>
 |
| She’s thinking unkind things about your penis. |
Yesterday we met Christopher in Oregon, a fellow who feels that other fellows might want to avoid all contact with women, who are all, as he put it, “whores … walking cesspools of filth … DIRTY creatures, pure and simple.”
Christopher was such an articulate spokesman for his cause that I thought I’d bring him back for an encore. Today, we learn that the hatred doesn’t only flow one way. In fact, he suggests in another epic comment on Marky Mark’s blog, women think as poorly of men as he thinks of women. Not just some of them, but every single one of them:
ALL women hate ALL men ALL of the time! (most of them can keep it hidden for some time.)
This is a CARDINAL RULE! If you can’t accept it, you’ve already lost the game. You’re rat-fucked! You might as well just give up and go hang yourself by getting married!
In case we forgot that women aren’t too be trusted, he gives us a little refresher course in the Evil That is Woman:
You can’t deal with women safely because we aren’t playing by the same rules. One must keep in mind that the three primary characteristics of All women are as follows:
1) Immoral (or amoral, if you prefer)
2) Dishonest
3) Selfish
Many other adjectives would apply, but these three are the main attributes of women. Since this is true, and the laws are on their side, a man can’t hope to break even in any dealings with women. It’s impossible.
Now we come to the crux of his argument. More sensitive men may wish to sit down at this point, and perhaps move to protect their testicles. For what Christopher has somehow figured out about what goes on inside the dirty, filthy, selfish, dishonest, immoral, whorish minds of women while they’re having sex with you will shock you to your core.
Every time you are humping and grinding and snorting like a rutting pig on top of a woman thinking you are SUCH a stud (in all fairness, you probably are NOT) she is:
1) Bored
2) Faking it
3) Disgusted
4) Glad she took her valium first
5) Fantasizing about a black man
6) Fantasizing about a new car
7) Fantasizing about the butch lesbian that drilled her last week with a ten-inch strap-on for six hours
8) Laughing inside about your pitifully small penis
9) Comparing you unfavorably to any one of her previous two-hundred partners
10) Wishing you would go even faster and trigger … a massive coronary
11) Fantasizing about the neighbor’s German Shepherd
12) Thinking about how your deodorant just ain’t making it
Sorry to burst your bubble. I’ve heard this from women. It’s all a sick joke. You are NOT Don Juan, and they don’t view you as such. In her mind, you are a disgusting, smelly pig, and you are invading her body with that…..thing.
Well, if that’s what he thinks women think of men, no wonder he wants to have nothing to do with them.
It’s kind of sad, really.
On a not-entirely-unrelated note, if you scroll up to the top of the page on Marky Mark’s blog on which this comment from Christopher is posted, you will note that Mr. Mark has worked himself into a lather over a story in The Onion. I can’t quite tell if he thinks it’s real — I mean, how could he? — but he acts as though he does. He even writes up a point-by-point rebuttal and everything. It’s so cute! As he puts it, unaware of the irony, “I can’t make this stuff up. … I can’t! No matter how hard I tried, I could not make this up.” Well, no. That’s why the folks at The Onion make it up for you.
>He forgot #13: Composing a mental grocery shopping list while "rutting pig" ruts. "We" do this all the time!Poor Christopher indeed! He's "heard this from women" – i.e., the one or two women who made the grave mistake of having sex with him. The sorry sod is carrying around massive amounts of self-hatred.
>It does appear as if Mr. Mark thinks The Onion story is true – and so do all those who have commented on his analysis of the story so far.
