>
 |
| 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.
>I'm really not understanding the leaps of logic you're taking, NWO.I'm not a gender essentialist, I don't believe all men are 'x', whether 'x' is being good at art or being evil, oppressive swine.If you've run out of arguments for your cause, then commenting about how you think we're all manhaters won't really help you look like the logical, scientific person in the crowd.
>"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?"Presumably, yes, I'd say you would have every right to do whatever to get an attacker, male or female, off of you so you can get away.I never said that wasn't the case.You're seeing a double-standard that isn't there, at least for me.
>One of Scott's posts got caught in the spam filter; it's worth scrolling up to read.
>Scott, good and evil aren't attributes you're born with, they're qualities you choose to be. Totally distinct from each other.
>"Scott, good and evil aren't attributes you're born with, they're qualities you choose to be. Totally distinct from each other."I know, that's what I said.Glad to see we can agree on something.
>I agree completely with your last post Scott @April 21, 2011 8:57 PM.Wow, it took a long time for one lousy agreement. Try tossing out that statement to Big Daddy Guv and see where it gets ya. I'm sure Biden would have a heart attack. Hmmm, food for thought.
>Are you screwin with me Scott, cause it's weirding me out. I'm evil remember. The list of my negative traits by the commentors is endless. I'm quite stupid, my math skills suck, my historical knowlege is faulty. I'm basically a big old poopyhead. And I expect to be treated as such. So stop agreeing, or you might be next.
>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.Made me lolgenius and math wizzardMade me roflWow dave that was harsh, What'd I ever do to you? Are you trying to blind me?He actually followed the link? Made me roflmao!I think we're nearing the "feed the troll until he explodes" threshold.
>Still waiting for the debunking, but still not holding my breath.
>For what it's worth, Wizzard was a popular glam rock group in England in the 70s. Here's one of their hits,As you can see, the standard of "glamorous" necessary to be a glam rocker was fairly low; Wizzard's Roy Wood was a large hairy beast, as were many other glam rockers at the time. I rather doubt that a woman of similar unglamorousness could have made it as a glam rocker at the time. Suzi Quatro, for example, looked quite hot in her leather jumpsuits; imagine Roy Wood in such a jumpsuit and you'll see what I mean. All that said, Roy Wood wrote some pretty fucking catchy tunes.
>Also: in case that all isn't incentive enough to lick the link: the bassista) has a spectacular moustacheb) is chewing gumc) is wearing giant angel wingsd) is on motherfucking ROLLER SKATES
>Also, Roy Wood is apparently Hagrid. The drugs really must have been great back then, weren't they?However, I must insist that the proper association for "wizzard" is Rincewind from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. He's a talentless coward, so it seems apropos.
>NWO comes here because he's lonely and needs attention. He'll present the same "arguments" in every thread forever, because he really has nothing better to do and you guys fall all over yourselves to humor him. You can't have a discussion with broken record, if you really want to "stick it" to him…ignore him. What he wants most is your attention, negative or positive.
>@NWOSlaveI agree. If a woman strikes you, then you are allowed to respond back with an equal amount of force. (I have had to hit a woman in line of work. A patient bit me to the bone and I was scared I would lose it not to mention she grabbed a scalpel from a stitch trolley. It was either get cut or punch woman. I picked punch woman and then we all jumped her and sedated her. Acceptable reason, I would have hit a man who did that equally hard) There are acceptable reasons to hit someone. What MRA's want is for some of the non-acceptable ways to hit someone to become acceptable.
>Aw man, I had this whole awesome comment only to see the words "Sorry, blogger cannot complete your request" or summat.. Argh..Basically, it comes down to self defense, which succinctly solves the problem without couching it in terms of "Man has a right to hit woman" or vice versa.It seems that part of the problem with the MRM is that a lot of it is reactionary. When I first heard feminist dialogue like "shrodinger's rapist" or "[male] privilage," my gut reaction was… reactionary. "I'm not a rapist!! I'm not privilaged!" It comes from not wanting to be the bad guy, not wanting to accept a seemingly pejorative label.Look at it this way though; women want to have the same privilage! I don't think I'm overgeneralizing when I say that women want to be able to socialize without fearing rape or abuse, want to be able to have their opinions heard fairly without having them dismissed because of their gender. These are all part of the "privilage" that males, on the whole, enjoy, and women want it too.My guess is that NWOSlave is stuck with the idea that, because women's rights are being championed, male's rights are being diminished. Not so! And yet it color's his (correct me if I'm wrong about the gender) thinking to the point where he feels that feminism is out to get him. It's similar to what I was stuck on when I first started thinking about feminism, and its what I finally got away from.Or he could be trolling… Who knows.
>NWO: Let's recap your answers to me. You claim you "single-handedly designed" two devices to do two completely different things, then you went ahead and confused development with manufacturing and engineering design with graphics design. You also essentially claimed that you "single-handedly" created something to manufacture something else that has been manufactured since the early 1900's. Even assuming that what you are saying as true, inasmuch as you didn't claim you designed a new process, at most you improved on equipment that someone else invented earlier. And even that is belied by your characterization of what is supposedly a development job as a "manufacturing" job.Additionally, you've claimed you designed a "machine" for performing chemical analysis despite the fact that you do not have even the most basic background in chemistry.I know a man who frequently boasts about "designing" things. In reality, he is a low-level and completely replaceable manufacturing worker. What he calls "design" actually involves using fairly uncomplicated software on a piece of equipment he certainly had no role in developing, and calibrating that equipment to specs that he didn't develop either. McGyver, my foot.In other words, I call your (feeble) bluff. So once again: how come you've never produced any great art, music, literature, architecture or scientific breakthroughs, and why should someone as mediocre as you get credit for what others have done? But please, please — don't regale me with stories of how you once needed to get from point A to point B and single-handedly invented the wheel.
>"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."Try posing that question to yourself while picturing yourself in a woman's shoes. How would you feel, personally, if I told you to abandon all hope of ever attaining excellence in any field other than homemaking-slash-babysitting and to spend your entire life in perpetual awe of me and my accomplishments? That's what men have been telling women for eons. That's what you just told the ladies here. It still sounds just as hollow and patronizing as the first time, no matter how well-intentioned.You also insinuated that we men cannot cope with competition from women. That it somehow drives us completely batty. For many men, that is not an inaccurate assessment. Why do you think that women have been kept out of Olympic Ski Jumping? Might it have something to do with the fact that having a female body does not preclude one from attaining the highest scores possible in that sport? Anyway, I digress.As a fellow man and a wannabe novelist, I applaud you for your engineering accomplishments, even though I spare little of my boundless wrath for both Motorolas and Fords. Shitty phones, shitty cars. Thank you. Thank you so very much for both. I think I could cry.Oh, what? You wanted to hear that applause from a woman instead of a man? Are women merely walking applause-engines who exist only to congratulate men at every opportunity? If we were to replace all women overnight with loudspeakers on caterpillar tracks that play canned laughter and applause, would you even be able to tell the fucking difference?Or, are they perhaps less than that to you? Are they like a floor-standing mirror; merely a reflection of your own interests and beliefs? Mere echoes of your supposed greatness, expected to imitate – but never truly match – your every motion?Or could they be even less than that? Mere phantoms and figments? Living caricatures?(Continued in next post)
>Sorry, bud. You're going to have to learn sooner or later that women are people too. They've got silly human things like egos, passions and libidinous feelings, as do we all.The desire to compete is not restricted to men alone, but is in fact shared by all sexes and virtually all organic species. Attempting to claim a monopoly on it is contemptible indeed.Sure, men and women are different in many ways, but we're a great deal more similar than you may think. I know. The idea is terrifying to most heteronormative males, and I think I have a good idea why. Through deep introspection and thorough research on the topic, I have determined that men are – quite often – genuinely ashamed of sex and sexual desire. So, we seek to possess or control it. Restrict it. Limit it. We use everything from religion to government as tools in order to do so. By and large, we can't even fathom how women could see their sexuality as a form of self-liberation, so we frame it as defilement instead. Sounds like the typical feminist line, right? But there's more to this story. You see, men are not only incredibly afraid of being "reduced" to women-analogues (a kind of classical Freudian fear of penetration or domination by a male), but we also hold a deep, primal fear of the psychological blending of the sexes. Heteronormative males are afraid of having sexual relations with a woman who is possessed of a male psyche or anything remotely similar, which they fear would make them homosexual. So, they go out of their way to define a woman as "everything that is not male" in order to cope with the existential terror that they would otherwise feel. The reason why this makes men fearful and upset is because of their human empathy that they must put aside in order to reproduce. Think about it. If you impregnate a woman, you're putting her through a lot of pain and humiliation just to bring another human being into this world. Now, try and imagine that very same woman you've impregnated with the mind and the ego of a man.Suddenly, you're overtaken with horror. "Oh god! What have I done to my best friend!?"And so, men are forced to be callous, thick-skinned sadists simply to perpetuate the species, and women are expected to go along with it and hope for the best. That's pretty much our existence in a nutshell.It pained me to write all that. It really did. Because, to be honest, I've grown up seeing my fellow man as a bunch of self-aggrandizing pricks without even one iota of empathy, compassion or even basic human decency. They advertise themselves as the best thing since sliced bread while stripping everyone else around them of their dignity and their humanity in order to survive. Pathetic animals.It's enough to make me a jaded misanthrope, and I'm not even of legal drinking age yet. One more month, and I can finally taste liquid bliss.
>I stand corrected about the washing machine. Oddly enough, by your own source, NWO, so do you. The correct answer in regards to the washing machine is "we do not know who did it or what sex they were". I was mistaken about this detail, but it does bolster my earlier point about the historical difficulty pinpointing invention and the assumption of systems which create a male default.I also want to point out, NWO, that the rad femmes who think men are oppressors due to biology agree with you about biological gender determinism. Kudos on that one. The mainstream psycology and neurology fields, however, do not support the simple biological determinism you parrot.
>I don't see any feminists here saying that a man isn't allowed to hit a woman in self defense, if she has hit him or is threatening him with a weapon. I think some of those MRAs, though, think it is good to hit women for making them mad. My aunt's ex husband gave her a concussion when she said she was too tired to cook one night. That was not self defense. My cousin's boyfriend threw her on a sidewalk and caused her to suffer pregnancy complications when she said she wanted to end the relationship. They used their obvious size and strength advantages to gain the upper hand against women. Why should we protect abusive men like that just because some men are hit by women?The MRAs keep talking about abused men, but their answer to the problem is to say it okay to beat women. Two wrongs don't make a right. If they want to argue that nobody should hit anybody else, then I'll agree. If they want to make a rule that men can hit women for any trivial reason, then they can go fly a kite.
>I kinda wonder, NWO, why you haven't started talking about the "inherent" genetic differences between black men and white men:http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspxKinda makes you wonder what exactly we're supposed to do with that information, doesn't it (besides shipping your job overseas to a genetically superior race/satire)? Assuming that "men and women are different," in whatever ways you want to decide are relevant, what am I supposed to do about it? Vote differently? Stop voting? Shoot up a post office? What?
>Oops sorry for the multiple post, browser just flaked. 🙁
>I was over at theonion and saw this http://www.theonion.com/articles/goddamn-it-the-neighbors-are-silently-going-at-it,19896/ it reminded me of AC101202's statment, so I figured I would share.
>I've been reading off and on for a while but it was DesertRose who inspired me to finally post.Good to finally see someone around here with the guts to dish it out like that. Let's hope she comes back.These guys are evil, not just funny and amusing, but EVIL, and they're treated as if they have valid opinions that one can actually debate with. They do not, one cannot, and they should be treated like the evil scum that they are.
>Weren't we talking about porn? I think we should start talking about porn again.So. What's your favorite porn site? I'm torn between HomoEmo (alternative gay boys having quite enthusiastic buttsex) and the Crash Pad (queer feminist porn with Jiz Lee, who is for my money one of the hottest porn stars alive).