>
 |
| Cats also love porn. |
So the guys over at MGTOWforums.com – who want nothing to do with women but somehow can’t stop talking about them all day every day – have some interesting theories on why some women like porn so much, sometimes to the point of addiction.
According to the aptly named womanhater, it’s because they’re picking up tips; apparently, the better women fuck, the better they can fuck guys over:
Women (a few exceptions aside) see sex the same way a lumberjack sees a chainsaw – a useful tool. If they’re ‘addicted’ to it then my guess is that they’re in fact just studying it because they know it is their competition and they’d better learn how to do it like the men they hope to manipulate and extort want it. It’s like any other form of physical performance – you get better by watching the professionals. There’s not a man among us whose swing wouldn’t improve if we spent several hours a day watching professional golfers.
True, at least that bit about golf. Based on my admittedly limited exposure to her work, I’m not sure that all the skills that one can learn from watching Sasha Grey necessarily translate all that well to non-gang-bang situations.
Zuberi, meanwhile, suspects that women watch porn just to spite men:
Are they really addicted to porn or are they desperately trying to keep up with the sheer number of men who watch porn? Are these harpies so insecure that they have to overtake men in everything? It’s pathetic. There’s already a number of women who are drinking themselves retarded trying to keep up with men that they think are power drinkers.
But are they really watching all the porn they say they’re watching? Shade47 is suspicious:
When women look at porn they see pixels on a screen. Just some more attention whoring from women looking for a new angle to reel men in.Almsot every trashy girl Ive met claims to be into porn but when you look at her internet history its all retarded girl games on flash websites and shit. You know they arent covering their tracks by deleting browser history because that would involve understanding computers.
Damn these computer-illiterate, flash-game-loving, only-pretending-to-like-porn slatterns!
AC101202, by contrast, is convinced that a lot of women actually do love porn, or at least the more nasty and degrading parts of it – “facials, ass in the air, DP etc.” Why? Evolutionary Psych 101, dude! Because their reptilian cave-lady brains just love gangbangs:
Pre-civilization, women thousands of years ago spent their days getting nailed by dozens of guys. We all know here a majority of women have rape fantasies …Women who are managers, in positions of power, probably get off most watching degrading actions performed on women. Their lower reptilian brain likes seeing women treated like sex objects, since the women who reproduced best were the one’s who learned to enjoy gangbanging.
Now, I’m no evolutionary psych expert, but, er, what exactly is the evolutionary advantage of facials? I’m pretty sure you can’t get pregnant from semen on your forehead, in your eyes or, say, up your nose. (At least I never have.) Perhaps someone better schooled in evo psych and the general evil of women could explain that to me.
—
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.
>NWO, you're a sexist dumbfuck. And an idiot. And I'm male. Can you explain how my male biology has caused me to dislike you?
>So her calling me a sexist dumb fuck is my bad behavior. Too sweet.
>NWO: Blah blah blah, wishful thinking on your part. Limbic system, shmimbic system, one thing is certain: as much as you may kick and scream, you are NOT the same as Albert Einstein. And that's all it is, really, on the part of men who foam at the mouth about gender essentialism: Einstein envy.Gender does NOT account for "vast" cognitive and psychological differences between individuals. What DOES account for truly vast cognitive and psychological differences is socioeconomic background. Therefore, although both you and Albert Einstein had penises, Dr. Einstein had a lot more in common, intellectually and psychologically, with the two Mrses Einstein than you could ever hope to have in common with him.On this forum as well, it is quite clear that you are both more emotional and intellectually far weaker than most of the female contributors here. Gender has nothing to do with it, and it's not your fault. Maybe it's your genes. Maybe it's your poor diet growing up. Maybe it's because you were encouraged to play contact sports (as the more "manly" activity) instead of reading books, with the combination of repeated head injuries and lack of intellectual stimulation leading to your sad state today. Maybe it's pollution in the local ground waters. I don't know. But one thing is clear — claiming biology makes women more "emotional" is merely a "sciencey" way to arguing that women are sub-human animals and to label their logical and well thought-out ideas "emotions" while mischaracterizing your emotions as "logic". As I said — wish fulfillment.
>NWO, the problem with what you're saying is that most of the actual function of the brain comes from the connections made between cells and between areas of the brain, not by the thin layer of uppermost cells that we have been able to register with EEG and similar technology. Math in particular is a really interesting field of research because the calculations that we thought were done in one area seem in fact to be spread through various parts of the brain.I don't have access to most of my research at the moment, but it's truly fascinating and progressing in leaps and bounds at the moment. Referring to a 2007 study that was about limiting the conclusions being drawn about sex by disregarding age and weight data… well it's not going to get you far on this topic.
>@ElizabethThere is porn made with women in mind NWOslave-and I am sure you have watched it before.Unless of course you are also an asexualsome asexual people watch porn. some asexual people masturbate. being asexual doesn't automatically mean non-sexual.
>If I hammer all day, everyday, the area of my brain responsible for hammering will grow. This does not mean I was predestined to hammer.If men and women behave differently and are treated differently, their brains will develop differently. Brain differences do not provide evidence of innate differences.
>Well thats easy Mike, 1)Have you ever been taught the differences in brain structure between men and women? 2)Have you ever been taught that men and women are basically the same in the thought process? 3)Have you ever been taught men and women have identical mental capabilities?Your answers will be no to 1 and yes to 2 and 3. Your siply responding to you conditioning. The real question is why would the public education system not highlight the differences and cater to the different learning processes of men and women. The answer of course is unequal results runs counter to feminist ideology of "we're all equal" and "gender is a construct."
>Fun fact for NWOslave: the limbic system controls sexual arousal! So, by your own shitty logic, the slight average size difference between limbic systems in the brain means 100% of women like sex (and by extension porn??) more than 100% of men.
>I simply don't understand your aversion to men and women, each as a whole, having strenghts and weaknesses.
>Well Jeanette if thats the case I won't argue. I don't deny reality. Although porn for women is different than porn for men. I won't deny that reality either.
>NWO, did you miss my comment about porn, I'll reiterate what I wrotesome women like visual porn, some like written porn, some like both and some like neither. Women are not a monolith. We each have different opinions and desires because we are human. The above statement also goes for men. Some men like visual porn some like written porn, some lie both and some like neither! Isn't individuality great?
>Your siply responding to you conditioning. Oh, so now you are claiming that people's thinking IS molded by social conditioning? You spent this whole thread arguing that all women think identically and all men think identically because gender is 100% responsible for people's thinking. NOW you do a total 180 and complain about "social conditioning"?I simply don't understand your aversion to men and women, each as a whole, having strenghts and weaknesses. First of all "each as a whole" is an oxymoron. Second, I don't have an aversion to acknowledging my strengths and weaknesses. I do have an aversion to bullshit. I also have an aversion to being accused to having weaknesses that I actually DON'T have or having my strengths unacknowledged on the basis of gender, just like I have an aversion to being lumped with people with whom I have nothing in common except a vagina. My weaknesses and strenghths are mine as an individual, not "ours". I do not care for taking credit for what others have done, nor will I answer for other people's failings. I am an individual, not a walking vagina.And once again: Einstein's strengths are not your strengths. Stop flattering yourself.
>Yes Sandy, brain differences do provide evidence for innate differences. If every single genius and math wizzard has a larger Inferior parietal lobule, and this is substantially larger in men than women this is an innate difference that has an effect on those qualities needed to perfom certain mental abilities.To deny this is to deny reality. It's like saying someone is a musical genius got that way by practice. When that is not the case. I could practice music every day for the rest of my life an never write a piece of music that is even passably good. Think the movie Amadeus.
>But NWO – you said behaviour is determined by biology, not social conditioning. And we both have male brains, so I should agree with you. But I don't. It's confusing.
>Yes Bridget, I get it, women are not a monolith. Gender is a construct. We're all the same but different and no one has any abilities not sanctioned by the State. Apparently my thinking is muddied and I'm in need of further indoctrination.
>I…really?? Okay, I don't usually do this, but here are some things you might have asked yourself before accepting my conclusion uncritically:1. But, Jeanette, how can you conclude that because a system that regulates sexual arousal is larger in size it means that individual is more capable of sexual arousal than the smaller one?2. How big is the gap between genders? Is there significant overlap? What are the exact percentages we're talking?3. Maybe it is just a trend. Maybe women have ON AVERAGE bigger limbic systems but this is not true in all cases. An example of this would be height.4. Please provide evidence that while larger, the limbic system in women is actually more active than that of men.And those are just the most obvious….number two is, in particular, something I think you need to examine.
>Mike, first off you're just parroting what you've been conditioned to say. Deep down you know it isn't true as do all the rest of the commentors. Which is why they get so angry, they know there are innate differences and it sticks in their craw. It's like two opposite programs running at the same time, one is the public indoctrination program and the other is the biological program. You just won't admit it.
>Yes Jeanette, you're right that I'm wrong that you're right. And round and round it goes where it stops nobody knows.
>Yes Mike, you've been condition to believe that you can be conditioned when in fact you cannot be conditioned despite what you've been conditioned to believe.
>NWO – You mean like how all atheists really believe in God but they just pretend not to, out of a childish need to rebel?
>NWO, this has nothing to do with the state. I'm an anarcho capitalist for crying out loud.
>But why will Mike not admit it, NWO, if his male brain is so perfect and above social conditioning that it does not barricade the sciency truth of sciency sciencyness from acknowledgment? Please, enlighten my inferior female brain.
>Yes. And my superior male brain too, as I am still confused
>Grammatolatry: I realised that after I posted it, mea culpa.Although I do think that is the way NWOslave would view it as.
>Mike Booth, your circular logic has bested me. Bridget, you have never lived in an anarchist country, nor have you ever live in a capitalist country. Here's a little secret, America isn't a capitalist country. Not since anyone here has been alive.