Apparently, or so I’ve learned from the manosphere, every single thing that women do is designed to torment men. Yesterday, we learned that women with jobs are leeching off of men just as much as women without jobs.
Further proof of female perfidy can be found in a recent post on the popular manosphere blog In Mala Fide with the provocative title Provocative Female Attire is an Assault Against Men. Guest poster Giovanni Dannato lays it out for anyone who needs convincing:
When a woman walks down a crowded sidewalk in revealing clothing, she is forcing herself on every man nearby.
The woman fully understands the powerful biological drives of men. She knows they cannot ignore her, not even if they want to.
Amazingly, the fact that a woman might show some cleavage does not automatically mean that she wants to have sex with every single man who sees her.
She has chosen to advertise herself to everyone passing by, but she is looking only for a few men. The wealthiest, the most famous, the most powerful men she can attract. …
There’s an old elementary school custom…when you bring something tasty to class, it’s understood that you should put it away unless you intend to share it with others. …
Likewise, a woman who puts her goodies blatantly on display is making false advertisements. Nobody supposes or expects that she could share herself with her entire audience—not even if she wanted to.
That’s right. Women are like gum. Or that pizza Spicoli had delivered to him in class in Fast Times at Ridgemont High that the mean Mr. Hand forced him to share with everyone. And if you gum-pizza-ladies are not willing to share yourself with every horny man (and, presumably, lesbian) who happens to notice you in your slut uniform, you are committing a terrible infraction.
Oh, sure, wearing a totally cute outfit is not specifically against the law, but, as Dannato reminds us,
looking for refuge in explicit written law is inherently disingenuous. …
[W]omen exposing themselves without intent to reciprocate the attention they attract is impolite and inconsiderate – an act of aggression in which they use the power of their sex as a weapon.
So how can men defend themselves against such evil feminine perfidy? By yelling “hey, whore! How much?” or “can I squeeze those titties?” or “Can you give me directions to Pussy Avenue?” Because street harassment – sorry, catcalling – is
a defense mechanism used by lower status men against women flaunting themselves publicly – for the benefit of millionaires only.
What else are men supposed to do?
[M]en are effectively strapped down, gagged, and muzzled while females can flaunt and taunt with impunity. For many men this pretty much sums up every single day of an entire lifetime at school and at work.
And women won’t even admit that when they put on a cute outfit and leave the house that they’re doing it to torment men.
Western Women don’t just abuse their incredible sexual power, they pathologically lie about their inability to understand the effects and implications of their actions. In fact, they seem to derive a sort of sociopathic pleasure from being able to sow unpleasantness and discord without consequence – all while playing innocent. They express their contempt and hatred for men even as they troll the populace for providers. Their enormous power comes without responsibility and they love it that way.
And now these evil women have come up with an even-more-dastardly-than-usual way to torment men “[i]n the most vengeful, derisive, and mocking way they know how.” Yep, you guessed it: The SlutWalks. Large groups of women tormenting men with sexy clothes in unison!
Apparently overwhelmed by contemplation of the sheer feminine evil of the SlutWalks, Giovanni ends his post abruptly at this point.
I admit I don’t have the patience to wade through the comments. If any of you do, please post any of your findings below.
EDITED TO ADD: Ironically, Ferdinand Bardamu (the guy behind In Mala Fide) aids and abets the evil sexy-woman assault on men with his own retro porn site Retrotic. NSFW, of course. And if Dannato’s post is to believed, not safe for straight men generally.
NOTE: This post contains sarcasm.
@NWO
“Wouldn’t it be kinda hard for a female in the animal world to mate with a male of the same species if he had a mushy dick?”
Not all animals require a penis and a vagina. Fish fertilize the egg outside of the female’s body.
NWO: I thought we went over biology 101?
Perhaps I was a bit too long-winded.
No, just wrong.
Poor women! Dressing is their only way to excite a male of their species to mate. THEY HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS! (Because men aren’t attracted to actions. Except actions of trains. Trust me, I’m an engineer, but not the kind that drives trains.)
Nature didn’t get it wrong, dude, you did. Charles fucking Darwin talked about sexual selection, particularly in relationship to birds. Unless you think biology has been corrupted with feminism since 1859…?
Oooh, Xanthe, are you a biologist? What do you think of group selection?
Let me google that for you. Oh wait, yes.
@Stoner
Feminist Critics is alright. I haven’t read that much of it but any blog that attempts to intelligently critique aspects of feminism without falling into the manosphere habit of claiming that all feminism is a massive conspiracy to enslave all men is worth my time to check out at least.
Snowy, that is the second time someone has called me MRAL here, first time i thought it was an IT networking term.
What does this even mean?
The closest I’ve got is “rape is natural because you can’t expect a woman to put herself on your dick.” I’m open to alternate explanations.
Please.
oh and interesting coincidence, I saw a post by MRAL at Feminist Critics here:
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2011/10/29/misandric-music-video-roundup-noh/
Hahahaha VoiP! I didn’t want to mention slash fics, it would probably make his brain explode XD
Sorry random6x7, I’m a mathematician first and foremost, so I’m relatively weaker in the practical sciences, but I can sniff bullshit pretty well, and you’re quite right: Darwin suggested kin selection as an evolutionary strategy back in the Origin of Species in 1859. I’m not well-informed enough to know which side of the group selection controversy has the rights of it! (Say, latter-day advocates of either side such as E.O. Wilson (pro), Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins (anti).)
Thanks, anyway. I should not be lazy and actually read some articles anyway, but it’s for a side point in a paper. I don’t want to waste a lot of time on it, but I’m fond of it.
How fascinating, I wonder why that could be.
Fact for the book o’ larnin’:
Humans devolve to lesser animals when they’re horny (and re-evolve when they are finished). This process is accelerated in women because their entire sexuality consists in the visibility of skin.
This one should really be appended to On the Origin of Species, I’m sure Darwin just forgot to put that one in.
I don’t know Snowy, enlighten me….
BTW, his comments on Feminist Critics seemed quite reasonable, even if contrarian to that of the original author’s post….
Also notice that Owly is implying that famous male authors, musicians, poets, scholars, etcetera are all devolved being because they have put so much into their action-sexuality that they cannot possibly go back.
Shh! Nobody tell him about peacocks!
Or seahorses.
Seraph: Or Bower Birds, or Birds of Paradise, or Magpies.
Or sea slugs.
Or 16th century men.
Or Guidos.
It’s funny. I don’t consider women dressing in a sexy manner to be assault. Rather, I consider it to be– what’s the word?–oh yeah, AWESOME. Since I want women to continue dressing sexy, I tend to avoid shaming them for dressing in that manner. Mind, I don’t expect it, since no other person exists solely to gratify my desires, but it certainly is a nice bonus.
Seriously, Slavey, what the fuck is your problem? If you don’t like looking at sexily dressed women, then don’t look at them. Don’t ruin it for the rest of us.
Thanks Captain!
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned before, but does anyone else think NWO is a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
I know I’ve said as much several times. He lacks the reasoning skills to understand how flawed his reasoning is. You can’t really argue with him. It’s like trying to play a game of chess with a guy who keeps throwing the pieces on the board and yelling “Yahtzee!”