Search Results for a voice for men

Spearheader: Let’s breed those stuck-up white western women out of existence.

Run, Dick, run!

One widespread belief of the manosphere crowd is that “Western women” – that is, white women in developed countries – are a bunch of stuck-up, demanding, divorce-initiating feminism-infected harridans. So the proper course of action for the almost-all-white dudes of the manosphere is to seek a woman with darker skin and a (supposedly) more pliable nature. Even better: beleaguered white dudes should move to one of the countries where these feminism-free gals live, because when you bring them to the United States they too have a tendency to become infected with evil feminism and to become as stuck-up and evil as their lighter-skinned sisters.

This belief isn’t universal amongst manospehreians by any stretch of the imagination. White nationalist manosphreians (like those who populate the blog In Mala Fide) get testy when their women are considered inferior to non-whites; others think that all women are equally evil. Still others think that moving to a whole other country is too much of a hassle. Rarely do you find a manospherian willing to state the obvious: that the “white women suck” mantra is as offensive to non-white women as it is to white women.

Over on The Spearhead, one commenter has taken the “white women suck” mantra to its logical extreme, arguing that these evil women need to be quite literally bred out of existence.

Let’s take a look at walking in hell’s argument:

If one thinks about it, the misandry and divorce problem are problems that occur in countries where the women are light-skinned–mostly Northern Hemisphere Western Contries, and where the governments are atheist or were atheist.

Problem countries are Sweden, Germany, Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, United States, France, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Austrailia, New Zealand, etc. In short–the West. Light skinned women are by nature more dominant and controlling. If you combine that with a culture that encourages bad behavior, you as a man are doomed.

So far, this is standard-issue western-women-suck-ism. But then Hell starts talking about genes.

So the misandry problem is problem of genetics and culture. We can see the genetic differences in the United States. Asian Women divorce their husbands at a much lower rate then the other racial groups. The exception in America is the American Black Women (But isn’t she exceptional, after all)? I mean native African Women have very little resemblance to American Black Women). 

Ironically, it’s fairly typical for the white-women-suck crowd to hate black women even more; in this case the only non-typical thing about Hell’s screed is that he’s willing to cut African women some slack.

Now Hell sets forth his basic thesis:

My point is this: I maintain the best wife for a white man is someone darker skinned then he is. I maintain that the best culture for the white man and his wife is a man-friendly culture. For example, a white man and Mexican woman living in Mexico; a white man and Thai Woman living in Thailand; a white man and a Morracan Woman, living in Morraco; a white man and Turkish Woman, living in Turkey. This strategy neutralizes the light-skinned genes, and at the same time neutralizes the cultural influences.

Note: If you plan to move to Morocco to escape the tyranny of white women, you should probably learn to spell the name of the country correctly first.

Naturally, Hell can’t bring himself to suggest that white men should marry black women. And he thinks that even black men should give African-American women a pass:

For a black man, possibly the best plan is to emigrate to Africa in order to have a family. I had a friend who did this. Most African divorce laws keep the man firmly in charge with sole custody automatically going to the man.

While some Western-women-hating manospherians have something of a fetish for Eastern European women, Hell warns his fellow men to avoid these sneaky deceitful harridans as well:

Whatever you do, never bring an Eastern European, Russian, or Ukrainian Girl to the Unites States.

But it isn’t only the Eastern European women who are spoiled by the evil feminism of the west.

 In fact don’t bring any woman to the United States. Remember: even the healthiest fish becomes sick when the lake is poisoned. Some fish will become sicker than others depending on their genetic makeup. For example, that nice girl you brought over from Asia might not divorce you when she comes to the USA, but she is likely to become a much different (difficult and unpredictable) person.

So who is the best man for the white woman living in the West? Quite simply, no man; or another woman. Very few men in the West will be able to satify Western White Women.

And this, naturally, leads to what what we might call Hell’s Final Solution to the problem:

These women need to be bred out of existence.

