Well, this is … interesting. So JohnTheOther has plopped out another rambling diatribe about evil feminists. This time he accuses them not only of “attacking male sexuality” but also (if I’m reading him correctly) of being a bunch of evil homophobes jealous that some men don’t want to have sex with women. You read this and tell me what you think he’s implying here:
Male sexuality is of course both demonized and treated as a form of predation, but also strictly limited to a narrow set of acceptable expressions. Outside of sexual identities which place men in positions to benefit women as sexual gate-keepers, masculine sexuality is generally condemned.
JTO would love to compare these alleged gay-man-hating feminists to the proudly gay-male-affirming Men’s Rights Movement. There’s just one problem: As even JTO has to force himself to admit, there are more than a few homophobic dudes lurking around in the Men’s Rights movement. As JTO acknowledges:
[T]here is a thread of opinion with a growing currency among some MRAs which rejects the legitimacy of men whose self identity and sexuality is gay or bisexual, or I suppose, transsexual.
JTO doesn’t like this, and says so:
[There] are men (and women) whose sexuality, either chosen or not, doesn’t conform to an acceptable standard – and some within the MRM would demonize them. Gentlemen and ladies – this is nothing short of stupid.
At what point does who an individual finds sexually attractive diminish their value as a human? How is it that a man whose preference doesn’t include vagina becomes less of a man? Conversely, are we going to pretend the sexual preferences of our female colleagues matter in the context of partnership in the fight for the human rights of men and boys?
So: JohnTheOther has explicitly decided to speak up in favor of “the gay agenda.” (Yes, that’s the phrase he used.) And he’s even included lesbians in the deal – something allegedly pro-gay MRAs often have trouble doing – even though he sort of suggests at the end that he’s only willing to accept lesbians who are also MRAs.
But, hey, baby steps, right?
Well, John, if you really want to toss the homophobes out of the Men’s Rights movement, you’re going to have to start with A Voice for Men itself.
If you go to read JTO’s whole post over on AVFM, you’ll see a couple of “featured videos” in the sidebar from longtime AVFM friend and contributor Bernard Chapin. One of them bears the intriguing title “Feminist Professor Gloats Over Lesbian Chic.” The description, presumably written by AVFM head honcho Paul Elam, reads:
Bernard’s on a roll here with this one. And you will be rolling to [sic] as he delivers another thorough fisking, Inferno style.
Watch the video, here or there, or as much of it as you can stand. As you’ll see, it’s basically eight minutes of gratingly “humorous” lesbian bashing from good old Bern – whose preferred term for “lesbian,” incidentally, is “lesbobo.” (Evidently adding an extra “bo” to the old slur “lesbo” is hilarious.)
Chapin has produced more than 1200 videos; this is one of the two that AVFM has chosen to feature.
You want to stand up to homophobia, John? Take down that video. Apologize for hosting it. Apologize for featuring it. Demand that Chapin apologize for it — or kick him to the curb.
Meanwhile, AVFM is helping the guy behind the website Artistry Against Misandry publicize and raise money for an upcoming event; Elam himself says he’s already sent along a hundred dollars. Here are some examples of the sort of “artistry” that’s featured on the site:
This second graphic is not only homophobic but confused: Chaz Bono is a trans man, not a lesbian.
Speaking of transphobia, AAM also hosts several videos by “Creativebrother,” one of which is this not-hot transphobic mess:
John, I suggest you ask your boss at AVFM to get his money back from Artistry Against Misandry. Because, here’s the thing: if you actively support hate like this, people might just get the impression you’re a hate site.
EDITED TO ADD: In the comments, Elam proudly announces his own support of the “gay agenda” as well. Well, with 0.1% of it.
I don’t like most gay activists very much, and I oppose 99.9% of what passes as gay activism, but I don’t think it is very smart to forget that part of the reason they were led astray is because most “normal” men never gave them the dignity of being regarded as a man.
Forget gay marriage, forget bullying, forget AIDS: apparently the only real issue for gay men is evil feminist ladies calling them “fags” for not wanting to have sex with them.
Elam also has a most interesting explanation of homophobia, at least against gay men:
Gay men are bashed, when all is said and done, because they are not of utilitarian value to women, and because they are perceived as not having enough strength to be of utilitarian value to the elites.
Yeah, that’s probably it.
What about homophobia against lesbians? That’s easy: “lesbobos” are just naturally ugly and hilarious.
I’ve read the book (be sad for me) and the baby breaks her back during the birthing and Edward chews through her stomach to get the baby out and then turns her into a vampire right as she dies, thus saving her at the last second. But yeah it does in all rights kill her. The baby is also born with teeth and a desire to drink blood, and is able to communicate by touching and sending thoughts. She grows very fast and is expected to reach approximate adulthood in 5-6 years and then stay that way forever and ever. As soon as the baby is born the werewolf falls in love with her and imprints her has his lifelong mate. Everyone is very happy about all of this.
Yeah, they were racing to catch him before sundown.
“So, the lesson is that helping oneself to women of conquered lands doesn’t always turn out so well.”
WTF? Don’t rape women because they might kill your children and make you eat them?
This is the WORST thing I have found in MRA land, and I’ve seen a lot. Don’t know how they deny being misogynists now.
This is extremely disturbing. Erk.
It’s always kind of blown my mind that Meyers was writing away and never thought “hmm, perhaps having a character fall in love with a newborn isn’t really as romantic as it seemed to me at first blush” and the editor never thought “maybe I should have a chat with her about this bit.”
ronalon42 (and Dracula) — ooook then…wtf is that shit? That’s the ending??
Dracula, re: Dracula — XD and thank you for explaining that
Fembot — one should also not eat one’s children lest she save one so the child can kill you — Cronus killed by Zeus (how many years of Latin and I still use the Greek names? >.<)
The series is mostly too boring to even complain about imo, except the whole birth thing. All of the fourth book was so full of WTF that I immediately threw the whole series away after reading it. The fourth book is still mostly extremely boring, without even a battle sequence, and all the of the good guys get absolutely everything they could possibly ever want so they can live as beautiful perfect super humans in love forever and ever and ever. That is where the Mormon thing becomes really apparent to me,
I really wanted the baby to be an evil demon they would have to kill. It creeped me out so bad. “I’m sorry I killed you mommy. I love you” Toothy smile.
I have to go brain bleach again after dredging that up.
Oh goodness, so it’s horribly written, really creepy, and happily ever after! How is this a best seller?! To prove that that means little when it comes to whether it’s any good?
brain bleach —
@NWO:
Your fear of gay people is so intense that you once said that homosexuals are fifteen times (15!) more likely to be a serial killer than a straight person. This kind of pathetic fearmonger puts you in league with Fred Phelps.
We also know that your sexual fantasies involve raping eight-year olds in bathing suits so stop pretending that you`re the rational one and we`re the crazy hatemongers. You`re a worthless little shit.
I find the thought of people who I find hideously unattractive having sex fairly repulsive.
Solution?
I *DO NOT THINK ABOUT IT*.
People can have the right to have all sorts of sex with all sorts of people that *I PERSONALLY* would not have sex with in said sort of way. But that’s *TOTALLY FINE* because *I AM NOT HAVING SEX WITH THOSE PEOPLE IN THOSE SORTS OF WAYS*.
I think the problem here is largely due to misplaced, self-entitled self-centered male-entitlement bullshit. These guys just CANNOT IMAGINE A WORLD in which sex is being had that THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN. Therefore, every sexual act MUST involve someone THEY would like to fuck who is fucking them in a way THEY want to be fucked. The thought that other people might ever possibly have sex who doesn’t fall into this criteria squicks them the fuck out and they can’t imagine that their moms, dads, cousin with the funny mole, or that morbidly obese lady on the bus could POSSIBLY be having sex at any point.
It’s like kids in elementary school who can’t imagine that anyone else can have a best friend in the whole world other than them, and if their best friend has any other friends, it shakes the foundation of their entire world and they freak the hell out.
Solution: Grow the fuck up and stop imagining yourself in every other sexual situation ever in the whole entire world. You’re not the montage scene in “Amelie” showing all the people orgasming. You’re a person, and you should mind your own damn business.
/end rant
Yes! Some JohnthePinegrove Porn!
Anytime you want to lay anymore J-Pi on me, I’m down.
hawt
————————————
So. The Twilight thing: men taking bullets for a girl for no particular reason.
Interesting since it’s clear he does so because he’s deeply attracted to her.
So who’s demonizing a male’s sexuality now? HUH? HUH? Answer me JTO!
“Mangina” anyone?
So Paul does say that het men not considering gay men real men makes teh gays into
wacktavists he can’t support, but then ofc het men are not to be held accountable for this
because utility to women, etc.
Once in awhile they touch upon some interesting points of patriarchy, but will never admit that it’s that. Somehow the logic leap goes from entrenched traditional behavior that might be tribal based to- FEMINISM. I mean- the magic of the MRM being able to bash Chivalry and ignore/ridicule the concept of patriarchy simultaneously? Get agents and take that show to Vegas, it’s amazing.
While I’m on mrm magic acts, a bit of a tangent here, I also appreciate the skillful -men are oppressed- men commit suicide- men are raped too /TRIGGER WARNING HA!! LOL.- juxtaposition.
Also some people eluded to JTO possibly being transphobic and only reluctantly mentioning trans people. No, actually he’s on board the ‘rad fems are transhaters and it’s the most disgusting thing ever’ (excuse for) hate-train on you tube, and I always wondered how he could do that in the midst of the company he keeps. The YT channel FinalJusticeMovement prides itself on being a trans bashing movement. Check out the channel and see the connection to AVFM and all those cave dwellers.
So back to the start, JTO says male sexuality is demonized. Hm, because I think what’s frowned upon sometimes is rape/rapey/sexual assault/assaulty/creepy.
So again A Voice For Abusers remains consistent in its duplicitous gaslighting agenda.
“I think the problem here is largely due to misplaced, self-entitled self-centered male-entitlement bullshit.” — in NWO’s case, with a large side dish of Fred Philps, in the Christian sense, not just the homophobic sense.
They basically think god granted them the earth, the rest of us are horrible sinner (or worse, are you hosting a demon?) — this is also how they deny global warming — god wouldn’t let that happen!! They are also goddamned obsessed with the idea that gay sex is what makes one gay, not who one is actually attracted to, which makes kissing a member of your gender actually fundamentally different than a member of what they’d call the opposite gender (I’m sick of reenforcing the gender binary to play along, and I grew up with this shit). But anything that doesn’t agree with their world view, and particularly anything that’s contra it, is a direct attack on “their way of life” (note that this is the same reason Americans use for going to war) — “if you aren’t with us you’re against us” is a common problem, holy shit did I get called a terrorist too often for disagreeing with Bush.
Definitely a load of “misplaced, self-entitled self-centered …-entitlement bullshit” — though in NWO’s case it seems to be male-entitlement; the Christian sense of entitlement, because god choose them, or something, the really out there ones get truly odd about Judaism; and some USA-centralism on the side. (Note how we had an entire discussion of law without naming countries? I only ever see other USA people doing that)
If that actually makes sense *have a virtual cookie* I’m going to go pass out now, only took 28 hours awake to be time for bed >.<
I can`t imagine anyone in the world who would put up for even a second with NWO`s filth. Even Phelps would be put off by his talk of enslaving women.
*munches cookie*
If they think that gay sex *makes* you gay, then how can they explain gay people who get married to opposite sex partners, actually have CHILDREN with them (hence they obviously had some sort of heterosexual sex), and yet many years later, amidst the possibility of being dragged under a truck by homophobic gangs of assholes and their entire lives being ripped apart, they finally “come out” and endure all the bullshit and the discrimination just to be gay?
Sounds like if that was a choice, it would be a no-contest. Everyone would be straight, white and male. But I’m sure that these yahoos would still find some way to differentiate themselves from everyone else and call themselves superior.
Reminds me of a cautionary tale by Dr. Seuss:
Where does the idea come from that men’s sexuality is condemned? For one, there are no derogatory names for sexually-active men as there are for women (whore, slut, etc.). Two, boys are typically encouraged to “sow their wild oats” whereas girls are encouraged to remain virgins until they are thirty. Their idea of being condemned probably is not being allowed legally to fuck underage girls. *shrugs*
@pangea- I’m guessing the “predatory” sexual behaviors that many of these guys exude are the behaviors that are condemned (and for good reason- they are unsexy on ANY gender).
The problem is that they miss the point that ANYONE can be predatory and creepy. Women can do it (and they get shamed by these self-same MRAs), and so can men. But when men do it, they want to get away with it because, ya know, privilege and it hurts their brains when they have to actually think about how their behaviors might possibly affect the outcome of something they want to do.
Most healthy male sexualities do not have to resort to predation and assholery or creeping around to enjoy and partake in a wide variety of sexual play and acts.
So to me, it seems like they delude themselves when they say that men’s sexuality is being condemned- in reality, if ANYTHING, our society condemns ALL male sexuality that doesn’t fall into a rigidly heterosexual, predatory sort of sexuality, which is the sexuality that these same MRAs are holding up as being “condemned” because they think that everyone should be heterosexual predatory males who engage in sexual exploits in this societally stereotypical way. So in reality, these men are scared- scared of a future of male sexuality that isn’t defined by guys puffing out their chests and negging women in order to guilt them into giving oral sex and anal sex on demand. They’re terrified that one day, someone will have sex in a way that isn’t hateful, hurtful and full of misogyny.
And that those other people out there might possibly enjoy it more than the nasty, degrading and putrid two-dimensional sexuality that they offer up as the pinnacle of what being a sexual male means.
And that, honestly, is probably enough for the average MRA’s head to explode at the mere thought.
Sunlight killing vampires is from Nosferatu.
@pangea:
Keep in mind that if you so much as express dislike of any of the crazy, misogynistic shit MRAs say, that makes you worse than Solanas.
Chapin has quite an extensive flag collection.
I mean he seems like a raging asshole who funnels his insecurities into distrust of women and gays, but hey, cool flags.
When gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell tried to get himself elected as a British Labour MP in 1983, he received a ton of homophobic abuse – and he observed that, much like Owly’s hate-filled screeds above, much of it went into similarly lip-smacking detail about what the correspondent imagined he got up to in bed – often in so much detail that paragraphs could be transplanted into a Literotica story and no-one would know the difference.
They’d also pull the same rhetorical trick as Owly – think of a practice that they personally found repulsive, assume that all gay people did it (regardless of whether the practice itself was either widespread or necessarily “gay”) and accuse Tatchell of taking part by association.
Not being a hate-filled bigot, I have a lot of gay friends, and I’m willing to bet a fair amount that very very few of them indulge in felching – as with anything involving contact between mouths and poop, it’s a minority interest to say the least. (Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with it if practiced by consenting adults who are aware of the health risks). So attempting to label all gay men as potential felchers is as meaningless to me as claiming that all lesbians are into fisting and all straights are into auto-erotic asphyxiation. And I could easily write similar shock-horror screeds condemning them as well.
So the fact that Owly is using this tactic specifically to damn gay men (specifically gay men, I notice, given that the practices he highlights generally require a penis capable of ejaculation) makes him a homophobe – and pretty much by definition.
To pick out one of the older comments, can I just point out that the werewolf who tore up his girlfriend’s face was NOT an abusive dick? It happened because she was nearby when he turned into a werewolf for the first time and it was a complete and utter accident. (I really like the the character– he’s one of the few Native American characters in the books who seems to actually care about his tribe’s traditions).
I recognize the problems inherent in the series, but they’re like literary Twinkies. 🙁
Yeah, in Meyerland, men may hurt or even kill women not because they’re EVIL, but because they just CAN’T HELP THEMSELVES. (I know, there’s no actual murder, but Edward goes on and on about how he COULD easily freak out and kill Bella.)
Now, have you ever read an interview with a therapist working with abusers? Zie will tell you that basically all abusers will say that they’re not evil or anything, they don’t like hitting their girlfriend, it’s just that when she really provokes them THEY CAN’T HELP THEMSELVES. Therapy for abusers almost always has to focus on making them understand that yes, they CAN help themselves.
In Twilight Edward constantly reminds Bella that he’s much stronger than her, that he could easily kill her if he lost control etc. So Bella makes it her own responsibility not to provoke him… She thinks about how she moves, even how she BREATHES. And Edward controls her in various ways, like stops her from seeing Jacob by wrecking her car, having his sister more or less kidnap her so he’ll know what she’s doing and stuff. Except for Edward being a vampire this is JUST LIKE a real-life abusive relationship – but Meyer portrays it as wonderfully romantic.
It’s horrifying that kids read this and imagine this is what real love looks like.
On a sidenote, I’m NOT bothered by the fact that vampires sparkle in sunlight. I mean, there are no sacred rules for writing vampires that all writers are obliged to follow. It’s already been pointed out that Dracula (as well as eighteen century vampire Carmilla) wasn’t hurt by sunlight, they only lost some magical powers in the sun. Nowadays, almost all vampires are. Some vampires are hurt by religious symbols, both Dracula and Carmilla and other vampires at that time were, but nowadays it seems more common for vampires to have no problem with crucifixes and stuff. The only thing all vampires seem to have in common over the centuries is that they need to get blood from some source (although some need human blood, others can live on animal blood, some need blood from a living being, others can live on “dead” blood etc), and they don’t age and die like people do. Except for that, it varies.
And well, Meyer isn’t a good writer in my opinion, but whatever, to each his own.
My big problem with the series is simply the abusive relationships.
>My favorite part in the history books is where the Huns come in
The Huns? As far as we know, those fellows rated class higher than gender though and the queens were important political figures, both in war and peace.
Plus Greeks, legend of the Amazons, no coincidence, ect.
And after all of that abstinence, Meyer doesn’t even allow Bella to enjoy the consummation of her marriage. She passes out and Edward finishes on her unconscious body. And she gets pregnant that first time. I believe the movie at least allows her to participate in the sex, but I refuse to watch that shit.