>
 |
| 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.
>@Eoghanmen shouldn't have to live under feminism anymore than women should have to live under IslamYes, I am not a Muslim and I will never convert to Islam.Unfortunately so far, Islam is the only major power willing to fight it out with feminism.Further there are a few Asian countries – some quite powerful like China – which do not accept all and everything coming from feminist-guided USA.Recently however I notice also discussions coming up in Europe, it's urgent indeed.Can you imagine, that my native country (not Germany) in Europe has now a divorce rate of 68 percent in the cities? Over 43 percent of young men are refusing marriage/family/children calling it as too risky, too expensive for them?The most idiotic law however made by feminists is in Scandinavia. To buy sex is illegal, to sell sex is OK. – The woman as victim. Women are indeed treated like children. Time for a major change.In Sweden the FI (feminist initiative political party) is now gone. Voted out by a huge majority of both, men and women.What is really better in Continental Europe is the way to talk about it. It's less hateful compared to USA, women are still by far more reasonable and the majority of them are not psycho-grrls just demanding something.Many people in Europe understand it cannot continue as it is now. The time of feminism will be hopefully soon a time of the past.
>@ SandyFeminists want to change the burden of proof in rape cases. And they push for laws to support that.Can you not see how that is wrong? Are you feminuts really that dense?Or is it just the relentless and bitter evil in what passes for your souls?Feminsts would rather a million innocent MEN go to prison than one guilty man go free.Again most men understand that such a policy would be wrong and a danger to society, but not feminsts. They don't care, it's all me, me, me, me, me.The laws most MRA'S want stopped are one's that take away men's rights. Feminists like to play this stupid word game and call men's rights priveldges, but they're not, they are rights. And you and your kind are exactly like nazis in the fact that you see another group and want them to have nothing. If a man has one thing more than you that he earned you'll call it a priviledge and try to take it from him. Disgusting. The lot of you. Repellent, short sighted and disgusting.That's why you can't negotiate are compromise with feminists as they call everything they want a right and everything that is fair to men a privilidge and want men completely enslaved to their whims. But don't worry WOMYN'S, you'll always have brain donors like Dave, hoping for a little used, fisted out of all shape feminazi vajayjay, to tell you how perfect you are. Again, disgusting.Random Brother
>"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."Men cheat just as much (and, in most countries, more) than women.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." Because men never cheat or leave their spouses and children don't need support if their parents break up because of cheating? You don't actually want laws equally applied, you want men to be able to abandon their children with impunity while punishing women, who you see as theiving sluts.
>@ DarksidecatDarksidecat said: "You don't actually want laws equally applied, you want men to be able to abandon their children with impunity while punishing women, who you see as theiving sluts."You mean equally applied like here in the US the way it is now, where when a man cheats on his wife, the woman gets everything, and when a woman cheats on her husband she gets everything as well? Feminist equality like that, you mean?Random Brother
>@Eoghan -What lies? Are you didn't say in the previous post on Chris that "oh was he falsely accused of rape?" Hmmm,you're a hypocrite and a liar."Stop telling lies about the other contributers Tec its women like you the give these guys the impression that all women are deceitful."Oh ad hominem attacks, the last straw of a dying troll. Translation: I cannot in any way find any flaws in your logic so instead I'll try to defame you personally, and pretend it's the same thing…On choice: No. Nope. False. Can't make him do anything. It's a choice, 100%. He'll chose to take my comments seriously, blow them off, or frame it to suit his own views (just like you!) This is a common cognitive distortion – "you make me feel" and especially common in violent criminals, btw. I'm not coercing, brainwashing, physically forcing, etc. so really how can I be responsible for his beliefs/thoughts/actions? Or do what you really mean is shut up because any dissenter esp a woman has no right to express his/her opinion?@Bishop – so you concede that the laws were already unfair to women? And thus needed to change? The idea that misogyny wasn't already apart of the justice and political system is just ignorant. Hence, why fems had to lobby for those laws e.g. rape shield laws b/c the existing system would attack victims with slut-shaming, victim-blaming, etc.! Or laws that force men to pay child-support and/or alimony. It's a patriarchial construct that women and children should be dependent on protection from their male family members and he is within his rights to deny protection/financial support/etc. Of course, you think men shouldn't have to support their children if they don't want to, right? So it would be completely futile to point out that women who give up their earning power to raise said children should also be supported right? Or if the man gets custody, he should get child-support right? Or that if the man is the primary caregiver and gave up part of his earning power to do so, he should be supported right? And let's not even mention that the majority of divorce cases, the child-care and monetary support is worked out by the divorced couple right? So the laws are really there to enforce dead-beats like you who don't want to pay for support right? "What you constantly fail to understand is that the important difference is in the LAWS."Yeah, in this context, that's pretty fucking ironic. Oh and let's all take a moment to examine the other irony of a black man in the US complaining about affirmative action… Tell me, bishop, are you apart of any white supremacist groups too? (Anyone else thinking of Dave Chapelle's skit with a blind black guy white supremacist leader?)
