – that men might actually talk about these issues in a framework that looks a lot like the mythical patriarchy of feminist nightmares. One source put it this way: 

The next fear is that men will get so nervous that they’re going to be accused of harassment that they will simply stop hiring, meeting or socialising with female colleagues. There are reports this is already happening. We will get shut out of the room where important decisions are made because men fear our presence? How ironic would that be?

This is where we need to go, guys – our futures are important and risk reduction is essential to a happy life and good business. Live the Mike Pence rule and avoid unrelated women so that you can reduce your exposure to feminist false accusations of sexual harassment.

And remember that, unless she is conscious and begs for it on camera, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation of a stricken woman is rape. Just let her die alone as Marche and Dworkin intended.


Leave a comment

132 thoughts on “The unexamined brutality of the female libido”

    1. I don’t know about shamed, man… that’s just kinda sad. As badly as my psyche has been occasionally curbstomped, I still feel that such a thing ought to be more a cause for outrage than arousal.

      Have you ever considered seeing someone about it? Because, really, and most men need to hear this way more often, you deserve better.

    2. Just curious ……… wouldn’t subjecting yourself to shaming tactics and treatment be a form of male hybristophilia? If it isn’t what would be the male equivalent? Attraction to sexually promiscuous women (sluts)……. marriage to an abusive woman, tolerating and normalizing women with mental illness like bi-polar, borderline or narcissism. Why are men attracted to these socially destructive women? Again just curious.

  1. The whole reason for the “Me too” phenomena is because we have not disclosed/shamed female sexuality in the macro, which features bad communication skills & just social incompetence: Women hate men who show a realistic side, so they have to take charge instead. This leads to disaster because it put males in a vulnerable position of being called “harrassers”, “creeps”, etc., for being the ones who take charge that females don’t like, & then the ones that do the same that they do like are called “thrilling.”

    But I still regard the commentary on a lot of this as very superficial when you reduce everything to just Feminists instead of female nature as a whole, especially when there’s another article posted on this site called “Romance Has Got To Die”, or something like, which is extremely anti-male, but that’s a whole other set of chapters. I theorize that it was some female m.r.a.s who contrived or influenced that article.

      1. Well c’mon, if your head was about to be caved in by a rock wouldn’t you rattle off something, anything, to save your life?

      2. Not that any man would ever lie and throw suspicion on another person, in order to get out of a death sentence. Right? “Female Nature,” my lumpy ass. That is pure survival instinct.

        The death penalty for adultery is utterly barbaric, and stoning ranks pretty high among inhumane methods of execution Additionally, there is something desperately wrong with a civilization (and I use that word very loosely) that considers it moral or even remotely appropriate. Having so little regard for human life is not a “gendered” trait, and neither is having an instinctive need to survive in such a hostile environment.

      3. There you have it……adultery is motivated by “pure survival instinct.”

        Personally I’ve always been amused by the notion that if Joseph had leveled a charge of adultery against Mary ……….. the “Messiah” also would have been stoned to death. (given the idea that God had only spoken to Mary and not Joseph) Jesus himself tracked his own lineage to David which suggests he didn’t know he was adopted. I wonder if his circumcised foreskin also ascended and resulted in an intact resurrection. Hmmm.

        1. “Jesus himself tracked his own lineage to David”
          As a Jew would that not be down the female line what with Jews being societally matrilineal?

          1. One would think so, it begs a few questions: was it always matrilineal? why are biblical genealogies patrilineal? why at times is the lineage blended or go from one to the other?

          2. That is a very good question, I have no answer (though a few guesses) I may have to look into that after Christmass when I have time.

        2. That was an exquisite Futrellian re-contexting. I’m impressed by your ability to take a comment stating that nearly every human will lie to save themselves from an unjust execution (or even a just execution) and claiming that it means adultery, not lying, is motivated by the instinct to survive. You’re so clever. Futrelle makes a decent living doing this. Have you considered making a career of it?

          1. “Have you considered making a career of it?”
            Not really……although I am impressed that the hypocrisy of my statement as low hanging fruit so thoroughly grinds your gears. I find it curious that a man would not be stoned by the same crime in that culture. Given that extreme one would wonder why a woman would commit adultery in that culture; suggesting either a nature or a circumstance perceived as a better survival option. I wouldn’t argue the motivation to survive, but in Bora Bosna’s comment “it’s about female nature” you re-contexted the preamble of “female nature” to a context of legal outcome after the fact or act.

            Should I abandon a context of consideration because of your shaming tactic or simply confine myself to the context you forward? Have I offended the female and transgressed? There is a varied context that is lost by defaulting to the issue of stoning, survival and a humans nature to survive. I think this article was about the female libido but not yours specifically.

        3. Typical musings of someone who is not Christian.

          If you read the Bible, the only one that exists, not one of the 40,000 fraudulent copies of the Bible, you would know that God did indeed speak to Joseph that same night that he decided to put Mary away in a place where she would be cared for and her child cared for, so that she would not be touched by scandal.

          “The Birth of Jesus

          (Isaiah 7:10-16; Micah 5:1-6; Luke 2:1-7)

          18Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was
          espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child,
          of the Holy Ghost.
          19Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.
          20But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared
          to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
          21And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.
          22Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying:
          23Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall
          call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
          24And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife.
          25And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”

          Um, actually, I believe this same information is available in just about all the protesters books as well, so maybe John you should have looked before saying something silly.

          Yes women in all cultures will lie to avoid responsibility for the crimes they commit within any form of interaction with men. And women commit by far the majority of those crimes.
          Just as all other crimes out there in the world from muggings, to theft, to carjackings, to petty street crimes and drug crimes, are mostly committed by men and those same men will lie to the back teeth to save their miserable hides when they are caught.

          There is no such thing as an innocent woman in any corner of this planet. They are as good and as evil as men are.

          However, not all humans will lie to save their own lives. Some will bravely stare down death and leave this world in such manner. Yes a good many will lie, because it is a survival instinct to do all we can to remain alive, but it is not true of all humans to behave this way.
          Many have indeed been innocent and lied then paid the ultimate price of death, just to save the life of another. Fancy that, an aberration!

          I am actually a bit confused that you did actually write this so-called “low hanging fruit” that you said in your reply to Suzy. What were you thinking?

    1. Your “theory” is incorrect, but that is not surprising, as it comes from a position of gender based ideological bigotry. “Female Nature” is PigTOW’s hastily cobbled together response to “Patriarchy Theory.” Here at AVfM we are not interested in replacing one fictitious divisive ideology with another fictitious divisive ideology.

      1. Dont ya know Suz that you females are scuzbags from the time that you are born? It’s in your DNA man!

        All this talk at AVFM that many women are taking advantage of a gynocentric culture and society because it rewards them for bad behavior (like any human demographic would) is just pure horse doo doo. Ya’ll would do it anyway cuz yer just pure eeeeevilll.

