Category Archives: evil women
>How to get downvoted on The Spearhead: Internet Dating Edition
>
 |
| Spearhead readers: Not actually as cool as Fonzie. |
When sites enable users to upvote and downvote comments and posts, the rationale is generally that it improves discussion and filters out trolls. In practice, this is almost never the case; instead, the up and down arrows offer the majority a way to reward those who simply rehash the party line and punish those who dare suggest anything even remotely challenging. This punishment is accentuated on sites on which dissenters who are downvoted beyond a certain threshold see their comments literally vanish, unless readers click a special link to make them visible again.
We’ve seen in the past the sorts of things that get massively upvoted on The Spearhead. A comment suggesting that “a woman’s vagina/body is her one and only asset” got, at last count, 58 upvotes and only 4 downvotes. Comments suggesting that women are “parasites,” “dumb as bricks,” incapable of logic or empathy each got dozens of upvotes and only a handful of downvotes, as did comments suggesting that women should never have been given the right to vote. Heck, one recent comment suggesting that Daniel Hernandez was “a traitor to men” for helping to save Gabrielle Giffords’ life got twice as many upvotes as downvotes. (As I pointed out in a recent post, there were actually a number of comments in that vein; they all got more upvotes than downvotes)
So if these sorts of comments get upvoted, the question arises: what sort of horrible, beyond-the-pale nuttiness actually invites downvotes on the site? Well, in a recent guest posting there, someone calling himself Big Daddy From Cincinnati offered some (not really very good) internet dating advice for the misogynist masses. Along the way he opined that “women are amoral creatures, flakes, and they will reject you for anything, everything, nothing, the phase of the moon, or who knows what. They will lead you on and waste your time … . ”
While most commenters seemed to agree with this characterization of the ladies, one anonymous gal suggested instead that:
Yep, you can practically hear the Spearhead guys furiously downvoting that bit of heresy. What an outlandish opinion, clearly the work of an evil, misandrist troll! Probably a lesbian, too. I mean, what kind of crazy man-hating monster would she have to be not to be utterly smitten by the Spearhead men?
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
>The Mousetrap Vagina
>
We return again to a young up-and-comer on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum, a fellow calling himself Nightstorm. Though a proud virgin, Nightstorm has some highly advanced theories about vaginas and the women who host them:
Its almost like a mouse trap is on a womans vagina, where when a men has to carefully insert his penis hoping not to spring the trap. If he is successful, he gets a free ride. If he is like most men, unsucessful, the trap springs, claps his penis into the vagina of the woman, and soon poisnous venom streams from her vagina and injects itself into the male genital.
This poison then creeps into the male brain and literally makes him stupid, it shuts down his intellect, and activates all his hormones for more pussy. She’s got the bastard. Now she can slowly but surely take all his wealth and keep pumping more poison into him. The man feels trapped, he can’t remove his penis from the vagina for the life of him, but he enjoys that pussy, so he continues to let himself get robbed.
Emphasis added.
It’s astounding that he’s able to discern so much about vaginas despite having had no actual contact with them since the moment of his birth.
Luckily for him, and luckily for the women of the world, Nightstorm has no plans to acquire any hands-on (or, more precisely, penis-in) experience with vaginas in the near future. In a later comment, he spells out some of the reasons for his continued abstinence (besides the whole poison-mousetrap thing): fear of STDs, fear of pregnancy, and fear of, well, this scenario:
if she was a virgin, how I would have to deal with the hassle of possible bleeding. Its not so hott when I make her spew red and white blood cells all over the sheets and doing it in the bathtub would required poor foreplay and not comfortable or roomy space. If she is a heavy weight girl, then there goes my bathtub, broken.
And if if, say, he’s somehow able to avoid the perils of STDs, pregnancy, icky blood and a broken bathtub, then what?
Well, then I would have to deal with her wanting more in the relationship, such as meeting her family, or perhaps even paying her for it, or her expecting some sort of “favor” in return for sex which we both equally enjoyed.
Yeah, nothing ruins a nice evening of dipping your penis in a bloody, poison-infused mousetrap like the owner of said mousetrap asking you to meet her parents.