>@Bishop"You mean equally applied like here in the US the way it is now, where when a man cheats on his wife, the woman gets everything, and when a woman cheats on her husband she gets everything as well? Feminist equality like that, you mean?"In the majority of divorce cases in the US, the divorced couple work out the specifics about child support and alimony and custody.I don't understand this rant – are you saying that if a woman cheats and then divorces, she still shouldn't get child-support (if she has custody) and/or alimony? I don't follow the logic. If a women is a housewife and/or uneducated and experienced in higher paying work because of family commitments and/or b/c her husband didn't want her to work, how does it follow that alimony and/or child support shouldn't be given to her if she initiates divorce? Also, I'm not a lawyer, but don't pre-nups often state this explicitly i.e. cheating voids the person's rights to alimony? And 1/2 isn't everything; it's 50%, someone needs to go back to math class…. I agree completely with Cat, you only want gender specific/neutral laws when they suit you.
>Out of all the divorced women I know, I only know one who has been awarded alimony. I'd be interested to know if there are any statistics showing the percentage of divorces in which alimony is a factor.
>@ Tec, I'll answer your second post first.Tec said: "In the majority of divorce cases in the US, the divorced couple work out the specifics about child support and alimony and custody."Where did you hear this? Most of the specifics are adjudicated to the male and the female is given whatever she wants. You are wrong.TEC said: "I don't understand this rant – are you saying that if a woman cheats and then divorces, she still shouldn't get child-support (if she has custody) and/or alimony?"She certainly shouldn't get alimony. She violated one of the cardinal rules of marriage! She shouldn't get a cash pay out for it! If you were married to a man who constantly cheated on you, then dumped you for another woman, then had you booted out of your home so that he could move his new girl into the house and on top of that you'd have to pay him alimony and child support, you'd see that as unfair as well. Don't believe me? Then just ask Halle Berry.Also child support should be affordable! It should take into account the payers living expenses, needs and should not be increased if the payer gets a raise. TEC said: "If a women is a housewife and/or uneducated and experienced in higher paying work because of family commitments and/or b/c her husband didn't want her to work, how does it follow that alimony and/or child support shouldn't be given to her if she initiates divorce?"Any women who is a housewife has made a choice. She chose not to work. Her husband didn't make her not work, she chose that. She calculated that it was the best option for herself and her family. Also, there is a bit of a disconnect with your logic here. You seem to believe that if a woman has an affair she still deserves alimony, and yet if a woman is somehow forced by her husband to not work she also deserves alimony. How is this fictional husband able to stop his wife from working but not able to stop her from screwing around? But I digress. The point is once the relationship is over neither party should have any responsibility to the other adult in the marriage. The only responsibilities should be towards any children. If women don't want to be in this position, they should work. It shouldn't be another adults job to carry someone's lazy butt through life because they didn't want to work.TEC said: "Also, I'm not a lawyer, but don't pre-nups often state this explicitly i.e. cheating voids the person's rights to alimony?This shows clearly how little you know. ANY judge can vacate any pre-nup for whatever reason he or she wants. Which means that pre-nups are essentially worthless. There was even a case in England where a woman was awarded a fortune after a divorce, spent all the money she got and came back several years later, sued her ex husband again, and won. Another great day for feminism. TEC said: "And 1/2 isn't everything; it's 50%, someone needs to go back to math class…."With alimony and child support, plus keeping the house and not having to pay any of the outstanding bills, it's more than half that most men have to pay.Random Brother
>@ TEC1. Yes there were laws that were unfair to women, but they have been changed as they should have been.2. Rape shield laws are unconstitutional in my opinion. You should have the right to face your accuser and there is a huge potential threat in anonymous persons destroying ones reputation, just ask any man falsely accused of rape. If you have to have rape shield laws, then in the interest of basic fairness the accused man should also be left anonymous until after his guilt is established, but you know what? Feminsts are against this. Surprise, surprise.3. There is zero proof required that a man's money actually goes to the child, this should be changed. Further child support should be affordable, not her living in the penthouse while he lives in an outhouse. 4. Men next to never become primary care giver, but when they do WOMEN tend to default on child support more than men, funny about that isn't it?5. You actually have had men assed alimony and child support "obligations" in excess of what they have ever made monthly. I call that injustice. You call those men deadbeats. But if it hurts men feminuts are for it.6. Lastly, don't lecture me on affirmative action and the black community. You know NOTHING about us. And I mean nothing. And it is galling to watch feminists play victim while being far more privilidged than anyone else on the planet. Random Brother
>It is absolutely untrue that in rape cases the accused is denied their right to face their accusers. Rape shield laws are in place to limit the introduction of evidence about an accuser's sexual history, reputation or past conduct. All states have such laws in place, but not all states have laws that protect the accuser's identity.