        Not! I’ll say it until the cows come home. Pointing out shitty behavior from females to show that they are human…yep I’m all for that. Pointing out statistical differences between men and women…yep I’m all for that too. But trying to make the case that feminism and gynocentrism is just an extension of a females true nature to be inherently toxic human beings…Nah no fucking way. As you say it’s just more gendered ideological bigotry.

        1. Between you and Suzy, good pointing out an ideologue’s pitfall. Were I a more paranoid individual, I would suspect a “false flag” operation. It’s not entirely out of the question, all it would take is the right person seeding the right ideas in the right head at the right time… but by that point it’s more likely such a confluence of events was accidental rather than intentional. Or to use an old quote, “never immediately attribute to malice what can be accounted for by stupidity.”

          … Or to quote another old philosopher “Here, you are ALL equally worthless!”

      2. It’s not a theory at all, there is a wealth of neuroscience, much of which is suppressed as well, making parralleling (bad spelling) claims. You hardly see any serious neuroscience in these spaces: It’s just: “Feminism is bad”, which is true, but it’s also a distraction.

        1. ” I theorize that…”
          Let me rephrase my statement, since you seem to have misunderstood me even though I intentionally mirrored your specific vocabulary.

          Your “theory,” “that that it was some female m.r.a.s who contrived or influenced that article,” is mistaken.

      3. I really must apologize for commenting but the absolute humor really is overwhelming.

        “Here at AVfM we are not interested in replacing one fictitious divisive ideology with another fictitious divisive ideology.”

        Not to be a grammar nazi but “replacing” suggests that you already have a “fictitious divisive ideology” in place. I’m not arguing for or against, but you might be expressing too much of your personal Freuden-frau. It could result in being conflated to “female nature.”
        Of course that would be apropos to the article.

        1. “”replacing” suggests that you already have a “fictitious divisive ideology” in place.”

          The fictitious ideology to which I refer is Patriarchy Theory. It is very much in place throughout Western culture. We aren’t looking to replace it; we would prefer to simply debunk it. You seem to have read something I did no write. I’m so very sorry.

  2. evilwhitemalempire

    “what were these feminist women so scared of that they would jump to the defense of men they otherwise assail at every turn?”
    They’re just scared that a backlash to the Salem Bitch Trials will cause the Alpha Cock Carousel to grind to a halt.
    Remember, feminists only want 80% of penises flaccid.

    1. I think your point does address some aspects of the feminist and gynocentric narratives. I differ in the specific. What Valenti stepped on when she said, …“the male libido is brutal” all I hear is “my libido is brutal.” was the male feminist who said it. He spoke out of turn. The thing was hers to say if it was to be said. It is SHE who rules on such things. Valenti is married with children. A properly selected and managed man is OK. Blanket statements by not-women are not OK. Hers was a reminder those matters are “our thing”, una Cosa Nostra. The male feminist was not nor could ever be part of the “famiglia”.

      Laci Green has the problem of “Just when I try to get out, they pull me back in.” She was never out. She fears both a loss of benefit and retaliation. Laci has gone for a walk in a minefield. That is a paralyzing situation to be in.

  3. “what were these feminist women so scared of that they would jump to the defense of men they otherwise assail at every turn?”————————–They’re just scared that a backlash to the Salem Bitch Trials will cause the Alpha Cock Carousel to grind to a halt.This is what Valenti was getting at when she wrote “When people make broad generalizations like “the male libido is brutal” all I hear is “my libido is brutal

  4. The current harassment and misconduct hysteria, while likely having some truth to it, is a delayed and displaced reaction to women losing the center of attention…as evidenced by the 2016 election putting Trump in the Oval Office. With this hysteria, they will surely be the center of the world again. I wouldn’t doubt if it is an organized scheme starting with T. Swift. Something had to be done in order to punish and control.

    And another step for MGTOW. Bad women, keep pushing; you’ll get what you asked for…and more!

    1. Personmed Ansikte

      This is not the scandal which people on the political Right believe it to be.

      Notice that all these men–and they’re ONLY men, despite the fact that women in WhollyOdd are equally trashy–are all older guys who’ve made their fortunes and are in a good position to retire. The DNC is clearing out the old brush at the top to make room for “new” faces–that is to say, younger-looking guys to advocate the tired, old Socialist line.

      It’s also their opportunity to “virtue signal” that they’re “for the wimmins!” since that’s now become a fad–a shortcut around accountability by making women in general and WHITE women in particular their shields. Feminism hasn’t scored a victory here because it’s all scripted.

      Notice also that they’re not protesting (Jeremy Piven is, but he’s still very young) the endless cavalcade of accusations. This, because they knew it was coming and are voluntarily allowing themselves to make the sacrifice for the greater good of the Democrat Party. They’re old, they have truckloads of money, and they’re tired of the losing battle now that they’ve been solidly repudiated by Trump’s economy, foreign policy, and the rebirth of American exceptionalism.

      1. However, in the short run, I do think feminism scored with this. It has successfully implanted its ruse into the population so much by now that more women everywhere are accepting the victim status, when in fact, had they spoken up when things happened—the accusations that are true—regardless of how much they “just couldn’t,” it would have empowered them with something truly equal–or is supposed to be— responsibility.

        Not to mention, cut back on the number of true victims.

        Having responsibility isn’t as much about fairness and benefits as it about doing the right thing, all things considered. Everyone should want that. Why would women be exempt?

        One thing is for sure now. After another year or so of metoo there will be no excuse for any woman to not tell another person, especially right then and there to the offender. Waiting until a bigger catch appears to declare abuse will not be near as believable in a world that now literally celebrates women announcing their issue.

        It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Perhaps it is too early to make judgement on feminism having scored in the long run.

    2. Yes, women tried to take the center of attention back on January 21 with their women’s march. It failed spectacularly. It’s all about women’s deepest instincts, but people mistakenly think it’s about politics, left vs right, etc. Women in so many other countries marched too. They cannot allow other women to steal the spotlight.

      1. It failed to engage as many as they hoped because they actually had a feminist march; only called it a women’s march. Since it wasn’t enough tantrum to shake up things as they wished, now their subconscious plan B is taking hold.

        I can’t say it enough though. How is it that they really believe that one issue should define elections and be able to change people’s minds…when everything from schools to freedoms, taxes to SCOTUS, ISIS to trade issues and soooo much more has people’s rightly attention.

        Is it collective narcissism? If not, what?

  5. Personmed Ansikte

    “…what were these feminist women so scared of that they would jump to the defense of men they otherwise assail at every turn?”

    This is what usually happens when hateful people achieve their goals. They blithely ignore their own part in running up to the cliff as others push them over. They had a lovely time “rebelling” against what they saw as the status quo, because it made them feel like revolutionaries at the time. But they ignored the fact that the structure they were fighting was the structure that kept them safe and fed–rather like a teenager demanding freedom but still dependent on Mom & Dad to feed and shelter her.

