>
 |
| Men: Do not do this. |
Our good friend Herbal Essence — the Spearhead commenter, not the shampoo — is back with some profound insights into the true nature of feminism. Forget all the stuff you may have learned in your Women’s Studies courses. Forget what you read about on Feministing. “Feminism” is just a convenient rationalization for a primal female hunger. A hunger for cupcakes? A hunger for shoes? No, silly — a hunger for sperm. Feminism is all about getting hold of sexy, sexy sperm. Herbal explains, in a comment that garnered him 81 upvotes from the manly men on The Spearhead:
Feminism is not a worldview based on coherent thought. It is the desires of the female lizard-brain rationalized. Feminism is based on a woman’s reproductive strategy – my vagina makes me special, I must obtain sexy sperm, I deserve to be protected, and I deserve to get resources.
I don’t know about “protection” and resources for women and their special vaginas, but you might think that there would have to be a more efficient way for the ladies to get sperm. After all, most guys produce that sexy stuff by the bucketful, and the vast overwhelming majority of the poor little sperms that men produce so prodigiously end up dying unsung and unrealized in condoms or kleenex.
Apparently, though, feminists only want sperm when it comes as a part of a package deal which involves being married to a captive sperm- and money-producer. Because there is nothing — besides sperm, of course — that feminists like better than the traditional nuclear family. That way they can sit on their asses eating bon bons and trying on shoes — all paid for by their long-suffering husbands — while waiting for the next injection of sperm. (You thought feminists likes paying their own way and having their own careers? Ha! Shows how much you know.) Here’s Herbal again:
The whole of Feminism was designed to “free” women from the “restrictions” of traditional society so she could obtain sexy sperm, and then providing a social construct so she could get security and resources without being in the confines of a nuclear family. Thus making more sexy sperm and self-indulgence available. Lastly, that she “deserves” all that because she has a vagina.
And all those traditional-nuclear-family-loving women who claim not to be feminists? Fellas, they’re either lying to themselves, or lying to you.
Women don’t choose to believe in feminism. Feminism is a rationalization of their lizard brain. That’s why you can talk to women who will swear up and down they are not feminists, yet they refuse to give ground on any of the privileges that feminism gave them. The programming is already in her, feminism is just the means to make it a reality. You might as well try to convince female peacocks not to mate with males with impressive plumage.
Fellas, I think Herbal here has made it pretty clear why you need to protect your sperm from the feminists. If you make the mistake of actually having sex with one of these creatures, keep a bottle of tabasco sauce handy, and squirt it into your used condoms to make sure she doesn’t fish them out of the wastebasket later to use for her own evil ends. And if you’re jizzing into kleenexes, flush those down the toilet, pronto. If you just throw them out, beware: gangs of feminists rove the alleys of America, much like raccoons, raiding trash cans in search of sexy, sexy manstuff.
Be careful out there.
—
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.
>"I Must Obtain Sexy Sperm" would be a T-Shirt WIN
>The worst is when a woman messily slaughters you with her talons so she can lay her eggs in your grisly remains. And they want *us* buying them drinks first?!
>Wait, he actually said "sexy sperm." That just made my day.
>He said sexy sperm EVERY TIME he mentioned sperm. He must like sperm more than my feminist lizard brain does.
>Indeed. There are many ways I might choose to describe sperm. Sexy isn't one of them.And ewwwwwww to the used condom and sperm thing. No thanks, not this feminist.
>One could make a case for semen being sexy (subjective, I suppose), but sperm isn't. Too strongly associated with having babies, and having babies is not sexy. Unless it's just me.
>Nope, it's not just you, triplanetary. I liken that to much the same thing that ichinichinemuru outlined in their own post. Parasitic humans just waiting to attach themselves to you, uncaring if they kill you (the host) at the end. 🙂
>Man, that did make my day too. "Sexy sperm"? Dude, I only see that in crazy-ass cybersex.