>DarkSideCat: You don't actually want laws equally applied, you want men to be able to abandon their children with impunity while punishing women, who you see as theiving sluts.For sure family laws are not equally applied in countries like USA because of feminism.Men and women are treated differently.—–I see nothing wrong with laws in Asia which are protecting a cheated spouse and marriage in general. Btw, these laws are 'gender-neutral'.The law in South Korea says, if you want a change, don't cheat but get a divorce first, otherwise it is a criminal offense. What's wrong with that?The law in Thailand says, do not approach a married spouse for a sexual relationship – if you break into a family, you might face lawsuits in return by the cheated spouse and the divorce ruling might favor the cheated spouse in many claims.What's wrong with that?In Philippines, as divorce is not existing in the law – it requires nullification of the marriage contract – you will remain married for a long time. If you cheat and live together with somebody else, do not expect to marry again soon and repeat the same game.What's wrong with that?Why should we, while living in Asia, copy/paste all and everything which is coming from USA?
>Christine said… Out of all the divorced women I know, I only know one who has been awarded alimony. I'd be interested to know if there are any statistics showing the percentage of divorces in which alimony is a factor. Men accounted for 97 percent of the payers in alimony cases in 2008, according to the US Census.Americans paid $9.4 billion in alimony to former spouses in 2007, up from $5.6 billion 10 years earlier, according to the Internal Revenue Service.I cannot find any number of people, who have to pay any form of alimony, but 97 percent are men.The rest of 3 percent are not always from women to men, as it is sometimes possible to claim alimony even after the death of a person, for example in case of real estate property income/life-insurance etc.In this case a third party pays alimony to an individual until her (his?) death.Sometimes alimony is similar to a retirement allowance, without age limits.
>Christine said… …Rape shield laws are in place to limit the introduction of evidence about an accuser's sexual history, reputation or past conduct.This means an accuser known as a liar, is accusing an innocent man and her past is considered as non-existent. Rape shields are a legal loophole for misuse to protect the anonymity of women for life despite their false rape allegations, solely out of the fact, that she is an accuser.However the accused person can be named in the news, even before his conviction. He will be sentenced to jail, as evidence is withheld. He is totally innocent, but who cares about him? The result? Link below:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-405074/Do-fake-rape-victims-right-anonymity.htmlThere cannot be a man in Britain – or, indeed, any right-thinking woman – who did not shudder at the sufferings of Warren Blackwell: convicted, sentenced and locked away for more than three years for a rape that we now know never even took place.On Tuesday, Mr Blackwell was cleared of all charges by an Appeal Court which heard that his alleged victim had faked the whole incident. Indeed, we know a lot more about his mendacious accuser. We know that she had made at least five other false allegations, as well as two against former husbands and one against her father……What we still do not know, however, is her name. As an alleged victim of rape, Miss A will continue to hide behind the anonymity that protected her throughout the lethal web of lies she spun at Mr Blackwell's trial, while he will have his identity splashed everywhere, despite his complete exoneration. …..How can this be right? Surely it is time to admit that this inequality is well overdue for a re-think.What do you think, Christine? You think, that's fair?
>No, in that case, and in others like it, it is not fair. Laws are needed to protect true victims, but do need to be adjusted when proven to have flaws.
>bishopsinister: Also child support should be affordable! It should take into account the payers living expenses, needs and should not be increased if the payer gets a raise. That's the reason we use now in Continental Europe percentages according to the age of the child. You earn more you pay more, you earn less you pay less. The child is still small, you pay less, the child is getting older, you pay more. It's deducted in percentages automatically by the employer from your salary every month.Health insurance is not an issue, as all EU-citizens have health insurance anyway.Child support is not cheap starting with 16 percent for one child, but easier to be accepted by men in EU than in USA. – You will never face jail, if you are jobless and cannot pay, this is for sure.USA can learn a lot from Europe, but is unwilling to learn anything. The entire execution of law in EU is not that rude as it is in the US.Alimony for the ex-wife in Germany is now also down to 3 years since 2008(in the past up to 15 years) and if the ex-wife is earning more than 40 percent of the income of the ex-husband, there is no alimony anymore.