    To these harpies, I say: Ayn Rand called it sixty years ago.

    “There is a difference between our strike and all those you’ve practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality—the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without (us).”

    – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957

  6. apparently laci green has been becoming less feminist and more male positive lately which is all good.

    valenti is a shameless self supporter, who probably just decided, this keeps her more reasonable relevant and mainstream after the gamergate backlash.

    the big picture is about female power and control over men and there resourses, and I wouldn’t expect a lot of feminist compassion for men in it. the majority of women relish the power to control men thru, “i can destroy you”, marriage then relationships, dating and more recently school and workplace. I don’t see a trend reversal happening.

    its been nice seeing laci green taking some red pills as of late, that’s about all tho.

    1. Except for the fact that she said one time “I will always be a feminist” so we must watch very closely. I believe (like so many others here) that they all see their gravy-train ready to derail soon and they are getting their ‘ducks in a row’ for the next phase of their war on men.

    2. “everyone has forgot the heroics of men in the hurricanes, and men are back in the doghouse, under the thumb, and without a leg to stand on, is all that really matters here.”

    3. This has been discussed to death, her motives have been scrutinized, her alleged “change” has been measured. It’s old news. She did not become less feminist or more male positive. She was bleeding subscribers and losing money, so she did damage control. Like many other female youtubers she pretends to “take the red pill.” She simply complained about some trans activists bullying her. Her “opinion change” is restricted to the very very extremes of SJW behavior. She explicitly stated that she will “always be a feminist, always be dedicated to social justice” and she still clings to the Lisak 8% false rape accusation rate.

      Evidence: 11th of May, she suddenly goes from losing subs to gaining thousands a day. I wonder what she did on that day:

      1. that’s going a bit far, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

        there are only so many ppl who concern themselves with gender issues, like it or not they are key, id say every red pilled feminist is a win…..perhaps congratulations to mhra, cassie j, truth and justice, but a wins a win.

        1. I’m not being exclusionary. I don’t believe anything in my post suggested that I was. I’m happy for us to work with anyone who genuinely wants to address the problems facing men and boys.

          The problem as I see it is that people are cheering her for switching sides. We’ll be seeing a lot more feminists suddenly switch sides in the next few years as they realise the tide has turned. We’re past the point where congratulations is necessary.

  7. I have long had the thought that claims by misandrists that the male libido is, in essence, a wild and uncontrollable menace – a claim sometime represented by the more extreme mantra that all men are rapists – ought to create a real dilemma for them. Because if we men are indeed consumed by our sexual desire, and it is indeed an almost universal feature of the male character, then we are entitled to say that it is therefore both normal and natural. It can hardly be our fault if we are born with something so potentially demonic and uncontrollable within us. In fact we would be sensible to re-define terms like “demonic” and “brutal” when referring to it, or drop such pejorative terms altogether, because they create entirely the wrong image. They are subjective descriptions that need to be modified.

    It is the same with any aspect of life, or nature, that cannot be changed. Volcanoes erupt: that is their nature. We may not like it, but we certainly don’t define volcanoes as evil. Nor do we waste our time complaining about them. Nor again do we try to stop them erupting. We just ensure, if we are sensible, that we steer well clear of them when they look like doing so.

    1. “Because if we men are indeed consumed by our sexual desire, and it is indeed an almost universal feature of the male character, then we are entitled to say that it is therefore both normal and natural.”

      True. But envious, punitive feminists will have no part of this.

      However, to understand feminist-minded women, replace “men” with “women” in your statement, and of course feminists would defend it forever. There are hundreds of examples in which feminism is for female supremacy and in which this is but one.

      I have always said men shouldn’t apologize for being male even though I also (perhaps unrealistically) expect men to voluntarily snap out of their overly-competitive stupors over women too. But I instead, predict men WILL apologize for their maleness, setting a precedence that will bewilder their own male offspring someday.

      To be clear, men need to stop unwanted groping and powerful harassment. But that does not mean they should apologize for actually being male. In this context, wait and see if ANY of the remedies for the harassment and misconduct episodes include and address this natural inclination of men in a loving and supportive way, just like what would most certainly be done if it were women being flagged.

      The whipping post will continue. That’s feminism.

      1. The consuming of men by their sexual desire was the project of the sexual liberation. Now men are waking up with MGTOW philosophy.

      2. That’s a huge part of the problem. Almost all of this sexual harassment stuff falls into three categories:

        Actual sexual harassment

        Lying revenge minded, money grubbing, or attention seeking whores

        “Unwanted” flirtation from men they find repulsive

        The third category – the one that you alluded to – I guarantee comprises a whole lot of this mess. It can be boiled down to “How DARE you try hitting on me when you are such a dork”! I have seen this in action many times, and of course this is anything but sexual harassment. As you say, when it’s a male that she actually wants to fuck, the guy could be saying the exact same thing as the guy she finds gross, and it would turn her on. I think most men, blue pill or not, understand this.

        1. Sure they understand, but getting them to be honest about it, (especially to women) out loud and confidently, since not accepted herd behavior, is not likely to happen.

        2. Spot on. I’d say 75% of all this victim virtue signalling falls into this category, the last 25% probably evenly split among the other two. Of course: losing this distinction and losing any sense of perspective is precisely the aim of this well-orchestrated moral panic about male sexuality, the growling beast that feminists fear, loathe, hate and despise. As has already been pointed out, it’s Salem all over again, except that this time the kangaroo court is on Twitter. It’ll pass but it will do some damage. Meanwhile, for men, I’d counsel being alert when engaging in any one-on-one interaction with the opposite sex. It’s not nice to (have to) be so mistrustful, but these are not nice times. Protect yourselves. Nobody will do it for you.

        3. Those three categories really do sum it up well.

          Men also tend to respond well to very attractive women harassing them vs land whales. But we generally expected to say no politely and move on unless they are actually harassing.

          Imagine if women were raised to politely refuse the advances of men they are not interest in and just forget it and move on if he does too.

          That would be a ton of harassment accusations gone.

          1. Yup.

            I had this physically unattractive and very socially awkward female that I used to sit with at lunch that worked in the same office complex. Well she started sending me little presents and she would conveniently walk by looking for me on her break. Of course several of my co-workers thought this was hilarious and they would make a big joke about it “Hey dude, here she comes…duck”! Never once did I or anyone else take this to be harassment or predatory, and after several talks (and several more attempts from her) she eventually stopped. Imagine if the roles were reversed in the climate of today.

            What we are seeing a lot of is geek shaming. A guy she thinks is a spaz attempts to flirt with her and it makes her uncomfortable; she and probably some of her friends label him a “creep” and they conflate this with “inappropriate behavior” and harassment. However if it was another guy doing this that she thought was a stud, then it would be perfectly OK. So a lot of this stuff is based on her whim on whether she likes the guy or not.

            As you say, if women would just refuse the guys advances and if he moved on, then she should move on and fucking drop it.

      3. evilwhitemalempire

        “But all this punishment when his “wrong doing” rests on whether or not she likes him? Something about this just doesn’t jive with ultimate fairness.”
        Emotion based morality instead of justice based morality.

        And, always, the need to discriminate (between alphas and betas) in an SJW campus culture that is firmly against discrimination against any kind of less fortunate person.

    2. By virtue of testosterone, men have much more self control, sexual, emotional, mental, and otherwise, than women. Look at Nora Vincent’s 1.5 year of “undercover” as a man. She had a mental breakdown.

      1. Ironically testosterone is also responsible for a higher libido.

        So we have more desire to have sex more often on average but most of us control it.

        So what’s the excuse of women who throw themselves at men then cry rape when they are rejected?

  8. This was something foreseeable, even a few years ago.
    If women in society are becoming so socially toxic as to be able to pull down even the most socio-economically powerful among us, then it forebodes all men to put a brake on all playful banter with women in public and private places, or else risk the consequences of a total destruction of their civil life.
    Women, collectively, have been given a gun; whether they choose to use it or not may not matter to the average man, as they will all become suspect and a potential legal landmine. The modern puritans will have had their way, and interactions between men and women will have to become highly formalistic as it was in the 1800’s and before.
    Even women who want nothing to do with this new dynamic, will be subject to its isolation, as nothing they say to the contrary can assure a man that at some later time they won’t change their minds.
    And yes, some of that playful, informal banter will include informal business discussions and meetings, where they will simply not be invited, and suffer exclusion from . The ol’ boys network will re-arise, but in a lot more hidden way.
    (I am reminded of that Seinfeld episode where all the smokers would assemble outside to talk, and Elaine was excluded because she didn’t smoke, and later pretended to be a smoker just be part of the crowd.)

    fyi, I think Laci Green is coming from a good place; I think she has fairly much taken the red pill.

    1. “This was something foreseeable, even a few years ago.”

      When Trump won, this thought crossed my mind. I knew something was going to happen in which these women would hijack everyone’s attention as payback or something. Years of exposure to how many women can be is all I needed to figure they were going to retake the center of attention.They were terribly dissatisfied that their grumbling did not overtake everyone’s emotions so they could win the election.

      These accusations might be based on truth in some cases, surely, but this sudden uprising about an harassment problem known —apparently—decades ago is a direct or even subconscious effort of revenge, punishment and control. It is a tantrum. These women do have a point, but that does not mean what they are doing is still not a collective tantrum and a displaced one at that.

      It is as if harassment (but only of women, of course) has suddenly become more important—election-wise— than nuclear bombs, ISIS, trade, terrorism, taxes, welfare, entitlement programs, Olympics, and all the other worldly issues combined.

      Women are important, but no more than men and certainly not more than all the other truly horrible things that can happen to all of us, not just to women.

    2. Friends copied that exact same Seinfeld episode with Rachel.
      You are naive about Laci Green, she explicitly said multiple times on her own channel that she is still a feminist and will always be dedicated to social justice.
      The term “red pill” has been completely watered down and doesn’t mean anything anymore.
      Agreed with the rest.

      1. Not to get on a defend Laci Green tear here, but to be fair her perception on what social justice is has gone through an evolution of what she thought it was.

        I think banging Chris Raygun had a somewhat positive effect on her lol.

  9. The New York Times recently posited the question (paraphrasing) “Golly gee why are men afraid to be alone with women”? Lol lol lol lol lol lol

    Clueless is almost an understatement.

  10. “The next fear is that men will get so nervous that they’re going to be accused of harassment that they will simply stop hiring, meeting or socialising with female colleagues.”

    And that will be AWESOME.

    1. And it will go even far further: dont use a female taxi driver, dont go to a female doctor, dont speak to a female CS agent, dont ride a bus with a female driver etc. What was it? “Be careful what you wish for…”

  11. Now that upper management is getting targeted by feminists, they want to shift the blame on everybody else. That’s why this whole “it’s the fault of male libido” argument is being pushed. These are the same laws and rules that have applied to the rest of men for decades. Just because they got away with it doesn’t mean the rest of us pull it.

    Hollywood moguls, politicians and CEO’s suffer from the self righteous toxic combination of being male feminists and holding power over the rest of us. In their minds, it excused bad behavior to women and talking down to male underlings. They’ve just discovered that when feminists say ‘Smash the Patriarchy’ it means them.

    The feminists are getting scared because they realize ‘The Patriarchy’ might really get smashed this time, and then nobodies going to be in charge.

    1. First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

      Because I was not a Socialist.

      Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

      Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

      Because I was not a Jew.
      Then they(read feminists) came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me


  12. Now that every man is walking on eggshells and is in fear of taking the initiative in a sexual encounter, the backlash is beginning.

    For women that like men to be assertive and take the initiative – oh y’know like EVERY female that I’ve been with – this whole thing is also going to blow up in THEIR faces as well.

    Ladies get used to it; if you enjoyed being picked up and taken in the bedroom and having your clothes stripped off, or having your body ravished in the middle of the night by your male partner (I have a feeling Valenti is in this category), take heed! Sex is going to absolutely suck for you as well. You will be confined to the “gentle” and “respectful” sex of your lover afraid to make an assertive move, or asking for consent every fucking step of the way, or…no sex at all!

  13. “Fear of the male libido has been the subject of myth and of fairy tale from the beginning of literature: What else were the stories of Little Red Riding Hood or Bluebeard’s Castle about?”

    hm, actually, ‘ li’l red riding hood ‘ appears to stem from very ancient European traditions of symbolism for reincarnation where the wolf is actually a symbol of the feminine. This symbolism can be seen in tales ranging from Norse to French folklore, and even through to creatures such as Anubis and Cerberus … xD

  14. Funny I thought women were the evil perps in old fairy tales as in sleeping beauty. There is also snow white and Cinderella. Incidentally all these tales focus on female vanity and jealousy furthermore there are kindly male helpers and male heroes who eventually save the day. Of course none of that is proof of fear of women’s behaviour down the ages , It’s just misogyny.

  15. QUOTE: “The next fear is that men will get so nervous that they’re going to be accused of harassment that they will simply stop hiring, meeting or socialising with female colleagues. There are reports this
    is already happening. We will get shut out of the room where important decisions are made because men fear our presence? How ironic would that be?”

    It’s always taken me a little longer for the light bulb to pop on compared to the average person. I’m not sure I fear womens presence … BUT … over the years I sure have lost a huge amount of trust in them and I have become very aware of what they can ruin just by getting overly emotional, then opening their mouths and barfing up a bunch of vindictive BS. I’d like to think I have become prudent.

    Anyway … I find the above quote and this article very timely with all the Hollywood, Media, and Political sexual allegations going on lately, it feels like this is the start of men waking the fuck up and when the slightest little hint of accusation from a women will set off a mans radar with a big fucking “P I N G”

    Sort of gives new meaning to the words “Sleeping Beauty” .. .. .. Don’t it ?