>@ DavidDavid said: "Fellas, I think Herbal here has made it pretty clear why you need to protect your sperm from the feminists. If you make the mistake of actually having sex with one of these creatures, keep a bottle of tabasco sauce handy, and squirt it into your used condoms to make sure she doesn't fish them out of the wastebasket later to use for her own evil ends. And if you're jizzing into kleenexes, flush those down the toilet, pronto. If you just throw them out, beware: gangs of feminists rove the alleys of America, much like raccoons, raiding trash cans in search of sexy, sexy manstuff. Be careful out there."*AHEM*http://www.glennsacks.com/sperm_theft_ruling.htmSaturday, March 5, 2011 (Partial)‘Sperm Theft’ Ruling a Step Forward forMen’s Reproductive RightsBy Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks All’s fair in love, war, and paternity cases. When child support is sought, there is scarcely any deceit that courts won’t push aside under the “best interests of the child” test. Courts have ruled that boys who were statutorily raped by older women must pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has taken the semen from a condom a man used for sex with a different woman and has inserted it in herself, the man must still pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has concealed her pregnancy (denying the man the right to be a father) and then sued for child support a decade later, the man must still pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has deceived her husband into believing that her baby is his child, he must still pay child support. Few if any men are relieved of child support obligations due to the circumstances of the pregnancy, no matter how bizarre or unjust.Recently, however, the Illinois Appellate Court took a step towards fairness by ruling that an Illinois man can sue his former lover for emotional distress over her pregnancy. Dr. Richard O. Phillips alleges that six years ago Dr. Sharon Irons secretly kept his semen after the two had oral sex, and then impregnated herself with it. Phillips claims he didn’t learn of the child’s existence until two years later, when Irons went to court to get child support. Irons now receives $800 a month in tax-free child support from Phillips. . .*********************************************Ah, those pesky facts, and real world examples keep tripping femnation up.Random Brother
>"my vagina makes me special, I must obtain sexy sperm, I deserve to be protected, and I deserve to get resources." This will go on my you tube channel and blog in the about me sections. Wonderful.Also, Mr. Futrelle, tabasco, well spermicide. And of course, I find the rationalizations that Herbal gives here for maintaining the restrictions over women of yesteryear. What a snake. And to Richard. If there is a legal system in place to handle fraud, the system is working. It seems medically impossible to get pregnant from sperm kept in someone's mouth. I wonder what the other side of the story was. In any event, why a case like that would have ANY bearing on feminism, is beyond me. What in the world does that have to do with feminism? Good lord, the delusions these lizard brained power deprived bitter boys have.
>"And of course, I find the rationalizations that Herbal gives here for maintaining the restrictions over women of yesteryear. What a snake."I find them…positively reptilian? Anyway, I forgot a word, apologies.
>Richard, the original source of that story is a 2005 associated press article with very few details:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/There are lots of references to the story online, but they all (like the Glen Sacks column) seem to rely on that one story. I couldn't find any followup articles that would tell us if he did indeed sue (and, if so, what was the result of that suit).If what he said happened did actually happen, that's pretty fucked up. But we don't know her side of the story. And I'm not sure that there's any way to determine what did happen. Certainly not with the scanty details we've got. (The court didn't offer an opinion on the truth of his claims, just that he had the right to sue.) If someone decides based on this one incident that may or may not have actually happened that he needs to stop engaging in oral sex with women, I suppose that's his right. Or, I suppose he could simply try to sneak a bit of tobasco sauce into her mouth immediately after oral sex. Either way, seems a little paranoid. I mean, there seem to have been several people in the history of the planet who've been killed by falling pianos:http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-168501.htmlBut I don't think that's a good reason to forever avoid walking past buildings more than one story tall, just in case a piano should fall out the window of one of them.
>…and, hate to sound like a broken record, but the tie in to feminism would be? … Are feminists stealing sperm? I mean we haven't really established that anyone has done this let alone that I would have anything to do with feminism. The idea that parents are responsible for children is a feminist idea? Well, god bless those lovely feminists, getting paternal involvement set as a priority.
>..and, hate to sound like a broken record, but the tie in to feminism would be? … Are feminists stealing sperm? I mean we haven't really established that anyone has done this let alone that it would have anything to do with feminism. The idea that parents are responsible for children is a feminist idea? Well, god bless those lovely feminists, getting paternal involvement set as a priority.
>Yes, fraudsters and deceivers should be punished. There's no question about that. But as David is saying with his falling piano analogy, it's just not this horrible epidemic like MRAs claim it is. It's easy for them to believe it is, because women are all deceitful bitches in their worldview. It all makes sense in their mind: fuck a dude, steal his sperm, get preggers, demand child support, profit! Because as we all know, raising a child costs practically nothing at all, so all that child support money is probably going to pedicures and shoes and all that vain stuff women like.In reality, of course, these cases of sperm theft and fraud and such are extremely rare. MRAs love to seize on every instance of it, and the media helps them with that because the media loves reporting on sensationalistic outliers like that, and that way the MRAs get to pretend that this is happening way more often than it is. Like the people who seize on every story of a person who might be cheating the welfare system, they want to use them as an excuse to punish the vast majority who benefit from the system legitimately.But of course, that's the idea, I suppose. If a woman is receiving child support payments, that means she's had sex but is not in the man's possession anymore. Thus she is a slut and must be punished. Old-fashioned sexism.
>@ David, Triplanetary and zbutterscotch pudding.For those of you who think 1)There's a system in place to punish this sort of fraud. Men are trying to achieve this but guess which is the main group that keeps fighting it? I'll give you a hint, they tend not to shave their legs and hate men.2) For the whole, it's so rare argument. From further in the same article I previously posted: "Research shows that men are often deceived into paternity. A recent poll of 5,000 women conducted for That’s Life! magazine in the United Kingdom found that 42% of women say they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners. According to research conducted by Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University, over a million American births each year are the result of pregnancies which men did not intend."Paranoid? Random Brother
>:::According to research conducted by Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University, over a million American births each year are the result of pregnancies which men did not intend.:::One is left to wonder just exactly what they did to prevent these unintended pregnancies. I'm sure they weren't all the result of sperm stealing feminists.
>http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/635254.html"This study highlights an under-recognized phenomenon where male partners actively attempt to promote pregnancy against the will of their female partners," study author Elizabeth Miller, an assistant professor of pediatrics in the University of California at Davis School of Medicine, said in a news release from the school. "Not only is reproductive coercion associated with violence from male partners, but when women report experiencing both reproductive coercion and partner violence, the risk for unintended pregnancy increases significantly."The study was conducted from 2008-2009 at five health clinics that deal with reproductive issues in Northern California. About 1,300 women aged 16 to 29 took part by responding to a computerized survey.About 15 percent said they'd experienced birth-control sabotage, and more than half reported physical or sexual violence from a partner. More than one-third of those who said they had been the victim of partner violence also acknowledged experiencing either pregnancy coercion or birth-control sabotage, the researchers found."We have known about the association between partner violence and unintended pregnancy for many years," study senior author Jay Silverman, an associate professor of society, human development and health in the Harvard School of Public Health, said in the news release. "What this study shows is that reproductive coercion likely explains why unintended pregnancies are far more common among abused women and teens."
>…but guess which is the main group that keeps fighting it? I'll give you a hint, they tend not to shave their legs and hate men.So then, that would be men.A recent poll of 5,000 women conducted for That’s Life! magazine in the United Kingdom found that 42% of women say they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners.So then saying that they would is now equated to saying that they did in order for that research to show that men are, not that they could be or might be, often deceived into paternity.According to research conducted by Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University, over a million American births each year are the result of pregnancies which men did not intend.Is that referring to the analysis of portions of Cycle 5 of the National Survey of Family Growth, the analysis having been done in 1995 for data collected over the few years previous to the analysis? What Abma and Piccinino published seems to only reflect the results of the women that were surveyed, not the men.A more recent one, The 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth has been conducted, but it may be that the results of the data on intended and unintended pregnancy have not yet been compiled and released, as the statistics for intended pregnancy in the Key Statistics list appear to be from the 2002 survey. Those results can be found here. It shows:Births reported by femalesPercent of births that were intended, mistimed, or unwanted by the mother (births in the 5 years before the 2002 interview): Intended (i.e., pregnancy that the mother wanted to have when she became pregnant): 64.9% Mistimed (i.e., pregnancy that the mother wanted to have but it occurred too soon): 20.8% Unwanted (i.e., pregnancy that the mother did not want ever): 14.1%Births reported by malesPercent of births that were intended, mistimed, unwanted by the father (births in the 5 years before the interview in 2002):Intended (i.e., pregnancy that the father wanted to have at approximately the time partner became pregnant): 65.2% Mistimed (i.e., pregnancy that the father wanted to have but it occurred too soon): 24.8% Unwanted (i.e., pregnancy that the father did not want ever): 8.6%
>A comment I recently posted must have been caught in the Spam Filter.
>The average yearly child support payment for a child is $3,600 for a man and $ 2,400 for a women (income discrepancies explain this difference). If you think you can raise a child on that, you should stop doing drugs.
>SallyStrange: Thank you! It seems to have slipped everybody else's mind (including mine) to point out that abusive men force children on their partners all the time.So basically it's yet another of those crimes where MRAs try to turn it around and be all "nuh uh, women do it even more but you never hear about it because of FEMINISM!" See: rape, domestic violence, starting wars
>OT but when are you going to write about this MRA who thinks women collectively owe him money?
>richard, I think that their lizard-brain women thing comes from here: http://www.truthism.com/
>oh oops, that was supposed to be to david, not richard. This is what I get for reading and commenting while I'm sick