We as men can speed the extinction of Western White Women by encouraging them to pursue the single life or to pursue another woman as a spouse (lesbianism). We can do this actively and passively. Actively by outright encouragement, and passively by never giving a Western Woman access to our sperm, money, or time.

Despite its, er, problematic content, Hell’s comment managed to draw 21 upvotes from fellow Spearheaders, more than twice the number of downvotes it received.

I eagerly await A Voice for Men’s campaign to uncover and expose the identities of Hell and his upvoters – as well as against The Spearhead itself for providing a safe harbor for such thinking. I mean, AVfM literally offered a $1000 award for the personal information of a feminist who made similarly troubling remarks about men, and a separate $1000 reward for the identities of those involved in a theatrical production about a  feminist who wrote a famous manifesto about the evils of men. Surely the A Voice for Men crowd will be equally offended by these remarks from their comrades on The Spearhead.

Here on Man Boobz we content ourselves with highlighting bad ideas, not harassing or threatening or exposing the personal information of those who promulgate them. The “war of ideas” isn’t an actual war. The bad ideas we highlight here are as silly as they are reprehensible; they will ultimately vanish from the world on their own — though hopefully our mockery of them will help to speed that process a little bit.

EDITED TO ADD: Thanks to scarlettpipistrelle for pointing me to this lovely comment.

The Hatred of Women: A new terrible anthem for the Men’s Rights Movement!

Look out, Jade Michael and the Fuck Their Shit Up Crew! Sure, your Men’s Rights theme song “Go My Own Way” was hailed by MRAs around the internet as a work of genius, and, in the words of one eminent critic angry misogynist dude,

a veritable anthem for the red pill crowd … replete with a great, purist rock sound, a touch of humor, attitude, and a ton of gut level, red pill honesty.

It’s Red Pill-riffic! But now  Jade and the one other guy who makes up his, er, “crew” now have competition in the Men’s Rights anthem business!

Without futher ado, here is Slumberwall, with a little song called “The Hatred of Women.”

Did any of you make it past the one minute mark? I couldn’t.

Happily, Slumberwall has transcribed the terrible lyrics to the song, so you don’t have to listen to the whole thing in order to appreciate its true Men’s Rightsy awfulness. Here are the best bits, by which I mean the bits most likely to make you want to puncture your eardrums with knitting needles.

Men have no doubt

Just what they’re for

We die at work

We die in war

We die at sea

As the lifeboats float ashore

Women & children,

all aboard

Never mind that, as I pointed out yesterday, “women and children first” isn’t really a thing.

Anyway, back to Slumberwall:

We take the strain

We bear the load

Build the bridges

Sweep the roads

Make the houses

That make the homes

Pay for others

But live alone

 

And the more that it happens

The more I see

The hatred of women

For men like me

Well, if by “men like me” you mean “men who write and sing the shittiest music that has ever been made by human beings,” I have to say that I kind of understand this hatred.

Nonetheless, on YouTube the Men’s Rightsers are cheering this song as a brilliant work of social criticism.

Wanderer5200 enthuses:

I haven’t had a favorite song in a very long time. But I think this is it.

TheAetherspeak declares

 Awesome Song. The voice all purveyors of patriarchy theory remain ignorant of.

Gamenode explains:

Women have never been oppressed but through their reproductive monopoly have exploited men and seen us butchered and enslaved for their own privilege. Fuck ‘em all.

KellyJones00 adds,

Don’t fuck them at all. Just leave them alone. Don’t even donate sperm.

Time for a little bit of a musical palate cleanser.

Make sure to listen to all ten hours of that for the full palate-cleansing effect.

Gamer asshole: “Sexual harassment is part of the culture. If you remove that from the fighting game community, it’s not the fighting game community.”

This may be old news to gamers, but a reader just brought it to my attention:

Capcom and IGN recently put on a little online gaming “reality” show called Capcom’s Cross Assault, based on the game Street Fighter x Tekken. The show, like the game, pits a team of Street Fighter players against a Tekken team.