  16. “Ishtar, the goddess of love, invites Gilgamesh to her palace and proposes marriage. Gilgamesh turns her down, however, because she treated her previous lovers badly, often turning them into animals. Enraged by his refusal, Ishtar threatens to smash the doors of hell and release the dead unless her father, Anu, releases the Bull of Heaven to destroy Gilgamesh. Because of her threat, Anu does so.”

    “So, if we are to compare – the male libido in Little Red Riding Hood devours grandma. In Gilgamesh, the frustrated female libido threatens the end of the world via zombies. That is harsh, ladies, and an echo of how society will collapse into chaos and starvation as men walk away.”

    Resounding 2 thumbs up! I’ll tell you this – in my younger days, the women I knew had no qualms making their presence physically felt. According to how Hollywood and this never ending train wreck coming out of the New York Times define it, I’ve been groped at least 4 times on the job. Probably more. Women have no qualm grabbing or saying harassing things because they believe that they are entitled to the same response from us that they cry about us wanting from them.

    I think that the only solution to all of this is documentation on a grand scheme. I mean, a process by which men are able to document their interactions with people on the job that can be recorded and uploaded en masse. A time series of records from lots of men, with some ancillary meta-data to describe things like the sector of the economy, region, Male/Female balance at that company, company name, etc., would go a long way toward building out the sort of statistical picture we need to really slam the door on this feminist bullshit. With that data, all cleaned up, we’d be able to use some network analytical tools to discern the extent of the problem and where counter action would be most effective. It would also work as a tool to find potential precedent setting cases.

    I think the long term solution to this is case law. If businesses & other organizations are faced with the real possibility that a man’s complaint would be treated with the same force as a womans, those same companies would immediately slam the door on female entitlement: it would be too expensive not to do so.

    1. “I think that the only solution to all of this is documentation on a grand scheme.”
      They tried that, it didn’t work. Women who consented on camera later claimed they did it “under duress” etc. and men were still imprisoned for rape. Even video evidence is not enough in a gynocentric society. They did the same with signed consent forms, claiming they signed under duress. They were doing consent forms way back in 1970s.

      The only solution for now is MGTOW.

      1. I disagree. We live in a litigious society and that will not change whether or not it is gynocentric. Documentation and analysis that isn’t funded by grants and academia is precisely what we have to have to alter the gynocentric society you’re talking about. It isn’t any more immutable, or unchangeable, than the antebellum south was 150 years ago during slavery. The tools already exist within the constitution to materially change these things. I’m not saying that MGTOW is unnecessary, it is absolutely necessary. I’m saying that MGTOW without large scale documentation, analysis, and direct action based upon its finding won’t be effective.

  17. So basically green and Valenti were against the demonizing of men as a gender because it will hurt women? Where have I heard that before?

  18. By virtue of testosterone, men have much more self control, sexual, emotional, mental, and otherwise, than women. Look at Nora Vincent’s 1.5 year of “undercover” as a man. She had a mental breakdown.

  19. I’d like to know where the idea that all men always want sex and that all women are frigid comes from. My experience certainly doesn’t bear that out. I’d been sexually abused by a woman when I was eight. As an adult, one woman begged me for sex when I didn’t have the education to turn my back, walk out, and slam the door behind me with no concern for her feelings. One colleague of mine was stuck in a sexual relationship with a woman he did not want to have sex with because she nagged and begged for it too apparently. I found that out from a mutual friend of ours. A few years after my relationship with the one who begged me for sex all the time, one woman raped me by any reasonable definition of the word.

    And to be clear, I’m not asexual nor have I ever suffered erectile dysfunction, am straight, and have always found women to be sexually attractive. But this idea that all men always want sex and that all women are frigid, I’d like to know where that comes from because that has not been my life experience. From my observation, sexual aggression is a reflection of the character of the person concerned and not reflective of that person’s gender in any way.

    I do believe that one possible problem in our society is that women assume men always want sex, that sexual aggression does not hurt men in any way, and that men are therefore fair game.

    1. If a man has sex without the woman’s consent, it’s rape.

      If a woman has sex without the man’s consent, he got lucky.

      A woman does not need a man’s consent to have sex with him–by law. So does the man even have the right to refuse sex? By law, the man always consents–even when he doesn’t.

      How many women have been prosecuted for having sex without a man’s consent? You won’t need very man fingers and toes to count the number.

    2. “I’d like to know where the idea that all men always want sex and that all women are frigid comes from.”
      Victorian era is a big culprit.

    3. Women in my experience have always wanted it as much or if not more. That is why I also found it odd when I have seen people say that, it didn’t make sense to me, but maybe I’m in the minority on this, not sure.

          1. I don’t want to defend the women referenced in the survey, but studies do show that victims of sexual abuse face a higher risk not only of repeat abuse but of abusing in their turn. It has a to do with a breaking down of respect for their own boundaries, which in turn makes it more difficult for them to defend their boundaries. After repeated abuse, they don’t care about boundaries anymore, turn to sex for its physical pleasure as a way to turn distract from their trauma. The same process applies regardless of the gender of the victim or the accuser.

            If feminists were serious about curbing the rate of male abuse of women, they’d focus on helping all victims regardless of gender since men who’d been abused by women as boys are the ones most likely to turn to misogyny and to abuse women in their turn. In the same way, any MRM who’s serious about curbing the female abuse of men would likewise want to help all victims regardless of gender because women who’ve been abused by men are the most likely to turn to misandry and to abuse men and boys in their turn. Once we understand that the female abuse of men and boys and the male abuse of women and girls form part of the same vicious cycle of trans-generational violence and trauma, we then realize that the focus ought to be on helping all victims recover regardless of gender. Otherwise it’s like removing half a tumour from the body of mankind and then wondering why it keeps growing back from generation to generation.

      1. When I would work long hours and come home after my kids were asleep, I would frequently catch my old lady using the old pickle tickle, and if I told her “I’m too tired” (which I would be sometimes) then she would continue using her dick robot with a pissed off look on her face.

        Yeah I’ve never really experienced the stereotype of a woman acting like it was a chore to have sex; I don’t know where the hell that comes from either.

  20. Suzy McCarley Typed: “Your
    “theory” is incorrect, but that is not surprising, as it comes from a
    position of gender based ideological bigotry. “Female Nature” is
    PigTOW’s hastily cobbled together response to “Patriarchy Theory.” Here
    at AVfM we are not interested in replacing one fictitious divisive
    ideology with another fictitious divisive ideology.” You’re reply is one of, what – equality? For a lack of a better description, I’ll just presume that for the main point: If that’s the case, why was it that Google data researchers discovered that women indulge with violent porn much more than men do, & it’s NOT correlated to how they’re treated. The reason that is is because women are less evolved than men.

