The dude at What Men Are Saying About Women – you may recall him as the inventor of the MRA two-dot period – remains my favorite illiterate MRA blogger. To be fair, the illiteracy is really just the icing on the cake of his ridiculous opinions. In a recent post he wrote about a new study that purports to show that there is more sex in countries with greater gender equality. (Probably true; the study itself, probably bullshit.)
Here’s the two-dot blogger trying to make some sort of point about it all:
Feminists have always promoted shagging as some type of recommended behaviour that should be allowed at random without limitation or indeed have any limits attached to it. Probably explains why most of the feminist mangina sites have little tags like “I support Porn” or “I support BDSM” as they would heartily agree that the promotion of free sex on demand would allow them unlimited access especially if there is a feminist female involved. Brainwashing does apparently have it positive side..
What surprises me the most is the lack of information concerning sexually transmitted diseases of all types. Those nasty disease like HIV or those others that munch your body at random. Not really something you want to be told after a night of debauchery with some slut feminist ( they promote themselves to be sluts now) willingly spreads her legs for some horizontal tango..
So apparently having more sex is bad because feminists..
And then you get AIDS..
And sentences should always be ended with not one but two periods..
because scarleteen doesn’t exist at all… (notice I use ellipses in the proper manner)
Feminists have always promoted shagging as some type of recommended behaviour that should be allowed at random without limitation or indeed have any limits attached to it.
I still don’t get why MRAs have such trouble with this concept. Feminists are fully in favor of limitations on sexual behavior, we just believe that those limitations should only be set by the persons having the sex.
But, just because I’m an accommodating guy, I’ll throw Christian J a bone:
People of the internet, hear me! As you go about having fun sexytime that is limited only by what you and your partners want, don’t forget to use protection against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy. Condoms work well. Thank you. Please return to your debauchery.
I have to say, the only people I have ever seen recommend using latex gloves, plastic wrap, condoms or other barrier methods for all genital contact are feminists. Also the only people I’ve ever seen recommending that people get tested every three months to a year, depending on risk factors, for the full panoply of STIs are also feminists.
Personally, I get tested every six months and use condoms for sex, but I would rather take the STI risk and taste my partner when I go down on them.
@ Pi Male:
I think it’s because they’d like to see a return to Days of Yore, when sex was shameful and the expectation was that a woman would be sexually exclusive with her husband. They’re bitterly nostalgic that society and the law has changed so that they no longer have control over a woman’s sexual agency.
The guy must be a closeted gay and he’s very jealous that other people get laid. And given that he’s obsessed by the idea that women give sex only to guys that pay them, he must have sex only with prostitutes.
Ozy: When a new patner gets added, I get tested. So does the new partner. Depending on all the other factors, we decide about condoms.
I’ve been having sex for going on 30 years, and never had an STD. Amazing, I know; what with my pretty much only having sex with women who like sex and don’t think they need to “save it” for marriage.
This is as bad as the “homosexuality gives you disease!” homophobe types whose arguments, if taken seriously, promote lesbianism if one could choose their sexual orientation and wants to base that choice on odds of getting an STI.
As with the homophobes, this misogynist argument backfires because if people can decide their sexuality and want to base it on disease risk, once again women would be better off choosing women.
Disclaimer: I’m not arguing that men have cooties, but that the biology of different sex acts bring about different risks of spreading STIs.
If society would be less prudish about sex, people would probably be less embarrassed to buy condoms, use condoms, and get tested and treated for STI’s. I think he probably wants to try the abstinence only education approach of shaming people and lying about the efficacy of condoms. That approach has already been tried, and it failed. We should learn from that mistake and try a more realistic approach to sex.
Pecunium: It’s amazing how much being responsible reduces STI risks!
Aside from his claim that feminists don’t care about STDs, Mr. What-Men-Are-Saying doesn’t even try to explain why this supposed increase in consensual sex is a bad thing. He’s filled with contempt at the very idea of a woman who “willingly spreads her legs for some horizontal tango”. I know it’s been said before, but eliminating slut shaming would be a big step toward solving the “men can’t get laid” problem.
Lies! The only way to reduce STI risks is to repress all sexual feelings until you marry someone who has an incentive to lie about their sexual history..
Yes, because AIDS tends to triumph in countries with loose sexual mores and high indexes of gender equality…
Jesus fuck, it’s like these people have no concept of empirical evidence.
eliminating slut shaming would be a big step toward solving the “men can’t get laid” problem.
These guys believe that the more women have sexual freedom, the more women will fuck other guys. Basically MRAs want everybody to be sexually miserable like them.
Feminists have always promoted shagging as some type of recommended behaviour that should be allowed at random without limitation or indeed have any limits attached to it.
What’s he proposing? o_O What sorts of limits is he proposing? xD
@kendra:
agreed completely. We have a really messed up society where the smallest nipple is an unsightly scene, but being tortured on screen is fiiiine. Even rape is considered more appropriate than consensual sex, at some level anyway.
@no more mr nice guy:
I think it’s more like they want to reverse the rolls, have women slut shamed and have their sex glorified. That way they can bang whomever they want, but women will only ever have a single partner, which is them.
Ami: Probably no sex until marrage and then monogamy after? Or maybe no sex until a committed relationship hopefully leading to marriage?
All this talk of “limiting sexuality” reminds of me NWO’s rant about how it’s unfair to let women run around looking all sexy in public, but not let men rape people. He draws some sort of equivalence between the “transgressions” of women and men, even though one is a violent crime and the other just pisses off a few horny people.
I wonder if a similar thought process is going on here: “I’m only allowed to fuck people who want to fuck me, so let’s put arbitrary limits on the other half of humanity, despite the fact that they are also only allowed to fuck people who want to fuck them.”
Probably no sex until marrage and then monogamy after? Or maybe no sex until a committed relationship hopefully leading to marriage?
Boooring. XD
I’ll admit that it’s been awhile, but I seem to recall that my health classes all covered STIs and how to prevent them. But I was lucky enough to live in a district that had fairly comprehensive sex ed – I know not all places cover such icky details nowadays. But even if you were taught in high school that you could get an STI by looking at someone (an exaggeration, but only a little), information about HIV/AIDS and other STIs is pretty widely available online. Or does this guy think that all STI info is tainted by feminists who do nothing but have sex (despite being ugly and hairy and unfuckable) and eat bonbons?
@briget
My thoughts exactly! Except Scarleteen is fun by feminists, and all feminists want men’s dicks to rot off . or something…
I think it’s more like they want to reverse the rolls, have women slut shamed and have their sex glorified. That way they can bang whomever they want, but women will only ever have a single partner, which is them.
The problem is that if you shame women, men will not be able to bang whomever they want, they will be able to bang only prostitutes – which was the case before the sexual revolution. Before the sexual revolution men were not marrying at 40 after having sex with 200 women, they married at the beginning of their twenties with limited sexual experience. I think that MRAs hate men around them that have sex and they want to shame women because these women have sex with these guys – it’s like these racists that believe that women are race traitors. MRAs see women as sexual resources and they believe that if the limit the resource, they will punish other men.
You’re lucky, Kathleen. My high school sex ed had an abstinence only class done by a woman who used propaganda from the Christian Coalition in her class. For a person like me, that was a nightmare. We heard the old rose analogy, where the teacher pulls the petals off a rose, and each petal represents a woman having sex with a new partner. After the petals are gone, she asks the class, “Who wants this rose now that it’s lost its petals? Why would a man want a woman who throws away her value and honor?” Another way of doing the lesson is where the teacher gives away pieces of pizza, and you’re left with an empty box.
In her lessons, it is the assumption that everyone is straight, and that marriage is the only path to happiness in life. All sex is described as piv, as if no other type existed. The teacher said that if people feel too horny, eloping as teens is a good way to avoid sinning. All of the responsibility was put upon girls for saying no to sex because “boys will be boys”. This was a public school, too, not a private, religious one. It still makes me mad today just thinking about it.
Also! Maybe I’m horribly misinformed about STIs, but what are the “those others that mucnch your body at random”? Afaik the only ones that can’t be cured with a good round of antibiotics are HPV, Hep B, HIV, herpes and some strains of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea. HPV and the hep both have vaccines. So the other candidates (given that he mentioned HIV already) are herpes and antibiotic-resistent gonorrhea. Herpes is… really not that big a deal (I mean, sores suck and it limits your sexual options somewhat, but it’s not exactly a life sentence) and while antibiotic-resistent gonorrhea is scary it’s also really rare. Also, neither of them have symptoms that could be reasonably described as “munching.”
I dunno, I’ve been throwing away my value and honor quite avidly, and somehow people still want to date me.
Oh yeah, she also taught that condoms are worthless because they have giant holes in them. She claimed that the holes in condoms are 4,000 times larger than a sperm cell, so they could not prevent either pregnancy or STD’s. The sad effect of these lies is that some teens would end up having sex without condoms because they believed they weren’t effective anyway.