>Christine said… No, in that case, and in others like it, it is not fair. Laws are needed to protect true victims, but do need to be adjusted when proven to have flaws. November 20, 2010 8:00 PM Discrimination because of the male gender happens all the time, and feminism is not supportive to change such laws.Some examples see belowhttp://www.thelocal.se/24244/20100107/Interesting, only the man is charged for buying sex, but the women are not charged for false rape allegations and not for theft…What do you think?http://www.thelocal.se/20694/20090716/That's also interesting, read the comments…Swedish man attacked by tattooed girl gang I wonder if this would be considered to be funny, if a woman of same age is attacked by a tattooed boy gang…—–Christine, you have to understand that MRAs are not limited to USA. And these 2 example are not about hate against women. And not from the USA.Unfair treatment against men is everywhere worldwide where is feminism, in UK it's bad too, and in Scandinavia as you see with these 2 links.That's the reason we complain. Why should we remain silent?
>@yohan,Yes, there are some valid issues brought up by some MRA's. I agree. It's too bad that the entire MRM is undermined by the male supremacist component that runs rampant throughout the movement.
>@ ChristineSuch rampant feminism and rampant MRM (rampant MRM = a few people also expelled from many MRM-forums) you will find only in USA, it's maybe because you can find any kind of people there you can imagine – black men, white women, rich Asians, poor Latinos, idiots more than enough, highly intelligent people more than enough…etc. etc. – any kind of any person, including extremists of any gender, haters, related or not related to any religion, any form of low-life, but also any form of honest people. etc. etc. a never ending list of people…but that's America. People are remarkable different from each other.In other feminist countries such hateful dialogs are rare as most people belong to the same ethnic group using the same local language. I have to say, there is almost no hateful vocabulary with MRM/feminists in case a conversation is not in English and away from US-influence. There are also less legal issues to talk about and a smaller number of opinions, how to solve such issues.
>Yes tec I asked "oh was this guy falsely accused of rape?" and you projected your own meaning on to what I said. You would do well to monitor your projecting and belief that you know what people are thinking, saying and meaning better than they do. It takes up a lot of space on this blog.Here are a few pointers.If someone is saying that making false accusations of rape shouldn't go unpunished, it does not mean that they are advocating for rapists.If someone is advocating for equal rights for domestic abuse victims, it does not mean that they are advocating for wife beaters.If someone is advocating for victims of female pedophiles, it does not mean that they are advocating for pedophilia.You take up lot of space and energy here with your false allegations about rape and abuse.Know this – an abuse victims not looking like you or their abusers looking like you does not in reality warrant their marginalization and exclusion.
>"You take up lot of space and energy here with your false allegations about rape and abuse."No one here takes up more space and energy than you, dude. Except maybe Yohan. At this point the two of you have posted more total words on my blog than I have. (Heck, each one of you probably has by yourself.) And it's the same thing over and over and over with both of you guys.
>Yeah but myself an yohan are contributing rationally.Tec reads "there should be equal right for abuse victims" and that provokes long posts about how people are advocating for wife beaters or some such crap.She rarely posts without bigotry or making a false allegation about rape or abuse.
>@ David,It's good that Egohan and Yohan post more than you as they make more sense. Logical clear arguments instead of your style of posting a picture and adding snark. The only good thing I can say about you is that you are not censor happy.Random Brother
>Christine said: "It is absolutely untrue that in rape cases the accused is denied their right to face their accusers. Rape shield laws are in place to limit the introduction of evidence about an accuser's sexual history, reputation or past conduct. All states have such laws in place, but not all states have laws that protect the accuser's identity." Sorry, I had a brain fart there, my bad. What I meant to say was that he should have the option of looking into the accusers past and seeing if she is say a multiple false rape accuser, etc. If needed they could close the court or something like that to make it less traumatic, if needed.Random Brother
>Whew! You are right about that David…with Eoghan, it's a bunch of self-righteous rambling, saying the same things over and over. And he talks in circles. He'd argue with a rock about nothing at all. I generally just try to skip over his comments.
>@bishopsinister,Rape shield laws were originally developed to prevent defense lawyers from viciously smearing true rape victims to try to get their clients off as used to be standard practice.