    1. “Evolved?” From what to what? Thank you for illustrating my point about fictitious ideologies. Part of feminist theory is that men are essentially poorly evolved (defective) women. They even present some pseudo scientific (and carefully isolated from context, that’s the trick) gobbledygook as “evidence.” Just like you did here.
      Nice work.

      1. Be silent primitive ape creature.

        And Learn to use a VPN when you watch BDSM porn like men do.
        No offence meant, but the original comment on evolution is such a basic misunderstanding of evolution I could not resist poking fun at it

        1. Women are evolving toward opera goers while men are evolving toward asleep in hammocks. Twinkies are evolving toward Boston Cream Pies while Boston Cream Pies are moving toward cheesecake. It’s all part of the master plan. There is a report that eggs are evolving toward chickens. I know! Who would have thought that?! I’ve been on the internet too long.

      2. Citation first to stop pseudo science deflection: [pg 770 of ‘The Story Of Psychology’ by Morton Hunt]: Differences of mental & emotional responses, sex roles, etc., of male & female have been attacked by Feminists & related.The record is far bigger, but that is enough to state the facts are unpopular. Much of this research have been opposed by special-interest groups, (i.e. women) resulting with threats of violence (by enablers), physical assaults, failure of promotion, lack of tenure, etc., etc.. In order for female psychology to be contained, it needs to be exposed to society. This is not about being divisive, it’s about understanding to know what to work with. (also the other citation: )

        1. I’m almost ~75% certain that everyone in accordance with the lady who slandered me is addicted to entertainment. That’s a real problem when people like that profess to be involved with science or even philosophy.

    2. As for women being “less evolved” do you understand how sexual reproduction works in humans?
      If so then you know that men must be as evolved as women.

  21. 2 years ago or so, when people were saying “these universities should be sued and made to pay” regarding campus rape hysteria, I kept saying that WOMEN should be prosecuted, not the universities, otherwise this would never go away. And now all women globally everywhere around the world are making false rape accusations, using social media to bypass judicial systems to go straight to the court of public opinion. Because they pay no price whatsoever. So I was proved right. There is the occasional woman imprisoned for false rape accusations, but they have to go REALLY far, like falsely accuse 15 men, for that to happen. What does it change to sue universities, Hollywood companies, or Rolling Stone magazine? They are not the false accusers. Women are.

    1. This presents some challenges though. Just as a prosecutor cannot easily prove sexual assault, he cannot easily prove a false accusation of sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt either. That is why so many rapists and false accusers are acquitted. A rape accusation usually involves a he-said-she-said situation. In most cases, there is just no way of knowing who’s telling the truth. Some have proposed ‘rape-shield laws’ to increase the rape conviction. I oppose that since it increases the risk of wrongful convictions. Unfortunately, it’s just the nature of the beast: neither rape nor a false accusation are easy to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

      1. Unfortunately? You disagree with the Blackstone premise, on which our justice system is founded?

        What is the source for your assertion that so many false accusers are acquitted? How many false accusers are prosecuted? There is no equivalency at all between the prosecution of sexual assault and the prosecution of false accusations. Sexual assault cases are routinely prosecuted when there is no evidence whatsoever, and even when there is clear evidence of innocence; VAWA incentivizes such prosecutions with federal grants. Conversely, false accusers are rarely prosecuted even when there is overwhelming evidence of guilt.

        We already have rape shield laws, and they DO increase convictions – by violating defendants’ Constitutional rights to due process. They cause more wrongful convictions, and yes, “people” are indeed calling for more such laws.

        1. I oppose rape shield laws precisely for the reasons you cite; and yes, it appears that our justice system is biased against the defendant in sexual assault cases, something that needs to be addressed. I suspect that it’s a double-edged sword. Since sexual assault is such a heinous crime and so difficult to prove, some judges might either consciously or unconsciously lower the burden of proof and so raise the risk of a wrongful conviction. I’ve read that some fear prosecuting a false accusation out of a fear that they will further lower the reporting rate. I think that is wrong-headed since it only undermines the objectivity of the system. Yes, it’s a shame that sexual assaults are so difficult to prove, but we need to stop protecting clear false accusers.

          1. That last idea might help after we reverse the indoctrination of judges on the Duluth Model. The entire justice system is steeped in the long-ago debunked “theory,” because every single person in the system has been thoroughly trained in it.

          2. The Duluth model is a seriously flawed system. Anyone who believes that physical strength determines who sexually assaults whom needs to learn that sexual assault is at least 90% mental and no more than 10% physical. To take a few examples:

            1. A man is asleep or otherwise unconscious, consents to protected sex, or has otherwise let his guard down. A woman exploits the element of surprise to force unprotected sex onto him. Firstly, he needs a second to actually look to acknowledge what’s happening. He might try a few safe moves to get out of his position, but the woman swiftly adapts her physical position accordingly. He starts to seriously consider physically launching her off of him (which his physical strength would probably allow him to do) but hesitates out of a genuine human compassionate fear of causing her serious injury should her head hit a piece of furniture or the floor on her way down.

            2. A man is raping or at least about to rape a woman. She manages to get a hold of a loaded pistol that she knows is fully loaded and ready to fire. All she has to do is aim that pistol at his head and pull the trigger. She seriously considers putting a hole in his head but human compassion kicks in and she just can’t bring herself to do it.

            In both of the above examples, physical strength has nothing to do with who will be able to rape whom. In the first instance, the man might be quite capable of launching the woman off of his body; in the second, the woman might have a perfect opportunity to put a bullet into the man’s head. Human compassion kicks in to prevent the victim from taking that action.

            The same can apply to other forms of abuse too. A woman can threaten suicide to keep a man from separating from her or use a wide range of other forms of manipulation. I suspect the inventors of the Duluth model too simplistically assumed that humans are just machines devoid of emotion that are programmed to cold-bloodedly overpower any weaker opponent. In such a simplified and caricaturized image of a human being, then the Duluth model would be correct: men usually are physically stronger than women. But once we throw humanity into the equation, a man’s physical strength does not give him nearly the advantage one might think it gives him.

            If anything, the Duluth model might reflect the mentality of its inventors. We could ask whether they were in fact the kind of people who would cold-heartedly exploit physical advantage against another to get their way without a shred of compassion. Certainly those are not the kind of people we should be consulting to write policy.

  22. maxwell friedman

    I don’t know about shamed, man… that’s just kinda sad. As badly as my psyche has been occasionally curbstomped, I still feel that such a thing ought to be more a cause for outrage than arousal.Have you ever considered seeing someone about it? Because, really, and most men need to hear this way more often, you deserve better

  23. Now that upper management is getting targeted by feminists, they want to shift the blame on everybody else. That’s why this whole “it’s the fault of male libido” argument is being pushed. These are the same laws and rules that have applied to the rest of men for decades. Just because they got away with it doesn’t mean the rest of us pull it

  24. I am certainly not saying let’s all hug Laci Green be besties and sing gumbaya with her.
    But Green’s motivations may have been genuine. She’s always been sex-positive (as far as I’ve seen of her videos) and I believe in this case she was genuinely annoyed at the demonization of male sexuality.
    Seems she’s had a bit of a wake up call lately and even been publicly objecting to radical man-hating feminism.
    So I wouldn’t attribute a bad selfish intent to her tweet, this time. Even if she clings to the feminism brand.

