>
 |
| 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.
>Men as a whole Scott Men as a whole, try and keep up. Repeating myself gets a bit tiring.I'll ask you a question now. Since in the past 20 years women have had better education than men, shouldn't at least 50% of all advancements be by women? So in the past twenty years please name all the patents, inventions, ect. If there is any less than 50% of all these things whats the expaination? Don't tell me it's oppression with AA, Title IX, ect, ect, ect. I mean c'mon, you have to do better than that.
>And you know they are not how NWOslave?
>Sorry, your point doesn't hold up. Repeating it doesn't make it work.If ALL MEN have more in common with each other, and nothing in common will women, why would women such as Gentileschi, Kollwitz and O'Keefe (just a few examples) have artistic abilities that are just as good as their male peers, and better than most of the male (and female) population?If women's brains all had a structure that made them inferior in the arts, then wouldn't all men be better than all women at art?Additionally, since women are supposed to have brains that assist them with language, why are authors such as Steinbeck, Fitzgerald and Shakespeare as amazing as they are? As men, they were clearly at a biological disadvantage!Your gender essentialism doesn't hold up.It's because of hundred of years of systematic oppression. Fancy that.AA, Title IX etc. are there to help women catch up after being barred from education for, you know, the majority of human history.You won't accept it as an answer, however, so there's no real point to me answering it.Being willfully ignorant really shuts down a conversation, doesn't it.
>This is pretty awesome.
>Well thats easy Elizabeth, google things women have invented in the past twenty years. There have obviously been millions of inventions, advancements, improvements, patents in that time.Again all I'm saying is men happen to be good at these things. Men as a whole love women. We don't oppress you. Think about it, why would I do something that would be harmful to the women I love. It makes no sense.If a saw a woman who I didn't even know being attacked by a bear or in a burning building, I would literally risk my life to save her. I mean thats a pretty good quality to have as a man, don't you think? It's the same with inventing and building stuff, it's a pretty good quality, right? Well these are innate qualities men have. Women naturally have qualities of empathy, they "feel" another persons pain. They are naturally good with children. Men love those qualities in women and we say it all the time. So if mens natural qualities allows him to ease certain burdens of life, why make it out to be a competition? Why not love those qualities in men? These are innate differences in the genders.
>"Men as a whole love women. We don't oppress you. Think about it, why would I do something that would be harmful to the women I love. It makes no sense."All of your comments have shown that you clearly do not.Gender essentialism is oppression, and you seem pretty well tied to it.Wanting to fuck somebody doesn't mean you 'love' them. Adhering to basic human empathy doesn't mean you respect someone.I mean, good for you, you'd save someone's life if they were dying. Plenty of people who have good qualities can have bad qualities too, like sexism!Also, I am a woman, and I am totally awful with kids. My sister is good with them, but I am not. And, while we're at it, every human being (barring sociopaths) have empathy. It's not a woman-only trait.Men should not, do not, and cannot have a monopoly on certain traits, good or bad. I'm not trying to make it a competition, I'm trying to make people understand that there are more than two pathetic little shitty boxes and you can only be in one box of qualities.I'll bet you don't even understand the concept of genderqueer people, do you? Of course not.I also had another comment earlier on, but it seems to be caught in the spam filter. I answered your question about women's inventions in the past twenty years, but I don't think you'll accept the answer.
>Again, you made a claim that women have done NO inventing for the past 20 years based on NO information.So all I had to find is ONE invention (which I did) and I proved you wrong on your claim. So you are once again, shown to be the misogynist ignoramus who makes claims he cannot back up ever.
>Five thousand years ago, the vast majority of cultures were not literary and even most literary cultures did not have any patenting system, meaning that we do not know who invented pretty much everything used in these cultures. Patents are a modern western invention, for the most part (some east asian cultures had a system of exclusive production rights that was different in some significant ways but similar in others). And, surprise surprise, women in Renaissance and Industrial western Europe were generally legally prohibited from owning property or holding patents. Which means that if a woman invented something for use in the home in, say, the 1600s, she would have no patent and would not be widely credited. Once women were allowed to have patents and own property, they did in fact begin to patent inventions of major household items, including making major advancements to stove design and refrigeration, invention the electric water heater, inventing disposable diapers, etc. So, you are wrong. Women have been inventing, they just have not been given credit because the system of crediting inventions you utilize is one purposefully and systematically designed to deny them such credit.Art has similar conventions, actually. Artistic fields dominated by women or the poor were considered excluded from the category of "real" art. So, things like the every bit as skilled as (if not more than) the paintings at the time embroidery, lacemaking, and tapestry work done by medieval women was not credited as majestic art. PS, the first electric washing machine was in fact designed by a woman named Alva J. Fisher.
>NWO, are you saying that you think a woman who saw another person, regardless of gender, in imminent peril, that she *wouldn't* try to help? OF COURSE saving people from peril is a good quality, and I posit it is one shared by most of humanity.And "men happen to be good at these things" is NOT all you're saying. You also said "No great works of Art, music, philosophy, ect." by which I assumed you to mean that women haven't done these things. You are not "just" saying that men have good qualities, you are insisting that women lack these qualities.And I would like to know why, if it is SO EASY to break into the Manly World Of Art, most famous female novelists were encouraged (or Forced!) to publish under a male pseudonym? I'll take misogyny for $500!
>What would you do if you saw a woman being attacked by a man, NWO?
>@NWOslaveNow you're assuming that if I saw a man being attacked by a bear or in a burning building, I wouldn't try to save him. You're assuming I wouldn't like to invent or build stuff. You're assuming I am good with children.All because I'm a woman. That pisses me off.Because I know that what you say of all women is not true of me. As Sojourner Truth said, "Ain't I a woman?" If those qualities that you ascribe to women don't apply to me, then what am I? An alien?Though, frankly, I'd rather be an alien than share a species with you.
>Here's a nice little summary of some of the arguments against gender essentialism:http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/faq-but-men-and-women-are-born-different-isnt-that-obvious/
>Darksidecat, Alva J. Fisher did not invent the first electronic washing machine.http://www.oldewash.com/articles/Electric_Washer.pdf
>Mike Booth, why not ask what would I do if I saw a woman being attacked by another woman. I t seems you've fallen into the Man = Bad, Woman = Good indoctrination.
>Ecccktually, Alva John Fisher was a man. The patent on file before his is to an unknown person who could have been a man or a woman. BaM! I learned some history!
>I found this interesting breakdown at the US patent office.It ends in 1996 though.
>"Mike Booth, why not ask what would I do if I saw a woman being attacked by another woman. I t seems you've fallen into the Man = Bad, Woman = Good indoctrination."I presume he asked because, in general, MRAs tend to be overprotective about male abusers, and are obsessed with a woman v. male war type of perspective.I don't think you believe in a gender war though, just an outdated way of looking at gender.Also I really don't think indoctrination means what you think it means.
>Hello all, thought it'd be a good time to de-lurk and say hi.David, love the blog, great stuff. I honestly hadn't heard of the MRM until I started reading, and while some of it is pretty disturbing, you manage to reveal even the worst bits in an amusing light. It's also gotten me to think more about gender issues in a very postive way.The comments section is something else, and I might have had more fun reading the arguments that flair up than the actual articles. Kudos to all, especially in dealing with hyperbole, reactionism, and the nonsensical coming in from the other side. I think I might enjoy my stay here. 😛
>I actually went to that site Capt Bathrobe and shocker of shocker it's just more of the same gender is a construct nonesense. Once again ideology trumps science. Go political correctness!!!
>You're the one insisting on inherent gender differences, NWO. Are you able to answer my question?
>Yes Scott, my secret goal of protecting male abusers. This stuff is priceless. Is there a shop down at the local mall where I could buy some male abuser protection gear?
>Sure I can answer your question Mike, I would jump right in there and either get my ass kicked or win the day. I was trying to avoid using man as the oppressor in my analogy, but I guess it was too good of an opportunity for you to bash men as evil oppressors. My bad, I should have just went right for men being filthy oppressive swine. I'll do better next time.
>"Yes Scott, my secret goal of protecting male abusers. This stuff is priceless. Is there a shop down at the local mall where I could buy some male abuser protection gear?"I never said anything of the sort. What I did say is that MRAs tend to have a view of a war between the sexes, where beating a woman may be considering acceptable because 'if she wants to be equal like a man, she can be beaten like a man'.I said you have an unfortunate view of gender. I never said that you want to protect abusers.Please attempt to read comments fully before responding to them.
>Hey!!! Maybe thats my problem, I should have said men are inherently evil, oppressive swine. Now theres something we can all get behind.Hehe, I said get behind. Must be my evil male self rearing it's ugly head.
>Well Scott, I believe if a woman hits me I have the right to defend myself and hit her back. Would that be considered "beating" her? I mean if I'm not "allowed" to hit back, aren't I just a slave?