During a live stream of the ongoing battle on day five of the tournament, Twitch.tv community manager Jared Rea made a few remarks  criticizing the assholish, and often misogynistic, comments of some of the fighters.

Here’s how the Penny Arcade Report summarized what followed. (I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting several particularly egregious comments in bold.)

“This is Aris,” a voice said on the feed. “If you don’t like onions, you get your sandwich without onions on it, man. This is the fighting game community.” He then stated that sexual harassment and the fighting game community are “one and the same thing.”

The voice belonged to Aris Bakhtanians, the coach of the Tekken team.

“The sexual harassment is part of the culture. If you remove that from the fighting game community, it’s not the fighting game community… it doesn’t make sense to have that attitude. These things have been established for years,” Aris stated. He then noted that making sexual jokes at StarCraft players would be inappropriate, so it’s unfair for anyone to tell fighting game fans they can’t viciously mock women. …

“That’s what you’re trying to do to the fighting game community and it’s not right,” Aris continued. “It’s ethically wrong.” This may be the first time in the history of video games that someone had said that removing sexual harassment is ethically unjust.

Later in the, er, discussion, after someone brought up the harassment of a guy playing a female character (“someone yelling the world “bitch” over and over … and then scream[ing] for her rape when she lost”) Aris responded with this:

“What is unacceptable about that?” Aris asked. “There is nothing unacceptable about that. We’re in America! This isn’t North Korea! We can say what we want.”

You can listen to the whole discussion on this video; it starts, with Rea’s comments, at about one hour forty-five minutes in. (Aris starts commenting about two minutes later.)

Many more appalling details in the PA report post.

Oh, gaming community! Get it the fuck together.

Men’s Rights Redditors defend a guy who says he punched his sperm-stealing girlfriend

Potential spermjacking victim.

So the other day – on the day colloquially known as “April Fools Day” – a Redditor using a throwaway account posted a most unlikely story to the Men’s Rights subreddit. Under the self-explanatory headline “My girlfriend just tried to steal a used condom to impregnate herself and is now threatening to call the police on me. PLEASE Help!” the newly minted Redditor ineedhelpnow1234 told his tale of woe.

Earlier in the day, he wrote, he and his girlfriend

had sex and I got up to go the bathroom and throw the condom out and then went back to bed. She got dressed and also went to the bathroom. I could see when she stepped out that she had something in her hand. I asked her what it was and she started yelling how she had the used condom and she was “finally going to get the baby I deserve” and then started running for [the] door.

Apparently that’s how women talk in MRA-land.

And then ineedhelpnow1234 added a rather important detail he somehow neglected to include in the headline:

I freaked out and ran after her and caught her at the door. My mind was racing, and she was about to get out. I panicked and hit her in the stomach and then took the condom forcibly from her hands.

Emphasis mine. He continued:

I’m not proud of what I did, but I was FREAKED out in the moment and she was about to escape and I just did what I thought I needed to do.

She caught her breath and left and now she’s been calling (I haven’t answered) and texting me saying she’s going to call the police and have me arrested unless I have sex with her without a condom.

Later, she allegedly left him this alleged voicemail message:

You fucking bastard, how dare you punch me for what I’m entitled to! Call me the minute you get this god damn message or I’ll call the fucking police and end your future. CALL MEEEE

Naturally, there were more than a few readers who looked at this tale – filled with credibility-straining details that seemed tailor-made to arouse MRA indignation — with a skeptical eye, and called “troll” on the whole thing. But quite a few of the locals took the story seriously, and offered serious advice.

Some simply repeated the standard dude advice “don’t stick your dick in crazy” and others, with a little more imagination, suggested that in the future he carry around hot sauce to squirt into his used condoms lest another lass try the same dastardly sperm-stealing trick.

But quite a few of the advice-givers recommended that he simply lie about his assault, and pretend it never happened. DisRuptive1 thought that simple denial would be enough to get him off the hook:

HateAllThePeople suggested that he go on the offensive:

NotC – presumably also not a lawyer – suggested that the impending threat of spermjack-blackmail would allow him to get a pass on the whole punching-her-in-the-stomach thing. But that he should lie about the incident that never took place anyway, wink wink.

Others offered their heartfelt support:

And suggested that they would have done the same thing:

One commenter had the temerity to suggest it was a tad hypocritical for all these Men’s Rightsers to suggest that a man lie to protect himself. But that commenter was quickly shot down.

Luciansolaris was one of the few who suggested the OP fess up to the assault – and defend it in court both as a logical and justifiable reaction to the situation, and as a case of temporary insanity.

I may have missed it, but I don’t think there was a single comment suggesting that, even under the circumstances, punching a girl in the stomach so hard it leaves a bruise was a terrible thing for this probably fictitious spermjackee to do.

A most revealing discussion, Men’s Rightsers.

EDITED TO ADD: ineedhelpnow1234 has returned to r/mensrights to tell everyone that 1) he’s not a troll and that 2) he was arrested. Make of it what you will.

Spearheader “warns” women to stop being so feministy, or else!

More mustache-twirling from the MRA crowd.

Another day, another threat – sorry, prediction – of impending violence towards women from someone on The Spearhead. This time from a fellow called James, in his twenties:

The OLDER MEN simply do not understand what it is like to be a young man today.

I will say one thing though- a very big percent of young men of my generation do not believe in this feminism or white knight bullshit, and they have very little tolerance towards it.

Older men will allow themselves to get ass raped in divorce courts, but the younger men of my generation have no such tolerance.

So if the younger women think they are going to treat the younger men with the same level of hatred that the older women do to the older men, they have a big surprise waiting for them.

1. Either the men will just entirely boycott the younger women

or

2. They will actively fight for their rights, even with force, if it requires it

What I mean by that is, the younger generation of men are much more violent than the older generation. So in plain English, if women think they are going to treat the younger generation of men like shit, then we are going to see a huge increase in violence against women.

In short, the men of my generation are not as willing to tolerate the abuse from man hating women as the older men are. Young women would be very wise to take note of this.

Unfair quote-mining on my part? Not exactly. James got 72 upvotes for this bit of wisdom on The Spearhead, and only  8 downvotes.

Meanwhile, our old friend at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog highlighted James’ comment in a post of his own, quoting the whole thing, and adding his own spin:

 The younger you go on average you will find less tolerance for anything pro-female.  This is not surprising.  Even looking at my own life, I have been dealing with feminism since I was in elementary school especially if we define feminism correctly as feminine-ism.  I remember (female) teachers being pro-female and anti-male going back to first grade.  As bad as I had it, it is worse for men younger than me.  They’re not going to listen to lies about how women are oppressed because all they have seen with their own eyes are the opposite. …

By 2020 the balance between men who are currently old vs. men who are currently young will have shifted.  There will be less old men who remember life pre-feminism.  There will be more young men who have spent their entire lives under the feminist jack boot.  There will be more men who are completely fed up with women.  Around 2020 there will be a lot more men willing to take radical direct action against feminism.

“Radical direct action against feminism?” What does this mean? Generalized violence against women, as James seems to suggest? Firebombing police stations and courthouses, as MRA “martyr” Tom Ball urged in his manifesto? Like most of those in the Men’s Rights movement who like to talk ominously about what they hope will be a massive anti-feminist backlash, the PMAFT blogger is vague about what exactly this might entail. But it’s not hard to connect the dots here.

Protip: MRAs, if you don’t want people to see the Men’s Rights movement as a hate movement — you need to stop posting, stop upvoting, stop even tolerating this kind of hateful shit.

On Harassment: Don’t Do It

UPDATE: I have no reason to believe that the harassment alleged by Kyle Lovett — which I  discuss below — involved anyone even tangentially connected to this site, or indeed that it ever happened. The “evidence” he provided only showed that he got traffic from a link on this site. He never provided any evidence that the alleged harassment occurred or that, if if did, it was perpetrated by anyone who found his site through my site. The rest of my piece still stands.

The other day, a commenter here linked to the blog published by one of the moderators of the Men’s Rights subreddit. Kyle Lovett, the mod in question, says that not long afterwards, someone contacted his workplace saying that he was a member of a “hate group.” Claiming to be concerned about his safety, he temporarily hid his blog. And stepped down as mod.

Lovett says he suspects that this person who he says contacted his work is a Man Boobz reader, and has now provided evidence that seems to back up this suspicion. If Kyle is indeed telling the truth about the harassment, it was a Man Boobz reader who contacted his workplace. (There is no evidence it was one of the regulars here, merely someone who was reading the comments in that one thread. Nor am I completely convinced that the alleged harassment happened; Lovett has lied about things in the past.)

But if the harassment happened let me be blunt: That’s not cool. I don’t like that sort of harassment when it’s directed at feminists, and I don’t like it when it’s directed at MRAs. As Rebecca Watson once said, in a different context, “guys, don’t do that.” Seriously, DON’T DO THAT.

All this said, Lovett and other MRAs are acting as if the link to his blog  here was in some way equivalent to “doxing” – that is, tracking down the personal information of someone posting anonymously, and posting it online, for purposes of harassment..

It isn’t. Kyle publishes his blog under his own name, and he regularly posted links to it on Reddit. It was no secret that he posted on Reddit as Qanan, just as my real name Is no secret.

I’m not sure why it’s necessary to point this out, but I will anyway: If you publish things on the internet under your own name, people will indeed connect your name to these things. There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting a link to someone’s blog. No one here advocated harassment in any way.

Needless to say, the indignation on the Men’s Rights about this is hypocritical, to say the least. MRAs harass feminists all the time.

A Voice for Men, the worst offender in this regard, has published the personal information of feminists, and once put out a thousand dollar bounty in an attempt to find out the identity of one feminist who had been posting anonymously online. AVFM head Paul Elam talks about “stalking” feminists and on his radio show gleefully discussed the prospect of not only revealing the names and addresses of women he considers evil, but also their routes home from work. He orchestrated a harassment campaign against one commenter here, which led to people contacting her workplace in an attempt to get her fired. There are many more examples.

Meanwhile, today on the Men’s Rights subreddit, one commenter’s call to harass a woman got two dozen upvotes from the regulars:

Guys, don’t do that.

EDIT: I have added a few comments in the post above to highlight my concerns that the alleged harassment may be a fabrication; I will remove these comments of Lovett provides proof, publicly or privately, that the harassment occurred.

Oh, Men’s Rights subreddit, will you ever learn? (Probably not.)

Sometimes I ask myself: what is it that I really hope to accomplish with this website, aside from entertaining myself and my readers, and exposing misogynist assholes for who they are. There’s a part of me that still hopes that someday, something I write will cause some misogynist and/or Men’s Rightser out there to develop a modicum of self-awareness, look at what they’ve been saying or doing, and say to themselves, “I’m really kind of a tool, aren’t I? Maybe I should stop.”

When the Southern Poverty Law Center report on the Men’s Rights movement came out, I hoped it might have a similar sort of effect. Or that, even if it didn’t persuade any MRAs out there that they were wrong, it might at least convince a few that they were going about things the wrong way. Nope. On the Men’s Rights subreddit, at least, it seems to have sent many of the regulars into an indignant tizzy, and they have doubled down on their peculiar brand of politics-by-whining-online.

Consider this post:

Yes, that’s right. Some Men’s Rights Redditors seem to think that the best way to convince the world that they’re not part of a hate group is to continue to celebrate a self-admitted child abuser who urged men to firebomb courthouses and police stations and kill people.

Then there’s this post, currently the top post on the subreddit:

Wow, if the Men’s Rights subreddit had anything to do with that, that would indeed be a victory. As one regular put it:

Thing is, I read r/mensrights pretty regularly, and I don’t remember any campaign there to protect the rights of fishermen in New Zealand.

Turns out that’s because the campaign, such as it was, consisted of one post some months back, which got all of 11 upvotes at the time. The current post in which r/mensrights congratulates itself for its “victory” has gotten, last I checked, 120 upvotes, more than ten times that. Simplecosine’s self-congratulatory comment in the new thread has gotten 36 upvotes. The comment in the original thread asking r/mensrightsers to send an email to the US Secretary of State’s office got … one upvote. In other words, only a handful of Men’s Rights Redditors even noticed the original post, much less sent along an email.

Reading one of the linked news articles makes clear the real reason the State Department opened an investigation: a six-month long, three-continent wide investigation by Bloomberg Businessweek revealing abuses in the industry.

The Men’s Rights subreddit: Taking Credit for Shit They Didn’t Do Since 2008.

And then there’s this post:

I’ve got nothing to say about this one — it’s basically self-refuting — except that I’m sort of bemused by the notion that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a “semi-women group.” Uh, what is that exactly? A group with some women in it? A group that doesn’t think women are all a bunch of evil bitches? The horror!

Oh, Men’s Rights movement. You’ll never change, will you?

EDITED TO ADD: And speaking of never changing, here’s how one Men’s Rights redditor responded to my comments there suggesting that maybe, just maybe, MRAs should actually denounce and distance themselves from someone calling for terrorism:

Let me just highlight that bit at the end again:

[T]he cost to the establishment to maintain the status quo in regards to divorce, custody, etc. must be made so high that it’s just no longer feasible. If that means instilling abject fear into the hearts of judges, cops and legislators by making them think their careers and/or lives could be forfeit unless they change their attitudes towards men, then so be it.

Trying to instill fear for one’s life in your opponents: that is the very definition of terrorism.

Men’s Rights Activists, or Kitten Haters? You decide.

 

The Men’s Rights subreddit responds to my previous post:

Men’s Rights Movement, I say to you: You can’t handle the kittens! YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE KITTENS!

I rest my case.

MRA: Making women suffer is a highly ineffective way to put them in their place

Making women cry: Highly ineffective.

Given the enmity towards women in general, and feminists in particular, that’s omnipresent in the manosphere, it seems logical to assume that most of the dudes lingering around MRA, PUA and MGTOW sites online would take a certain secret pleasure in seeing women suffer.

As regular readers of this blog know all too well, oftentimes the desire to see women suffer is not so secret: some MRAs and others of their ilk  literally laugh at women getting cancer, declare that rapists should be given medals, openly fantasize about “beat[ing] the living shit” out of women,  and tell feminists who complain about this sort of shit that they’re “so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.” (Those last two examples come from Paul Elam, one of the MRM’s most influential bloggers.) Still others send rape and death threats to outspoken women online.

But good news, folks! It turns out that not all manosphere misogynists want women to suffer. Why? Because suffering is an ineffective way to put women in their place. That, at least, is the argument of a fellow calling himself Höllenhund. In a comment on Susan Walsh’s Hooking Up Smart blog, he offered this argument:

Making women suffer wouldn’t achieve anything in itself – I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of the Manosphere would agree. Women are normally solipsistic and they fail to understand their own urges and don’t comprehend the connection between cause and effect. They’d never understand why they’re suffering in the first place.

So, basically, in his mind, women are dumber than dogs and thus harder to train. Even worse, the suffering women can sit down in the street and cry, and countless “white knights,” hoping to win their approval (and get in their pants) will rush to their aid:

Suffering only motivates them to fish for male sympathy (and thus investment) through crying and whining, to blame ‘ bad men’ for their ‘misfortune’ and thus play the game of ‘let’s you and him fight’. That’s how it has always been.

So making women suffer is largely pointless. I’d go further and say it’d actually be detrimental to men because it encourages white-knighting and intra-male competition. …

And some of the ladies even seem to sort of like it:

Not to mention the fact that many women actually seem to find some sort of twisted pleasure in suffering, that all this’d simply serve to justify more anti-male legislation and whatnot.

Poor Höllenhund doesn’t have much hope that women will ever see how totally terrible they really are

[T]he notion of making women ‘admit their faults’ is pie-in-the-sky as well. Again, I’m sure pretty much everyone in the Manosphere would agree. You have a bigger chance of seeing pigs fly.

If women are to recognize their faults in this SMP [Sexual Marketplace], they need to have a realistic picture of both their own sexuality and the SMP in the first place, plus they need to have empathy for beta males …

Er, you’re lecturing us about empathy?

Sorry, on with the rest of the sentence:

plus they need to be imbued with the sense of morality without which the very concept of ‘fault’ is meaningless.

And lecturing us about morality too?

I think we’ll sooner see Haiti become a dreaded military superpower.

I’d rather see that than live in a world in which women were so self-hating that they actually believed they were guilty of whatever unnamed sins Höllenhund attributes to them.

NOTE: I found Höllenhund’s comment because the blogger at Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology cited it as a prime example of the sort of brave “truth telling” that will get you banned “on feminist sites that supposedly support men.” And yes, it apparently did get poor Höllenhund  banned from Hooking Up Smart. I’m not quite sure how Susan Walsh, a traditionalist  devoted to slut shaming in a thousand different flavors, counts as feminist, but that’s not the point. The point is: I’m regularly accused of “cherry picking” comments from MRAs. In this case, Mr. PMAFT picked the comment for me.

Do you want semen on that? How Law & Order: SVU imperils innocent penises

That's a LOT of semen.

TV detectives pore over semen stains, and find evidence of crimes. Over on A Voice for Men, B.R. Merrick pores over TV detectives poring over semen stains, and finds evidence of “anti-man mentality.” On Law & Order: SVU, he says,

Every time I chanced upon seeing a bit of it, someone somewhere said “semen.”

You know the show focuses on sex crimes, right? When you’re investigating sex crimes, I’d say the chances are pretty good you’re going to run across some semen from time to time.

This is a show that has been on the air for more than a decade, a spin-off from another program more than two decades long, dedicated to entertaining millions of Americans every week using salacious, graphic language about terrible crimes.  Semen.  Semen stains.  Semen samples.  Semen on a dead body.  Crime.  Law, order, crime, and semen.

Spam, eggs, bacon, semen and spam. Spam, spam, bacon, semen, and spam. Semen, semen, spam eggs sausage and semen.

Sorry, I got distracted.

Semen is disgusting, if I am to conclude anything from watching this program.  How is it that a show that continually mentions semen in connection with horrific crime can remain so popular for over a decade? 

Christopher Melonimania? No, nothing so straightforward as that. Clearly what we’re dealing with is anti-semen propaganda of the sneakiest sort.

Millions watch, but virtually no one notices.  It is as if the ejaculation of semen is something that the world puts up with but secretly detests.  Since only men make semen; since it is usually voluntarily ejaculated except for certain cases of rape and nocturnal emissions; and since the voluntary giving of this life-giving substance is usually frequent; what are men supposed to think if the culture embraces mainstream entertainment that virtually equates semen with crime?

If semen is outlawed only outlaws will produce semen?

The conclusions we are supposed to draw seem pretty obvious to me: Women and sexless children are the victims of semen, the victims of men.  Men are too quick to indulge their semen-connected desires.  Pornography is directly connected to men, semen, and the oftentimes unavoidable crimes that result. 

So jerking off into a sock has been criminalized?

Once you indulge a penis, all bets are off.  Unless, of course, he’s been thoroughly trained.

Penises can be trained? Really? I’ve had very little luck training mine.

Men who are raised not to take their feelings seriously will probably feel a little tinge that is quickly ignored when semen is mentioned in a silly television program.  Men who are used to being teased will grin along with the giggling girls who laugh at a man whose penis is not only severed, but shredded in a garbage disposal, so that he can spend the last several decades of his life without one. 

So Law & Order: SVU is secretly preparing men for a dystopian future in which all untrained penises will all be shredded in garbage disposals?

Stay tuned, I guess.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,503 other followers

%d bloggers like this: