>Men Who Hate Women, and the Women Who Love … Porn

>Kendra…Hpw can masterbation be problematic instead of being intimate? I do believe the official stance of feminism is being A-sexual is "good." Therefore if someone "chooses" not to be intimate, this "choice" must be respected and should have no bearing on a relationship. To say otherwise would go against the feminist tenet of sex shouldn't be expected of a woman in marriage.

>Again Ion, please show me the "hate" that I've posted. All of you keep throwing a myriad of derogatory adjectives at me specifically. How is it that I am hateful, unintelligent, misogynist, poor skills in comprehension and satire, ect, ect, ect.How is it that I'm all these negative aspects while disparaging no one, while all of you are amazing while mocking me at every turn? Or is this more of that "satire" that eludes my dense personality?

>NWOslave said… Kendra…Hpw can masterbation be problematic instead of being intimate? I do believe the official stance of feminism is being A-sexual is "good." Therefore if someone "chooses" not to be intimate, this "choice" must be respected and should have no bearing on a relationship. To say otherwise would go against the feminist tenet of sex shouldn't be expected of a woman in marriage.On the contrary, every person has the right to refuse sex, and every partner has the right to end the relationship because of it. No contradiction at all. It's only problematic if the person who chooses masturbation in preference to sex wishes to continue in the relationship, and the partner is not accepting of this arrangement.

>NWO, I think you're confused here. I was referring to the 'regular' commenters around here, not you. I was also making the point that I wrote a bit of an anti-feminist satire a couple of days ago, with the predictable results of mucho butthurt. But of course anti-male satire is A-OK.What I find hilarious is that most people on this blog are just as vicious, narrow-minded and stupid as most MRAs. It's like two camps of fanatics, each accusing the other while believing themselves to be above reproach. Fun to watch for a while, at any rate.

>What, no apologies for the poor slave whose done no wrong? What I'd really like is a working definition of misogynist, (not the websters version). If I disagree with any position of any feminist does this automatically make me a misogynist?

>Hmm. I guess the Old Testament was written by Andrea Dworkin then, too? After all, it prohibits voluntary ejaculation into anything other than one's wife's vagina.

>I do believe the official stance of feminism is being A-sexual is "good."Provide evidence for this, please.

>Ah, NWOaf. You are in the process of proving DesertRose’s point. Let’s review what that actually was, since you are showing us that you are incapable of understanding it, or perhaps unwilling to. Why do you people continue to rationally explain things to him?It’s a good question. Why do we continue to try to explain things to you? Speaking only for myself, I do it for the benefit of other readers, so they can be reminded of precisely how brain-dead you are. In any case, her question is actually rhetorical, meant to point out that MRAs (not “men”, try to hold that thought in your head, that we are all capable of distinguishing between “men” and “MRA type dudes”, who are a subset of men.)Are MRAs from the sites Dave quotes equally courteous to their unwelcome visitors? From the excerpts I've seen here, the only way to communicate I admit, this could be a little tricky to follow if you haven’t yet reached the 7th grade reading level. But basically, here we have another rhetorical question, meant to point out that MRAs are typically not as accommodating to people who challenge their views as the posters here are. In other words, we are likely to take you at your word, assume you are arguing in good faith, answer your questions honestly, and provide evidence to back up our assertions. Until you show that you’re not arguing in good faith, that is, or that you’re not interested in honesty or evidence. Continuing with the quote… From the excerpts I've seen here, the only way to communicate is to evenly say that males* [Sally here: please take note of the asterisk] are incompetent pieces of shitstained pig guts who spend hours jerking off to porn and trolling feminist sites because they're too simplistic to ever think of anything but women. Malepenises are in a panic because feminism has taken from them the only thing they were ever good for–sperm–and now their tiny male brains are frantic to find a new way to apply themselves, but of course as they are evolutionarily** [again, please note the asterisk and follow it] designed to only ever think of sex and women the poor little things are back to square one. Soon we will establish sperm banks on every corner, successfully create and preserve artificial sperm, and completely obliterate the Y chromosome.***Did you notice the asterisks, NWOaf? Because if you don’t understand the convention of using asterisks to point people’s attention towards the corresponding asterisks below, which provide further information and explanation as to what is meant, you could be missing a lot. This whole paragraph is an obvious spoof on the silly and idiotic ways in which MRAs (not “men,” remember?) generalize about women (here there’s no caveat; MRAs really think they’re talking about ALL women). And below, the asterisks, where DesertRose lays out exactly which MRA terms she is spoofing:*males as opposed to men**exaggerate application of evo psyche***the equivalent of sexy robotsReally, that wasn’t all that hard. In my next post, I will address the content of what NWOaf wrote to me.

>Now, let’s address what you had to say, gentle, scholarly, NWOaf. Again thank you Sallystrange. As John Hodgeman says: “You’re welcome.”When a woman write hatred of men it's "satire" A woman? As in any woman? No, there you go again, generalizing unnecessarily. I was only talking about DesertRose. Not all women. Just DesertRose. Do you need me to repeat that a few more times for it to sink in? she's basically "always" writing a mockery of what the typical MRA writes and is therefore excused from any accountability.Writing a satire doesn’t excuse anyone from accountability. The disconnect here is that you want DesertRose to be accountable for something she didn’t do, that is, espouse hatred for all men. When an MRA writes a deregatory post about women it's "never" satireI didn’t say this. It’s certainly possible that MRAs are actually trying to satirize misogynists. Or feminists. Who knows. I certainly would not be so stupid as to say that this “never” happens. Only children think in ALWAYS/NEVER black-and-white terms. However, if MRAs are actually trying to satirize feminists when they post things to the effect that all women are this way, or all women are that way, they don't seem to be announcing it, even after the fact. And satire fails if the author does not truly understand the subject of the satire. Like you–you just said that you think that the "official" position of feminism on sex is that no sex is the best sex. See, if you tried to write a satire on feminists and feminism based on that basic misunderstanding, it would fail utterly, because of your failure to understand feminism. and the typical MRA "must" be held accountable.Everyone is accountable for what she or he says. If it's satire, then you are accountable not only for the content of what you wrote, but also for its success as satire. Gotcha, no MRAs have any legitimate grievances, they're just afraid of losing privilege. As has been said a million times over again on this blog and elsewhere, MRAs have a few legitimate grievances. However, the fact that they think that attacking feminism is the best way to address those grievances reveals that they are not thinking clearly about those grievances, and are misinformed. Since attacking feminism is not actually the best way to equalize custody laws, get shelters for male domestic abuse victims set up, or increase the number of men working in typically female-dominated fields like nursing or teaching, we can conclude that the MRAs’ tactics contradict their stated goals. We then speculate as to their actual goals and motives—feeling threatened because of the loss of male privilege is a likely candidate. Any more questions?

>Anyway, I thought the official position of feminism was "Cowgirl."

>So your point is that women do write satire against men because… men do it too, and they shouldn't "whine" about it?"No. My point was to not treat people the way you don't want to be treated. If you like to make anti-feminist "satire" stop being a goddamn crybaby when it comes back to you. You can't treat people like shit and expect not to reap exactly what you sow. And then when you whine about it and blame other people for doing back to you what you did, you just make yourself look like an even bigger douche.I've seen it a hundred times – people who crow incessantly about "taking responsibility" are ALWAYS the last to do so."Who's whining?"You are."Goddamn, this is like talking to a robot who's only programmed to say a dozen different phrases depending on a few keywords it recognizes."Do you generally write such empassioned responses to preprogrammed machine outputs?"Because the world's greatest chefs were and are men 🙂 "Actually many of the "world's greatest chefs" are assholes who abuse their employees and not a few of them are fucking bankrupt as well.

>Shaenon, Again, thx for the mockery, (reading is hard). Sweet. I never said women hated porn, I stated and Ozzy has confirmed that womens porn is reading it. Although on a previous post she said the opposite.My point is whats with the gender is a construct bit. I hate to once again be misogynist by stating men and women are different. If men like to look at porn and fill in the text and women like to read porn and fill in the pictures, whats the big deal? I thought feminists were all into celebrating "diversity." Yet when any diversity between men and women is mentioned you're all like yes we do, we love it even more than men. Whats the point? Men and women are different and no amount of social engineering will change this, and nothing good will come of it.

>Spam filter!There were some nice long posts caught in blogger's infernal spam filter but they are up now. Scroll up and read them!