    1. “But Green’s motivations may have been genuine.”
      She was losing subs on Youtube, and the instant she made the “taking red pill” video she changed course to gaining thousands of subscribers and her ad revenue jumped up by hundreds:

      How can you so easily ignore everything she said and did in the very recent past, such as calling the ENTIRE COUNTRY racist, misogynist and fascist? Because “she has good intentions”? Give me a fucking break. Let’s face it, you are giving her the pussy pass.

      1. I am not ignoring everything she said and did. Calm the fuck down.
        Let’s face it, you’re on a pussy-pass witch hunt.

        1. You see it’s like this …

          if you cling to a brand called “Feminism” how can you expect people to give these types of mind-sets any slack when you’ve been ass-fucked by them enough, their damage has taken its toll for over 100-years, it’s on them to change the mind-set of many, which will take several generations of unfucking. Until then, they need to be ignored and thrown into the garbage like a rotten fish and push the rights of men and keep eating Red Pills.

    2. While we can have big hearts (as men do) and hope that Laci is coming around, her remark that “your writers are rape-sympathizing creeps” does not jibe with her purported sex-positivity. This incongruous and over-the-top reaction to a man wrestling with male sexual assertiveness in a feminist framework indicated, to me at least, that Marche had inadvertently touched on a secret of women that they guard religiously.

    3. What I’m saying is we can’t start acting like radical feminists and
      attribute evil intent to everything someone says just because we
      disagree with them.
      We can use positive reinforcement on them to encourage them to help our cause even if temporarily, especially on populist flip-floppers like Laci

  25. I’m on this site because I have just seen, ‘The Red Pill’. It is a very good film and it ought to help to bring men and women together, but I don’t know that it will though, based on the climate I see around me. A friend of my mother’s, a German woman, used to say to my mother, who often complained she was being mistreated because she was a woman, at work, home, and everywhere else. “Mary, whoever has the stick is going to use it,” she used to say. I don’t know if this is common saying in German, but it certainly seems to be true.

    Women do have power now, regardless of the constant claims to the contrary, and they are using it – and too often with callous disregard. I have always supported justice for women, and in matters where I didn’t understand women’s issues I have taken classes and listened to women and read until I could understand the issues, as best I could. I like women and socialise predominantly with them.

    I would once have considered myself a feminist, but no longer. There are now too many bitter extremists in the movement who are unwilling to consider anything but their own perspective. That is not how life operates. Women should be criticised and called out for abuses of power in the same fashion that men are. And as women gain more power, so it becomes ever more important to do so.

    This will not happen though, until men refuse to play the game anymore and this will start by taking control of, respecting, and protecting your own bodily integrity and insist that women treat you with respect. Reproductive control as is an important first step. It’s your body and your genetic material and only you have the right to decide who can have it. We need to work to make sure this becomes a practical reality, as it has for women. If men want to stop being “expendable” it needs to start here.

    As an anecdote, and more on the subject of this article, I recount the story of my ex- partner, (yep I’m gay) who was friends with a straight woman. Before I met him, she often went out with my ex-partner and his friends to gay clubs years ago, when gay life was much less accepted. As something different and in the interests of fairness, I guess, he went with her to a ‘honky-tonk’ bar in the southern USA, in the city where they both lived. It was at a time when “out” gays faced actual physical threats and heavy-duty animosity. She took a fancy to one of the men drinking at the bar and wanted to leave with him (not a problem in anyone’s book, really) but as they had been talking with a group of people, one woman said to my ex that the fella at the bar was getting quite friendly with his “girlfriend.’My ex just brushed the comment off, smiled and changed the subject. Subsequently, my ex’s friend left with the guy at the bar and my ex ducked out to his car. I should say my ex had been born gay into a hyper-religious Pentecostal family and was quite a shy and retiring man.

    A few days later my ex told her what had happened and she told him that the woman had spoken to her as well and said something about her ‘boyfriend’ noticing what was happening. She said she had told the woman that my he and she were just friends and that he was “gay anyway,” so not to worry.

    Now, to me, some years later, my partner seemed to tolerate this woman, but not to like her. And it was my enquiry into his attitude which brought the whole story up. He seemed highly annoyed by what she had done, but I couldn’t see it at the time( being admittedly naive and stupid). He finally said to me in exasperation listening to me positing excuses for her:

    “She wanted it so badly, her pussy was throbbing – and she didn’t care if it got me killed!!!”

    It took me a while to get my head around his view on the subject and I had never thought of female sexuality in this way. Having been raised Catholic and repressed, I thought everyone was like St Mary, I suppose. Being gay, I wasn’t spending a lot of time on the subject either, but over the years I have observed that the female libido is not always the wholesome thing it is claimed to be. Nor is a relationship between a man and a woman a one-way street.

    Justice and fairness is the future, the supremacy of one sex over the other is not.

      1. Correct. A while back there was this gay physicist in Texas who went to renew his driver’s license, and was told that he couldn’t do that, as he was told that he owed back child support. It turned out that some skank who wanted some child support money claimed that he was the father of her 3-year-old; she found his name and profile on Facebook, and saw that he had a good income. I don’t know how the story ended, as I could’t find an update to this story on Youtube. Bottom line is that everything that can kick a straight man’s ass can just as easily kick a gay man’s ass.

    1. After conflicts are settled, only then can former enemies become friends. If we do not thrash feminists and drive them into extinction, they will forever poison the relationships between men and women as well as deprive men of equal rights. Do not mistake the struggle for the goals.

  26. The current harassment and misconduct hysteria, while likely having some truth to it, is a delayed and displaced reaction to women losing the center of attention…as evidenced by the 2016 election putting Trump in the Oval Office. With this hysteria, they will surely be the center of the world again

  27. One thing I can definitely see happening as the MHRM grows will be a split between ‘sex-positive’ and ‘abolitionist’ MHRAs. The feminist movement witnessed this in the 1960’s and 70’s in the feminist sex wars between ‘sex-positive’ feminists (who supported the maximal decriminalization of prostitution, pornography, and BDSM) and ‘anti-pornography’ (now sometimes referred to as ‘abolitionist’) feminists (who favoured an abolitionist policy towards prostitution and pornography and at least SM). The movement has never really resolved that conflict and remains divided to this day. I have a difficult time imagining that, as the MHRM grows, that it won’t face a similar divide between those who would farour laws leaning more towards sexual freedom and others more towards sexual protection under the law.

    1. I don’t really see that as being a major issue between MHRAs. Oh sure there are trad/cons that try to hi-jack the men’s movement with their Puritan style porn and strip clubs are icky and dirty comments, but they usually get shot down by everyone else.

      Feminists on the other hand I think have largely been taken over by the anti-sex prude crowd. Most of what I hear from them is “Ohhhh porn and strip clubs are harmful to women; we must get rid of them”. This has evolved into SJW’s/feminists having an absolute cow when a guy wears a t-shirt with fictional painted fully clothed women on it. They have taken it even further to encompass restricting sex between male and female with their infantilization of women and pushing for consent laws; sex itself is now considered dangerous and oppressive to women to theses lunatics.

      I have been asked the question on how so much of the left actually became the one’s that are the squares; well I would say ever since post modernist SJW/feminists spread their cancer.

      1. I doubt trad/cons and Puritans are the only ones. One reason people are turning away from feminism is simply because feminism fails to address men’s issues (and even some women’s issues such as the sexual assault of women and girls by other women). However, should the men’s movement make the same mistake of ignoring women’s issues, it too will face the same future as the feminists are presently facing now.

        I’ll present a few statistics here:
        ‘Researchers have found that 1 in 6 men have experienced abusive sexual experiences before age 18. And this is probably a low estimate, since it doesn’t include noncontact experiences, which can also have lasting negative effects.’

        ‘A total of 43 percent of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95 percent said a female acquaintance was the aggressor, according to a study published online in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity®.’

        That a woman can so easily coerce a man into sex in spite of differences in physical strength can be explained by the fact that coercion is usually 90% mental and 10% physical. However, physical strength does play a small role none-the-less and so we can imagine that the statistics for women are even higher than those for men. At least to my mind, 43% of a number of epidemic proportions; and sexual abuse can be traumatizing and leave life-long emotional scars.

        Unfortunately though, sexual abuse is also extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. As a consequence of it being so difficult to prove yet so harmful, and with judges recognizing even if only on a subconscious level that some kind of deterrent is needed, judges may subconsciously lower the burden of proof. While that may increase the rate of convictions, it also increases the rate of wrongful convictions.

        Without further regulating sex, we are then left with the present status quo. It’s human nature. So then the question becomes how do we present a real deterrent against sexual assault without making judges feel like they must lower the burden of proof? Historically, an emotional pressure valve of sorts existed. If the judge could not find a person guilty of rape but at least of fornication, then the man might still pay a heavy fine at least. Today, everything but the coercion itself has now been legalized, and the coercion is precisely the hardest part to prove.

        We cannot deny that prostitution and human trafficking are closely linked. Even when they are not, clearly a man who is so desperate for sex that he’s prepared to pay for it is probably prepared to do many others things to get it too. And just to throw a wrench in this, I remember one case of a man who’d paid a sex worker for protected sex only for her to force unprotected sex onto him by taking him by surprise and then pining him down.

        I favour the Nordic model of prostitution laws for a start. That way, if a man rapes a woman and she can’t prove that he raped her but can prove that he paid her for sex, then she has at least that going for her.

        I would even take it one step further and allow through some kind of legislation for a person to freely trade a reasonable degree of sexual freedom under the law in exchange for sexual protection under the law. For example, a person who’s not planning on fornicating anyway might be willing to sing some kind of document with the state making it a criminal fine-able offence for him/her to fornicate but also make it a criminal fine-able offence for anyone else to fornicate with that signatory That too could provide protection in that if that person is then raped, she’d have no need to prove the rape itself but only fornication instead in order for the man or woman to pay a heavy fine that doubles for each repetition of the offence.

        If that person wants to avoid legal problems, then it would be up to him or her to ask him or her for proof of his or her signatory status (maybe stamped in a passport or something). If the person refuses to show it, then he or she should just walk away and find a different sex partner. No one enjoys a fundamental right to sex with another. If the other person should have freely and willingly traded a certain degree of sexual freedom for protection with the state in the form of a formal contract, that should be as clear an indication as any that that person does not want to have sex with anyone outside of the confines of that contract.

        Sexual assault is difficult to prove yet extremely harmful to society. This combination makes it inevitable from the standpoint of human nature that unless some kind of emotional pressure valve exists, judges will continue to subconsciously lower the burden of proof. That means that if we want to put an end to that, then we need to re-introduce some kind of emotional pressure valve in the law. Historically, it was fornication laws. Now we have rape-shield laws. Fornication laws were preferable in that at least the person was being found guilty for something he actually did. Now, rape shield laws just lower the burden of proof.

        An alternative solution would be to go back to the old fornication laws but by applying them only on an individual level and of course scrap rape-shield laws. In other words, it would be up to the individual if he wants to trade some sexual freedom in exchange for sexual protection under the law. If he chooses to do so and a prosecutor cannot prove someone raped him, then the judge might still find him guilty of fornication. If the person chooses not to trade in any sexual protection and then accuses someone of rape, then the judge certainly could question why he or she did not do so and so that would raise questions about whether the person might have consented.

        1. Instead of pointing out (over and over again) the awful things the MRM *might* do, why don’t you spend some time exploring its history; you might actually notice how those issues have been addressed. A long time ago.

        2. Sorry trading a supposed lesser of two evils is not the way to go. First off I don’t agree that it’s a lesser of two evils anyway.

          A criminal charge for fornication? Fuck no man! This just gives someone that really wants to rake you over the coals the tools to do it.

          1. You asked, I’ll answer. I had my first sexual experience when I was eight with an adult babysitter. Since my dad raised me under military discipline, I feared him so didn’t dare tell him or anyone else what was happening, and that just allowed it to continue. Even by the age of eight, I’d already picked up on the cultural expectation that boys just suck it up and soldier on. This also undermined my character education by denying me the opportunity to learn to respect my boundaries. This in turn made me more vulnerable to abuse in early adulthood too, and I did end up in an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship at nineteen. Coercion ranged from begging, nagging, pouting, and unwanted physical touching to threatening suicide if I broke up with her as I was slowly trying to learn how to handle the situation and resist the coercion. She successfully coerced me into a marriage that finally ended with an attempted suicide on my part at twenty-one. So effectively, every sexual experience I had between the ages of eight and twenty-one was coercive in nature.

            No, I wasn’t lucky. No, I shouldn’t be thankful that I ‘got some.’ No, I don’t see the relevance of whether or not I had sex to the topic.

            Since you asked, I’ll ask: have you ever had coerced sex?

            Now while I acknowledge flaws may exist in my recommendations, is it really as crazy as it seems at first glance? If you want to have sex with a woman and you’re not sure if she’s of legal age, in some jurisdictions you have to ask to see her ID since ignorance is no excuse in some jurisdictions. Is that too much to ask for? In some jurisdictions, a therapist is not allowed to have even consensual sexual relations with patients. In some jurisdictions, staff are not allowed to have even consensual sexual relations with inmates in an institutionalized setting. Is that unreasonable?

            Given how childhood emotional, physical, or sexual abuse can make a person more vulnerable to coercion in adulthood, why would it not be reasonable for a person to choose a similar statutory status for himself?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *