Most manosphere misogynists lean to the right. But every once in a while I’ll run across an MRA who considers himself a man of the left. Today, while perusing the Spearhead, which generally appeals to some of the more reactionary MRAs and MGTOWers, I ran across a most intriguing example of the Manosphericus lefticus.
“Davani” describes himself as “a socialist and a supporter of women’s rights,” explaining that
the last thing I want is some kind of uneducated, barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen woman who I can’t even have a conversation with on any intelligent topic.
But Mr. D is a most unusual sort of socialist-feminist indeed. You might call him a Socialist of the Penis. Or, rather, a Socialist for the Penis. As he explains,
I am all for egalitarian culture (e.g., expanding women’s rights), but only if the women themselves are egalitarian. In the US, much more so than anywhere else, they are not.
So what exactly is wrong with these American women, in Davani’s mind? Well, he reports sadly,
The women here are very shallow, and use their rights to penalize, rather than include, the majority of “average” men who don’t make the cut in terms of their looks. Susan Walsh, the author of “Hooking Up Smart,” reports that on US college campuses, 80% of the girls have sex with 20% of the guys.
Oh dear, not this again.
In effect, giving American women contraception enables them to jump on the sex carousel but not with most guys — only with a small number of ‘alpha males’ at the top. This is the problem right here. Moreover, this is at no cost to themselves, because they can abort any pregnancy, while discriminating against the “lesser” males.
Davani is outraged by this blatant elitism on the part of women. He would prefer a far more egalitarian form of pussy distribution – from each, according to her pussy; to each, according to his penis’ needs.
[I]n other countries, women wouldn’t use contraception to essentially eliminate 80% of the guys. Family planning would benefit BOTH the guy and the girl. The girl isn’t looking to hook up with the top athlete or celebrity, she’s also very interested in other, regular guys, who have other good qualities, even if they don’t necessarily pass the “looks” test.
But in America, alas, women have become monopoly capitalists of the vagina.
American women are more shallow and discriminatory in their preferences than most other women, and this has to be taken into account. “Feminists used to get support from men by promising we’d all be getting laid for free” — in a normal society, yes; in this country, only the 20% at the top would be getting laid for free in this context.
So, false advertising, as well.
To the barricades, men! Vive la penislution!
Well, ladies like a wide variety of folks…..My best girl friend likes fluffy guys and by conventional standards she is very pretty. My other girl friend prefers the tall thin type. Apparently, though they must be sleeping with the top 20% of males……
And me…Well, I must be one of the worst of the bunch because I’m a feminist that doesn’t have sex at all……Just screwing all those men out of their much needed (and apparently earned?) vagina time.
And my friend who is a lesbian must be the worst of all. After all her vagina should be open to all these dudes out there too. Though I assume she can’t possibly be included in the statistic that only has sex with the top 20% alpha males (she must be part of the 20% of women who don’t).
Of course according to this guy women shouldn’t get to choose who they want to have sex with. They should choose him because all of his “stellar” qualities (like what?).
Sorry Mr. D. You don’t get to tell us who to have sex with. Part of womens rights that, you are so thoroughly for, is are right to our OWN bodies. I’m certain that men wouldn’t like it if we told them to stop having sex with women they found attractive and showed them women they didn’t find attractive and told them to have sex with them instead.
Besides I don’t I would find the science of the study he is citing as….. valid.
There are two things I really don’t get about this “Sexual Marxism” thing. First, why would someone want to put themselves in the position to have to have sex with someone that they find sexually incompatible? Second, why would anyone want to have sex with someone that was assigned to them, someone that did not actually want to have sex with them on their own? The first seems awful, but survivable, and the second seems so awful, so nightmarish, that I don’t think I could do it (I mean physically, and not to put too fine a point on it, I don’t think I could get an erection with someone that did not want to have sex with me.)
Really, why would anyone want to have sex with someone that was lying back and thinking of Karl? Would anyone want to be on either side of that equation? This is quite literally an Orwellian concept, why would anyone want to make it reality?
@Fatman
Because they’re not getting any now and are under the misguided assumption that any is better than none?
Quick tip: No sex is better than bad sex.
“There’s nothing better than good sex. But bad sex? A peanut butter and jelly sandwich is better than bad sex.”
-Billy Joel
Ok, which definition of hypergamy are we using here?
If we use the anthropology definition one could maybe try to draw a link from hypergamous ladies and society putting pressure on men to maintain or increase their social standing by working (overly?) hard, which the leads to despair when they make little to no progress in the corporate world, leading then to Japan’s suicide problem. Maybe, but it’d be a bit of a stretch and it’s not the type of hypergamy you clowns are complaining about here. No, we appear to be talking about the whole “hypergamous basically means promiscuous. But when I say hypergamous, it makes me sound smarter” idea.
I see people are massively forgetting Romania’s 1966. *shudder*
@chibigodzilla
Must we also educate these idiots in the existence of Japanese love hotels? I mean, for a country that made “sexing up young people who have no privacy” a lucrative industry, it’s quite baffling to think Japanese men are massively… wanking to robots?
Ok, look, we can criticize as much as we want, but in the end there is a problem here that requires serious consideration- some Dudes are not getting laid. Let’s just check the attitude at the door and start coming up with solutions to this problem, because as we all know from movies it is every (white male) Dude’s god given right to have sex with a woman of hollywood-standard good looks. So, ladies, I propose a sex lottery- for every person you have sex with because you wanted to/had an emotional connection with/had actual chemistry with/were just curious and looking for fun, etc., you are required to enter your name into the Pity Fuck Lottery. Every week, dudes who feel they are missing out on their entitled-sex quota can buy a Pity Fuck Lottery ticket, and some random lady’s name will be drawn from a hat for him to get his deserved sexy-time from. Oh, and ladies- don’t forget to pretend you are actually into the dudes who draw your name from the sex lottery- we don’t want to make the dudes uncomfortable.
Hi, Eurosabra. We still don’t care.
Also I see someone is bringing up the herbivore guys again, and as usual they’re ignoring all the many social dynamics that created that situation. 20+ year recession? Incredibly rigid and outdated model of romantic relationships? Salaryman culture that leads to men literally dropping dead from overwork? Bosses who insist that you go out drinking with them after work, so if you’re a straight guy the only women you’re going to be meeting in the evenings are hostesses? A culture that makes it really hard for men and women to meet and get to know each other in general? Workplaces that are heavily gender segregated, which is a bit inconvenient if you’re straight, trying to find a partner, and you work 12+ hours a day? The fact that women had very little say over any of these things other than the rigid model of relationships, and even there the blame is shared? Who cares! It’s all about how those evil bitches won’t sleep with shy nerds and are thus causing the downfall of society.
Hypergamy makes women into deers.
@CassandraSays
Thank the goddess in all women that women are blameless.
Isn’t requiring the hapless betas to buy the ticket MISANDRY? Shouldn’t it just be given to them, when they topple the feminist overlords who control the world and are simultaneously so stupid and irrational they can’t park a car?
Also I have to point out that some of the men who’re currently getting rolled up into the concept “herbivore” (especially by MRAs and American geeks trying to use the herbivore guys to make a point) are actually hikikomori, which is a separate issue (that impacts women too).
(Random – I have a good friend from Hokkaido whose attempt to translate the hikikomori concept into English resulted in her coming up with the term “indoor person”, which is funny in the context of a conversation about hypergamy because the guy who she was trying to describe is a ridiculously good looking pop star who has social anxiety and hikikomori tendencies. His tendency to hide in his house is definitely not a result of women not being willing to sleep with him. So, again, these kinds of social phenomenon are complicated and really not about evil women punishing beta males by refusing to have sex with them.)
@drst- Shit, of course, that’s my burning hatred of men shining through, as it always does. In fact, requiring them to even make the effort to get the ticket is misandry- we should do the draw and just present ourselves at their door, ready and willing to get to business. unless they aren’t into us, of course.
Presumably we should also check the entitled dude database and determine their preferences, fetishes, etc, so we can turn up with the right outfit on/furry handcuffs/whatever. Also if the database indicates that we’re probably not their type it’s our obligation to find them another partner and get her to their home in a timely manner.
Uh, I think Money has some kind of point when it comes to “more people interested in you -> you become pickier”. I don’t think this is true about everyone, but it was certainly true about me.
When I was younger and lived in a village everyone knew I was mental, so no one wanted to date me. And I was pretty desperate. When some guy (who came from a different town) did ask me out I said yes though I was zero attracted to him, but wow, someone asked me on a date! That’s the level of desperation I had. Like, takes showers, has some VERY basic level of social competence and about my age, let’s go!
Eventually, moved to the big city, not the same mental illness stigma, and wow, suddenly popular! And with that, pickiness went up. Which is not to say that I was assigning numbers to people or anything… Just that I wouldn’t immediately go out with ANYONE, but only people I was somewhat attracted to.
Even after I gained some popularity I was ready to have sex with pretty much ANY WOMAN, since I met so very few bi/lesbian women, while I was way pickier when it came to men, where I had much more people to choose from.
And yeah, obviously this is a bit pathetic. But I can look back at my younger self and see that this is the way things were. Certainly my experiences can’t be UNIQUE?
So his argument is that since “hot women” (whatever that means) only have sex with “alphas” (I’m guessing…”hot men” by his standards?), that means that “normal guys” never get to have sex?
Hmm, well, I guess that’s news to ever single guy I know who is neither an “alpha” nor “Brad Pitt Hot” per this whining tirade who has also managed to have a decent number of female sex partners and/or relationships with women.
Forgive me for not having much patience with this asshat. I’m having contractions and I’m pretty sure I’m gearing up to go into active labor with my second child- a child, by the way, whose father (my husband) is the sexiest man in the world to ME, but who definitely does not fall into the “Brad Pitt Hot” bullshit of the MRAs.
The question you gotta ask is this: Why WOULDN’T these men want their sex partners to think that they are attractive and wonderful?
Why do MRAs seem to be hung up on the idea that sex isn’t something that women have for fun, pleasure and love, and that instead, it’s some kind of commodity to be exchanged for protection from saber toothed tigers and money/resources on the part of some guy?
It’s insulting to everyone involved, including the guys who are supposedly “getting some.” The idea that none of your sex partners actively WANT you other than for some roundabout scraps of money, power and protection that has nothing to do with sex and desire is profoundly insulting.
I think the sabertooth thing is pretty much under control now, so go ahead and have sex for fun and intimacy all you like.
Congrats on your new arrival, and to daddy duality too.
If it ever came down to it I’d rather take my chances with the tigers than rely on a horrible person for protection.
Let’s also not forget that not having sex has never led to anyone DYING from “sex deprivation.”
Sex is not some kind of THING that people have a right to “get”. Sex is an interaction, a relationship between people (not necessarily a long-term relationship but a way of relating between those who are sexing it up). The sooner people start seeing sex in this manner (instead of the bullshit transaction model), the better.
There’s also this amazing behavior called “masturbation” that can help release sexual pressure and clean out the prostate for any guy who is having trouble finding a sex partner.
I had many, many orgasms before I was ready for or ever engaged in any interpersonal sexual interactions, thanks to masturbation. I suspect that if having sex with actual “average guys” was so gross for women, that in the absence of birth control, instead of the “fuck alphas” plan, it would be the “pleasure the self” plan (or alternatively, “try out bisexuality” plan, since MRAs seem to think that sexuality is not based on physical desire for some reason). So wouldn’t said “average guys” still lose out unless one were to enforce a strict patriarchal system in which all the men could choose women like livestock and then force them into sexual relationships?
Doesn’t sound “egalitarian” to me.
PS: There is no fucking way in hell that I’m willing to go through this level of pain and discomfort (pregnancy and labor) for someone whose progeny I’m not 100% willing to see through from conception to adulthood.
@duality: In my early twenties I had a pregnancy scare with a conservative fundie. It successfully spooked me away from sleeping with anyone whom I couldn’t see raising a kid with my genetic material.
” I do find men approaching, ie. trying to flirt or show any level of sexual interest, creepy”
Obviously men should never show any level of sexual interest to anyone, isn’t it so? Or was it restricted to public places?
@dualityheart, Yay, the baby is coming. I hope the pain and discomfort are over soon, and a tiny little feminist is soon slumbering in your arms adorably.
Right, but that indifference needs to extend to legal, consensual situations in which men are advantaged as well.
@ talacaris- Normal rules of social engagement apply to flirting with strangers. If it is weird to walk up to a person and begin a personal conversation with them (which it frequently is), then it is probably weird to walk up and start flirting. If there is some sort of ice breaker, like an actual legitimate reason to talk to someone, it can be less weird. If you feel like breaking norms of social etiquette, like coughing without covering your mouth or walking around with nipple tassles on or striking up personal conversations with strangers, some people won’t care but many will be weirded out and wish you would stop. All part of finding your footing in the grown-up world.