>I like Marky Marks blog, but I think in this case Chris from Oregon goes a little too far. MRA's are right in pointing out how the laws are skewed to shaft men, but I don't think all women are filthy man haters. Feminists however. . . Futhermore, #5? I wonder if that's good or bad for me personally. I guess if she's fantasizing about me while being with me, but then again if it's another black guy? Well that's no good.Random Brother
>@OP/Previous Blog PostHilarious! And sad. But hilarious! Funny how MRAs quote Andrea Dworkin and McKinnon "to prove" somehow how anti-sex and anti-male "all" feminists are. Then turn around and post stuff like this where other MRAs turn around and say, "oh you can't take him as being a rep of the whole movement", blah, blah, blah (every MRA in the Judea front post) and/or he can be excused b/c of the off chance he was "falsely accused of rape" (Eoghan) or fucked over by the feminazi divorce court (Bishop) yet women who were raped, abused, etc. deserve it (Paul Elam) and have no right to be angry (Yohan) and said women who blog about rape and abuse (abyss2hope, Shakesville's Melissa) are trolled by MRAs who claim, ironically, that these rape survivors are pro-rape(!) because they apparently would prefer innocent men in jail and rapists on the street(feminism supporting false rape accusation MRA meme), not to mention hating all men when MRA bloggers/commentors post blatant misogyny (Chris) – it's the fucked up circle of MRA cognitive distortions!If the feminists at Feministe who blog about their polyamorous relationships and Clarissa Thorn blogs about BDSM are considered anti-sex feminazis and feminism is a monolith, despite several devisions and different beliefs(David,tigtog,every feminist really) then why, after claiming to be a monolith previously(MRAs in the Judea Front blog post), no one can judge MRAs similarly?I mean, seriously, do you not understand the definition of hypocrisy, double standard, doublethink, irony, etc.?At the very least, come up with some new quotations from Naomi Wolf or something, change it up. I'm beginning to think actually there's some sort of Dworkin Bartlett's these guys all own….
>Stop telling lies about the other contributers Tec its women like you the give these guys the impression that all women are deceitful.
>@ TECWhat you constantly fail to understand is that the important difference is in the LAWS. Dworkin shrieks her anti male hate and then pushes the system and her feminist buddies to enforce anti male legislation. How many anti female laws have MRA'S passed? To the best of my knowledge the answer is none. If Dworkin's screeching didn't affect public sentiment and get hate laws passed I wouldn't care one whit. Dig her up, reanimate that animal and let it start screeching again for all I care. That's not the main issue.It's the laws.Again, for clarification, the "hate" MRA'S spew, is not followed by anti female laws. Got it? Try to get that through your thick skull. MRA'S action = an annoyance to women.Feminists action = legal and social disenfranchisement of men.Women can ignore MRA'S rantings. Most MRA'S can't just ignore the feminist hate laws.Random Brother
>Bishopsinister is enjoying the weather over in Alternate Dimension #4,283.Eoghan has been practicing in front of mirrors, but then he got bored and decided that he'd just pretend that everybody else was a mirror. So far it has resulted in a 100% drop in his social anxiety disorder, and he is currently planning to write an epic self-help/memoir ebook entitled Shut Up And Cook Me Dinner (Objectification and its Use in Curing Anxiety).
>@bishopsinisterThe hate MRAs spew is in response to laws that favor men being repealed. For example, the law that you can beat or rape your spouse if you like. In fact, it's not even rape. Or the law that women cannot be employed in certain careers, keeping the supply low and salaries higher for men. Or the law that if a man has children it is up to his good conscious to support them unless he's married to the woman, otherwise that harlot will simply have to live in poverty. Or the lack of laws providing any real consequences for beating someone as long as you were in a romantic relationship with them.But like Cerien said, you live in another world, where the feminazis have passed legislation to disenfranchise men.
>Cerine, nice straw man.
>Sandydont just make things up, other wise you are just confirming the beliefs that guys like that have about women. What you have just done there is make a false allegation about rape and a bunch of other things.The laws that mras talk about are the human rights abuses and civil rights roll backs that feminism is responsible for, ones that repeal innocent until proven guilty, exclude male abuse victims from services, facilitate women in kidnapping children, allow abusive women to act with relative impunity and facilitate education and workplace discrimination.
>Eoghan, Sandy has in no way or form made a false allegation of rape. Don't blatantly misrepresent other commentors here. In the future I will delete any comments from you or anyone else who makes that kind of accusation against another commenter here.
>Sandy claimed that the mrm is about people being upset because marital rape laws were put in place.She made a false allegation about rape, as tec does pretty much in most of her posts. Feminism has put so much stock in using rape and rape victims as political ammunition, while suppressing politically incorrect victims of abuse its become second nature to the people within the ideology.And you are clearly showing your bias here.
>Basically what you are saying is if I call a feminist out on making false allegations about rape / misrepresenting the other members, you will delete my comments while feminists will get the carte blanch to continue misrepresenting advocating for politically incorrect and marginalized victims as advocating for the abuse of the politically correct.
>I misread your comment as "false allegation OF rape" rather than "false allegation ABOUT rape." Whether you deliberately chose that phrase because it sounded like a "false allegation of rape" or whether it was unintended, I suggest not using that particular terminology in the future. Arguing that feminists make false arguments about rape will not get your comment deleted here. Suggesting falsely that someone is falsely accusing someone of rape will.
>@Sandy–WTF are you on about? There are no laws that say anything like what you are claiming. Yes it used to not be a crime to rape your spouse…USED TO not IS. There is an entire industry of affirmative action that prevents any of the wage gap/career inequality crap that you're talking about. And what rock have you been under that you have missed the entire body of legislation dedicated to pursuing fathers who have abdicated on child support? Do you READ the news or just have it spoon fed to you in feminist sound bytes?
>I've no intention of accusing people of making false allegations of rape, Im talking about the incessant insinuations, allegations and misrepresentations about rape and abuse here.This is the internet, its permanent and not a seems day goes by when one of the women here doesn't make a false allegation about rape and or abuse… and then you are all wondering why asshats like Christopher come to the conclusion that no women can be trusted.
>To get a good idea of how MRA's feel about marital rape laws, see the article 'Volokh Discusses Islamic Law and Marital Rape' from 10/29/10 on the-spearhead.com website. I can't link to it as I'm not on a computer at this time, but check out the article as well as the comments.
>Here's one particularly egregious comment:http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/29/volokh-discusses-islamic-law-and-marital-rape/#comment-49880
>CristineThe article you cites has nothing to do with bemoaning legally recognizing marital rape.From the article"Although it may seem humane and right on the face of it to call sex by force within marriage rape and punish it accordingly, the logical conclusion of this is to invalidate the religious concept of marriage, and indeed almost all traditional concepts of marriage. So while it may be “progressive” to put the crime of marital rape on the books, a better and more honest solution would be to eliminate marriage altogether from our law, and classify all sex crimes as sexual assault rather than rape, since the very concept of rape itself is outdated and inextricably tied up with religious attitudes concerning marriage and ecclesiastical law"And David from your "particularly egregious comment" (not that one comment on a thread was ever going to define an international rights movement and its members and goals in the first place)"Two generations ago, rape was a heinous crime, as it evoked ideas of an unknown attacker forcefully violating a woman who was most likely someone’s wife, or daughter, or mother. The horror of this was felt by all men, as they could relate to a raped woman through their own female relatives.Today, rape is a crime that is apparently committed by a friend who a woman has a few drinks with and does something stupid with; or her husband; or a lover who she later regrets having allowed to touch her. This continual cheapening will have the unintended consequence of making more and more men simply not care about ‘rape’, when rape has been devalued as a meaningful term".As I said incessant insinuations, false allegations and misrepresentations relating to rape and abuse, feminism has been relying on using idea of rape and rape and abuse victims as political ammunition, its become second nature to many feminists, you come out of your education system thinking that its normal and correct behaviour. Im going to quote from your particularly egregious comment "This continual cheapening will have the unintended consequence of making more and more men simply not care about ‘rape’, when rape has been devalued as a meaningful term"."Rape and abuse to you people is more about smearing political opponents/heterosexual men and rolling back civil rights, than anything else and if it wasn't, you wouldn't be so keen to marginalize and exclude politically incorrect victims. And then you are confused by the intense dislike that many have for your movement and its laws.
>More false rape allegations about rape..From christines article"Although it may seem humane and right on the face of it to call sex by force within marriage rape and punish it accordingly, the logical conclusion of this is to invalidate the religious concept of marriage, and indeed almost all traditional concepts of marriage. So while it may be “progressive” to put the crime of marital rape on the books, a better and more honest solution would be to eliminate marriage altogether from our law, and classify all sex crimes as sexual assault rather than rape, since the very concept of rape itself is outdated and inextricably tied up with religious attitudes concerning marriage and ecclesiastical law".Not that a solitary article or comment from a online publication were ever going to define an international rights movement, its members or ts goals in the first place.False allegations of abuse and rape and rape and abuse victims are political fodder to the feminist movement, every debate the card is played. Its sick, and then you advertise the fact that the movement is just exploiting rape and abuse by suppressing politically incorrect rape and abuse victims and protecting npolitically correct rapists and abusers. The with a proven track record of using the idea of rape as political ammunition (since the progressive era black rapist propaganda) progressives try to insist that false rape allegations aren't a problem and wonder why so many people want to see your movement gone.This blog is a testament to the progressive feminist over reliance of false allegations about rape and abuse. The behaviour is so second nature, that feminists cannot see anything wrong with it.
>What on earth are you talking about?
>Eoghan: Christopher come to the conclusion that no women can be trusted bishopsinister: MRA's are right in pointing out how the laws are skewed to shaft men All laws in Western countries are openly biased against men – basically seen, a man badly cheated by a woman within a marriage is very much defendless. He might be cheated financially, he might be cheated with another lover next door, he might be cheated even in case of children, so-called paternity fraud.There is not much in Western laws protecting a man with good intention against false DV-accusations from his wife and daughters – such laws are often functioning as a frequent legal loophole to get ride off a husband/father for a lucrative divorce. I would not say, as 'Christopher' pointed out that no women can be trusted, but I think, to meet a woman you can trust is nothing but good luck. – In case something is going wrong in Western countries with your relationship as a man you might face a financial ruin even without any wrongdoing by your side.There are many complaints about Western laws by many men and to call them all women-haters, losers etc. is nothing but malicious feminist propaganda.Luckily Germany became the first Western country in 2008, changing various laws for the FIRST TIME to the favor of men and children.I expect other countries within EU to follow soon.To point to Islam is a feminist excuse.
>David, Im talking specifically about the women here that consistently use false allegations about rape and abuse in debates and more generally, ideologues that have been conditioned to use the idea of rape and abuse to bludgeon political opponents while protecting rapists and abusers in their own group and marginalizing their inconvenient victims and more generally, political groups that use/have used this rhetorical tactic, eg. progressive era racism, nazis, and progressive feminists as a political platform and to manipulate and motivate their ideologues, and the fact that the ideologues of these movements tend to believe thats its correct thinking.
>as someone pointed out to tec, it wouldn't matter if this rhetoric and political platform wasn't manipulating the cultural, social, and legal systems, but it is.Yohan, yeah it looks like germany might lead this and men shouldn't have to live under feminism anymore than women should have to live under Islam. In ways I view the two as two sides of the same coin.
>@EoghanThere are also Asian countries, which have nothing to do with Islam, but their laws do not accept hard-core-feminism.In South Korea, cheating your spouse is a criminal offence up to 2 years jail. In Thailand, cheating your spouse might result in lawsuits against the lover for breaking into your marriage. In Philippine law there is no divorce, you might cheat your husband and move away to your lover, but you will be unable to claim anything. To nullify a marriage contract is costly and time-consuming, you remain married over years and cannot marry again. Child-support/alimony? No way.As a married man you feel (a little bit) protected in these countries in case you are facing a malicious wife and her lover.In Germany a new family law is already working since 2008 and we see now some results and decisions of the Supreme Court. Alimony at its best is for 3 years. Child-support for adult children is not paid anymore to the wife, but to the child /or university etc. and since 2008 the ex-husband pays only the half, the other half has to be paid by the ex-wife.Under investigation in Germany are now also visiting rights for fathers and the obligation for the ex-wife to respect them – and if not, a large part of the child-support/alimony will be cut. Also property laws in EU are now under review, and also unfair retirement age. I will retire with 65, the men after me maybe even with 67, while women retire as young as 53 and never over 60.Norway could not push through unpaid military services for females (for males up to 2 years!), but recently again in Central Europe the discussion is coming up for unpaid community services, which can be forced on all young citizens regardless the gender. I spent almost 1 year unpaid in military services (refusing means facing a court-martial and jail), while young women are refusing to work even 1 week free for social services. And my native country has to import foreign nurses even from the Philippines… That's feminism, but hopefully, in Europe we will be now progress to 'equality'. It's about the time.