EDITED TO ADD: Sometimes people complain that I focus on the weird fringes of the MGTOW world. Thing is, within the MGTOW world, these things aren’t regarded as weird or fringey. Indeed, one of the comments I quoted above from Nightstorm was just highlighted on MarkyMark’s blog as an example of MGTOW thinking at its finest:
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: we truly have some of the BEST & BRIGHTEST men in the world on there [that is, on NicGuy's MGTOW forum]! What you’re about to read will provide yet more proof of that.Anyway, NowhereMan & Nightstorm were discussing CNN piece about how men supposedly have the upper hand in sexual matters. What they say is gold, pure gold! It’s stuff that my boys should read and heed. …
Even if you’re not religious, there are PRACTICAL reasons for avoiding sex with women. The most important of these is to keep your power. Sex is a woman’s ‘nuclear option'; take that away, and you take away a woman’s power over you.
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
>Inflatable women: As dangerous as real ones?
>
 |
| Beautiful, but deadly. |
Be careful out there, fellas, as you make your way in the brave new post-woman world. Sure, it goes without saying that sexy robot ladies will soon replace real women, and obviously that’s great news for all of us, except perhaps for human females, who don’t really count anyway. But approach with caution; some sex toys artificial female companions can be downright dangerous. Case in point: A recent news story on FoxNews.com from Australia which suggests that inflatable women can be as treacherous as real ones.
A bizarre decision to ride an inflatable doll down a flood-swollen Yarra River in Australia blew up in a woman’s face yesterday when she lost her latex playmate in a rough patch.
The incident prompted a warning from police that blow-up sex toys are “not recognized flotation devices’’.
Police and a State Emergency Services crew were called to the rescue when the woman and a man, both 19, struck trouble at Warrandyte North about 4.30 p.m. Tuesday.
They were floating down the river on two inflatable dolls and had just passed the Pound Bend Tunnel when the woman lost her toy in turbulent water.
She clung to a floating tree, calling for help while the man stayed with her. Fortunately for the pair, a passer-by called triple zero while while a kayaker took life jackets to the pair. Police and the SES crew hauled the water-logged thrillseekers to safety.
Clearly, this is a case of attempted murder. No doubt the young man was the real intended target.
The most ominous part of the report. The final paragraph:
“The fate of the inflatable dolls is unknown,” said Senior Constable Wilson.
In other words, the dolls are still out there, biding their time, just waiting for another opportunity to wreak their vengeance on the human world!
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>The ugly diva crisis … solved!
>
 |
| She’s out of your league, pal! |
You may recall a little ditty from days gone by called “If you wanna be happy.” The song, the one hit of one-hit-wonder Jimmy Soul, was a song with a message for men in love. That message? Well, if my mere mentioning of the song hasn’t already gotten it stuck in your head, let me remind you of its basic thesis:
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you
Why is this? Well, put simply, pretty women are entitled bitches who will ruin your life and break your heart, while ugly women will be so grateful for your attention that they’ll treat you well and prepare meals in a timely fashion:
A pretty woman makes her husband look small
And very often causes his downfall
As soon as he married her and then she starts
To do the things that will break his heart
But if you make an ugly woman your wife
A-you’ll be happy for the rest of your life
An ug-a-ly woman cooks meals on time
And she’ll always give you peace of mind
By “piece of mind,” I believe Mr. Soul is referring to “blowjobs.”
But, alas, this simple formula for male happiness has been rendered ineffective. And it’s all the fault of evil manginas. A fellow called Lincoln, posting on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum, reports that these dastardly woman-worshipping half-men have upset the old order by actively pursuing ugly women and making them think they’re all that. The horror! All this mangina attention has given
even the most ugliest man faced mountain beasts [an] overinflated sense of their own self-importance, and the net result is the most repulsive, vile, and ill-tempered skanks you could ever meet. Even now I can’t understand it, I can’t even look at these women much less want to bang them, but there it is. It’s already a given that the really attractive ones will of course behave the same way, but if even the ugliest ones behave like prima donnas, who’s left?
It seems an unsolvable dilemma. But Lincoln believes he’s found a way out: amputees.
The ideal is to find a beautiful woman that no mangina wants. it’s possible, but they usually have some kind of trait that puts men off for sometimes the fucking stupidest reason. One example was this one armed woman I knew of once. She had lost her arm in a car accident, and she was the sweetest, most kindest girl you could have met, but for some reason guys weren’t lining up the door for her. Stupid. If I ran across her again I wouldn’t hesitate to ask her out.
Love will always find a way.
If you now need to get “If you wanna be happy” out of your head, this ought to do it:
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>A different kind of flapper
>
 |
| Not the kind of flapper we’re talking about. |
So I’m over at the Boycott American Women blog, reading a post by someone describing himself as an “angry black American man.” It starts off clearly enough (“There is WAY TOO many of the MISS THANG type type in america”), and continues on to make a fairly standard argument to the effect that American women are stuck-up narcissists who will end up “alone an bitter.” (To be fair, that description applies to a lot of us guys as well.)
But it’s the grand conclusion that leaves me a little baffled:
its a growing trend among the women to act like tryant like cunt flaps.
Uh, what flaps?
I wondered if this was some sort of slang I hadn’t heard about. But Urban Dictionary seems to confirm that the term “cunt flaps” does indeed mean, er, what it seems to mean, i.e., labia that hang down like flaps.
So what does it mean to say that women are acting “like tryant like cunt flaps.”
Is there a typo here, a word missing, or what? I assume that by “tryant” he actually means “tyrant,” but that’s really the least of our problems here.
Did he mean that women are acting like tyrants, and that they are also acting like cunt flaps? (Which raises the question: How exactly does one act like cunt flaps?)
Did he mean that women are acting as though tyrants like cunt flaps? (Which raises the question: is there something about ruling a country with an iron fist that leads one to be drawn to larger-than-average labia?)
Or maybe I’m totally wrong about the “tyrant” thing. Maybe he’s saying that women are trying to act like cunt flaps. (Which, again, huh?)
I remain baffled.
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>Pee-ple Power
>
 |
| Future revolutionaries? |
On January 1, 2010, a day that will live in … calendars from last year, the blogger at The Futurist published a long-winded crackpot screed called The Misandry Bubble, which rehashed a bunch of standard-issue “manosphere” memes — doofus sitcom dads oppress men! beta man can’t get laid! marriage sucks! — in one exceedingly pretentious package. While rampant misandry and uppity women were destroying American civilization from within, he argued, the “Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation” would rescue us all and put those dirty feminists and White Knights in their place. One of the Horsemen? Virtual reality sex toys for men.
To say that Mr. Futurist was optimistic about his ability to predict the future popping of the “misandry bubble” is a wild understatement. His manifesto, he declared, was
a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife … As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.
Naturally, with so many in the manosphere being pretentious douches who like having their own crackpot notions repeated back to them in pretentious language, The Misandry Bubble was a smashing success, and became for a time the talk of angry-man town.
I’ve been meaning to write about it for awhile, but that would have required me to actually reread the damn thing.
But Mr. Futurist has beaten me to the punch. On January 1, 2011, “exactly 365 days after The Misandry Bubble was posted,” he posted his long-awaited followup. It starts off as portentiously (and pretentiously) as his original manifesto:
We have completed the first year of the decade of The Misandry Bubble, and I remain as convinced as ever that The Misandry Bubble will correct by 2020 no matter what due to the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation. However, there is much to lose if the correction is turbulent, rather than orderly. Millions of innocent men and women can be saved from wrenching misfortune if we act now to fight the culture of misandry that is cancerously pervading the entire Western world.
So how does one fight such a hydra-headed menace as modern misandry? Mr. Futurist, borrowing a page from third-world revolutionaries, suggests that what is needed to save “millions … from wrenching misfortune” is a “a simple, low risk solution that enable this small civilian force [of MRAs] to wage asymmetrical warfare against misandry.”
This solution?
Urinal flyers.
Yep. His grand plan to save civilization from “misandry” is for a super seekret guerilla army of angry dudes to put up little posters above urinals in public restrooms suggesting that dudes taking a piss … go read The Spearhead, or some other manosphere site with “a professional appearance and clean format.” He calls this campaign “URLs @ Urinals.”
I shit you not. (Or perhaps that should be “I piss you not.”)
Here’s his explanation:
Male restrooms in public buildings have urinals. When a man is using a urinal, he has no choice but to see the blank wall that is directly in front of his face above the urinal at eye-level. Every man taller than 5’2″, whether young or old, rich or poor, is a captive audience for that brief passage of time. …
If a man sees a flyer that provokes a jolting thought where he leasts expects it, he will remember it for a long time to come. Those of us who have studied and practiced Neuro-Linguisting Programming (NLP) will recognize this as a very strong anchor, and thus ensure that he will remember the seed planted in his mind in many future instances of standing in front of a urinal. The periodic recollection will be unshakeable, due to such a strong anchor being planted. Whenever he hears of yet another such situation again, he will think back to the thought evoked by the flyer he saw on that day.
Mr. Futurist refers to this strategy, with utter seriousness, as “piercing the Matrix.” You know, like in The Matrix.
All that remains to be done, besides purchasing a roll of tape, is to come up with some appropriately “jolting” posters. Mr. Futurist has already come up with a bunch of them. They won’t win any awards for clever design, or clever wordplay, or even “World’s Greatest Grandpa,” but, hey, if they’re printed up on sheets of paper they can indeed be considered flyers. Here’s one:
And another one, perhaps my favorite:
Our good friend ReluctantNihilist from Reddit — who apparently is none other than Jay Hammers, whom you may remember from my The Worst of the Men’s Rights Movement post — has already come up with a few of his own slogans:
The Constitution no longer protects men and boys.What happened?
Chivalry is Dead And Women Killed It
Why do men die younger than women?It’s not just biological.The truth may surprise you.
Buying That Girl Drinks Will Get You Nowhere
All it will take to bring these sorts of messages to a million men, Mr. Futurist estimates, is a mere 1000 hours of collective action, printing up and posting these little flyers in the men’s restrooms of America. “Which could,” he explains,
plant a seed in the minds of hundreds of thousands of them.
Which could lead to tens of thousands of them reading the websites introduced in the flyers.
Which could result in several thousand more men becoming fully educated about the various dimensions of misandry that are silently enslaving them.
Now, Mt. Futurist realizes there will be naysayers amongst the evil misandrists of the world. As he explains, with typical understatement:
Already in a stupor of castrative bloodlust, ‘feminists’ will be tipped into hysteria by the thought of more men being sent information from outside the plantation. Their reactions will span the whole range of derangement, from demands for taxpayer-funded armed guards to apprehend flyer posters, to feminists barging into men’s rooms to inspect for evidence of ‘misogyny’, to calls for outright bans on urinals themselves as ‘male supremacist’ appliances, to increasingly bold statements regarding the need to reduce the male population to a fraction of what it currently is … .
Also, he observes, some people might actually tear down the flyers. But do not be daunted, good men, for
that action is futile as due to the viral nature of ‘URLs @ Urinals’ they have no idea where or when the next flyers will be posted. They will, as mentioned before, double down on their pedestalization of women. But they can only double down so many times, and this will accelerate the process of them cracking under the burdens of their ignorance.
So onward and upward, urinal-flyer-posting men! I guess I’ll have to check back in a year to see if the revolution has begun.
>Murder and male resentment
>
Note: This post is about a blog post on the Men-Factor blog that has already inspired some discussions in the comments here.
One of the most disturbing pieces of writing I’ve seen in the manosphere in recent days was actually written by someone who regularly posts comments here — an engineer in Reno who calls himself Scarecrow, and who runs a blog called Men-Factor. (You may have noticed it in my “Enemies List” in the sidebar.) His blog posts are typically puerile “humor” pieces — deliberately crude, and festooned with “wacky” pictures — directed at feminists and the like: here’s one example, a puzzling bit of japery entitled “Woman Purposely does Crossword Wrong; Hailed as Big Step for Women’s Rights!”
But earlier this week, he posted something that left me simply appalled, a weird and angry attack on what he called in the post’s title a “Dirty Skanky Whore with no Brains Who ‘Puts Out’ for Physically Abusive Men” — and who “is Missing and Probably Dead.” Unlike the fictional crossword-puzzle bungler, the women in this post is a real person, a Las Vegas dancer named Deborah Flores-Narvaez, who in fact has been missing since December 12 and who may well have been murdered.
This post comes complete with wacky pictures and all, but it’s essentially a rant celebrating the probable murder of Flores-Narvaez and the murder of “skanks” generally. Why? Because Flores-Narvaez was hot, was dating a man who may well have abused her, and because
she reminds me of those women who would brutally reject men … when being approached. You know – the woman who makes a total scene and makes heads turn – but not at me of course.
Scarecrow puts these words in the mouth of a fictional commenter, but it is clear this is his feeling towards her as well.
Then, rehashing the tired mansophere myth that women only like dating thugs, he writes:
Most American woman are now happy that another psychotic man has once again joined the singles scene and could make them a potential mate and possibly as an extra bonus – a murderer too!
He ends the piece with the phrase “live and let SKANKS die” in big red letters, a twisted reference to the Paul McCartney song with a similar title.
There is of course no possible justification for any of this, but Scarecrow, having been told by some of his friends he’d shown the post to that he’d gone too far, tries to offer one anyway:
I was raised to have respect for all life. … Perhaps I am turning into a sour old fart – but – I have seen crap like this way too often in my life – and it has actually bled over into my life on a few occasions …
I have met too many women like this – and – yes – been treated with hostility by them (or seen them treat other men like me with hostility) when no hostility was called for. Later of course – I hear stories about them getting beaten or killed by some psychotic dick-weed.
Do I still care?
NOPE.
 |
| From Men-Factor, Scarecrow’s blog. |
For the rest of this part of his rant, see the graphic on the right here, taken from his post.
Scarecrow then links to three blog posts relating events from his life that he says justify his attitude towards Flores-Narvaez and other so-called “skanks.”
The first link recounts what he rightly calls a “whale of a tale.” In brief: One late night about a decade ago, Scarecrow was waiting in line at a grocery store when he noticed that the “incredibly beautiful … busty brunette” in front of him in the line was buying the same odd assortment of items that he was. He made a remark to her about this, and, instead of laughing, as he had hoped, she snapped, and yelled at him. Which is, yes, one of the more likely outcomes you’ll get when you try chatting up a young woman who likely gets hit on all the time when she is shopping by herself late at night.
All of which would be an unremarkable tale had it not been for what happened next: the woman was murdered, her head bashed in with a cinder block, later that night. The police, having heard from a witness who happened to know Scarecrow that he had been “arguing” with her in the grocery store shortly before she was killed, questioned Scarecrow about the incident. Naturally, this freaked him the fuck out, as it would anyone who found themselves facing questioning from cops in a murder case. Having heard his story, they assured him he wasn’t the real suspect — her boyfriend was — and moved on.
Remarkably, instead of feeling sympathy for the murdered woman, Scarecrow instead blamed her, and all women like her, for making his life more difficult:
Why is it that a guy like me gets yelled and barked at by an incredibly beautiful woman like this – and a guy that ends up bashing her face in with a cinder block gets laid – lord only knows how many times – or what kind of fun and exciting sex acts she performed on him? …
This incident was a crucial turning point in my life. Not only was I not getting laid by these “mega-hottie” women, but they would go to extremes to be rude to me. And now, their f*cked up lives were seeping over into my own life. This pissed me off to no end. …
Clearly, something is wrong with some modern western females. SERIOUSLY WRONG!
That’s the conclusion he draws from all this?
The other stories Scarecrow cites as reasons for his rage against “skanks” are equally puzzling. One involves a male co-worker who sort-of-accused him of murdering a young woman named Brianna Denison. Though the “accuser” here was male (as was, it turns out, the actual murderer), Scarecrow directs much of the anger in his post at, again, the murdered woman, whom he describes as a “f*cked up b*tch, who was too good to talk to any ‘nice-guys.'” He also manages to work in a shot at the “heavy-set women” he saw in the TV coverage of a candle-light vigil for Denison:
Funny – since when do fat women care if a tiny woman drops off the face of the planet?
Oh wait – that’s right – silly me. There’s an awful lot of male-hatred that can be spread at such a thing, and of course – lots of money money money to be made. You can show everybody how much you cared about Brianna by donating money to various charities (CHA-CHING!), and remind everybody how ALL men are just beasts that want to rape and kill young women. HIP HIP HOORAY!
The other story involves — long story short — two Nazi skinheads he’d never even met who tried to blame him for drugs and weapons violations they’d committed. Seeing the skinheads for the first time at a pre-trial hearing, he directs his ire not at them but at their girlfriends:
The thing that pissed me off:
They [the skinheads] had their girlfriends with them: Two super-mega-hot women, a brunette and a blond. Both were busty, thin, and extraordinarily pretty in the face. … I wondered: Why do … losers get totally hot women, and men who are better off and “square” do not get the time of day from such women?
Once again: men commit a crime, and Scarecrow directs his anger at women, random women he doesn’t know — for being, in his mind, the type of women who would probably turn him down.
To restate an obvious point I’ve made in other posts: no one (male or female) has the right to sex and/or a relationship with the hottie of their choice, and anyone who walks around hating not only those women who’ve rejected them, but also all the other women who remind him of these women, is going to have that hate curdle inside of him. Everyone gets rejected. Some more than others, but that’s life. Life’s unfair. Yeah, some women go for assholes over “nice guys.” That’s their business, not yours.
But let’s pause for a moment on the issue of the “nice guy” — as in, for example, the “nice guys” who Scarecrow imagines were being cruelly rejected by the murdered Brianna Denison. How “nice,” exactly, is a guy who seethes with hatred of women because a relative handful of said women have responded negatively to his advances? If you blame and resent murdered women for inconveniencing your life, and celebrate the death of “skanks,” here’s the thing, and I shouldn’t really need to say this: you are not actually “nice.” You’re a creepy, angry, misogynistic asshole. And most women can sense that a mile away.
NOTE: I have not decided what I should ultimately do about the issue of Scarecrow posting comments here. Anyone — male or female, MRA or feminist — who posts comments celebrating the death of innocent people will have these comments deleted and will likely be quickly banned. But Scarecrow has not posted any comments like that here, and I am inclined, at least for now, to allow him to continue to comment here and, in particular, to respond to this post.
>On Herpes and Hypergamy
>
 |
| Peggy Olson has no time for pseudoscientific PUA crap. |
Note: As regular Man Boobz comment readers will notice, this post is an expanded version of some comments I made here and here.
An extraordinary number of men in the “manosphere” — whether they’re wannabe Pick-up artists or woman-avoiding Men Going Their Own Way — have a very strange notion of what goes on (and what doesn’t go on) behind the closed doors of America’s bedrooms. (And sometimes in the bathrooms of dive bars.) They envision a world in which a small number of men are having all the sex they want, with any women they want, while the rest of the men out there — at least the straight ones — are condemned to lives of celibacy or near-celibacy.
So who gets blamed for this (imagined) state of affairs? Women. And something called “hypergamy.”
The term refers to the practice of “marrying up”in social class. But the dudes of the manosphere aren’t merely content to accuse women of being mere gold-diggers. They’ve combined the notion of hypergamy with some ill-digested evolutionary psych speculations and convinced themselves that women are in fact a giant gang of nymphomaniacal sexual status seekers, compelled by their very genes to throw themselves at the males on top of the sexual heap — variously described as alphas, jocks, bad boys, and thugs.
And, since men are similarly programmed to spread their seed far and wide — by which I mean fuck anything that moves — these women are getting all the attention from the alphas that their hearts and loins desire, while themselves making beta guys beg for scraps, or, more often, rejecting them outright. Or so goes the theory.
Naturally, those manosphere men who find themselves sitting on the sidelines of this (imagined) orgy tend to build up a great deal of bitterness about this (imagined) state of affairs.
This little mythical tale of alpha males and the hypergamic nymphomaniacs who love them (long time) is repeated again and again on the blogs and message boards of the manosphere. But is there any real convincing evidence for any of this? I haven’t seen any yet.
But in a post earlier this year one of the more influential bloggers in the manosphere, a pick-up guru of sorts who calls himself Roissy, claimed he had found something like the smoking gun of hypergamy:
Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.
As evidence for this claim, Roissy pointed to a survey by the Centers for Disease Control which found that some “21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men.” (That link takes you to the Reuters article Roissy cited in his blog post; the CDC’s press release on the survey can be found here.)
Case closed? Not exactly. Had Roissy actually bothered to read all of the news story he cited, or the CDC press release, or done even a minute or two of Googling, he would have seen the real explanation for the disparity: because of biological differences between men and women — you know, the whole penis vs vagina thing — it’s simply much easier for women to be infected with herpes. As one online FAQ notes (and I’ve put the key parts in bold):
Women are approximately 4 times more likely to acquire a herpes simplex type 2 infection than men. Susceptible women have a higher likelihood of contracting genital herpes from an infected man than a susceptible man becoming infected by a woman. In other words, if a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection. …
Women may be more susceptible to genital herpes infections because:
* The genital area has a greater surface area of cells moist with body fluids (mucosal cells) than men.
*Hormone changes during a woman’s menstrual cycle may affect the immune system, making it easier for the herpes simplex virus to cause an infection.
You’d think a sex guru would know enough about herpes to know this, wouldn’t you?
>Boycott? Make that a MANcott!
>
 |
| Judy Chicago brings vagina to the table. Via lolvantgarde |
Careful readers may have noticed a new blog in my Enemies List, a promising up-and-comer in the world of nutbag misogyny. Yes, I’m talking about BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN, a blog whose purpose is clearly stated in its name. So why should we fellows boycott — sorry, BOYCOTT — AMERICAN WOMEN? Oh, our blog proprietor has got himself a little list:
American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don’t know how to cook or clean, don’t want to have children. …
American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.
So yeah, it’s pretty much the standard-issue anti-American woman crap. And for the most part the posts so far — little missives (allegedly) from different guys explaining why they hate American gals — haven’t been terribly imaginative.
But there are occasional sparks of wonderful nutbaggery. Like the little word-portrait evoked here by John from USA:
So many American woman seem to think that all they need to do is bring their vagina to the table and that I will just give them whatever they want
Vagina? Table? Paging Judy Chicago!
In case you were wondering, ladies, John assures us all that he does “not have a small penis!” But too bad, ladies, he’s taken.
A post from someone named James laments that American women have become
a spoiled, non compassionate sex that I have seen de masculinate their spouses
Mark from the USA, meanwhile, seems to have something of a hair fetish:
Many foreign women have much nicer body shapes, more feminine traits and a lot still have nice long hair, opposed to the boyish low-maintenance short cuts that most American women get by their mid to late teens and never grow back.
Damn those hair-cutting sluts! Also, Mark seems like he’s really not into the whole “communication” thing.
I’m looking for a foreign spouse too, and would NEVER accept an American woman. I don’t even care what country she’s from or if we speak a mutual language. In fact, I’d probably be happier with her if we couldn’t even understand each other, than some American bitch constantly nagging and ragging at me in English.
I don’t think I’ll be boycotting American women any time soon. But I’ll be coming back to this blog for sure.
>Campus creep out
>
 |
| Damn you, accursed temptress! |
In a discussion of rape on campus over on Love-shy.com, one of the regulars, a college student, complains that people see him as “creepy,” for no good reason. His tale of injustice begins:
Whenever I’m on campus, I’m eyed by the security guards. Not because I’m dangerous, but because I’m MALE.
Being male and a college student seems to be a crime of sorts.
Let’s stop right here. Bullshit. On most campuses, guys make up half the population. Dude, unless you’ve accidentally wandered onto the main quad of Wellesley College with your dick hanging out, or you’re otherwise acting weirdly or suspiciously, campus security guards aren’t going to give you a second look. Either you’re lying, or you’re imagining things, or you aren’t telling us the whole story.
Back to the comment:
What about the women who taunt the men sexually? I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped, but a LOT of women give blowjobs to professors for higher grades, and trade sexual favors, all because they’re HOT.
Uh, ok, that’s not actually true. Unless by “a LOT” you mean “a tiny number.” But it is an … interesting assumption. Also, starting any sentence with the phrase “I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped” is generally a bad sign, in the same way that Richard Nixon saying “I am not a crook” was a bad sign.
On with the rest of the comment:
And since I’m not HOT, I’m automatically seen as a creepy rapist? Fuck that shit. I respect women, I have NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women. I’m also afraid to express myself sexually, for fear of it taken the wrong way.
Thank you, feminist hags, for making me into something I’m not: a criminal!
Ok. Let’s break this down. You “respect women,” yet you complain about them “taunt[ing] … men sexually,” and assume that “a LOT” of them are getting good grades just because they give blow jobs to profs. You’ve “NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women,” yet given a little bit of internet anonymity you’re happy to call feminists “hags,” a gender-specific insult if ever there were one.
I don’t know. Could it be that women — and, heck, maybe even a few security guards — find you creepy because, uh, you’re walking around angry all the time, full of hatred and resentment towards half the population?
Just a guess.
EDITED TO ADD: More on the “creep” issue here.
