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!
To kitteh’s unpaid help: It was a wrong attribution. The Sexual Revolution, per se, was derived from The Pill and the Second Wave, separated by roughly ten years. What I’m talking about is an earlier phenomenon, which you can find discussed under The Playboy Philosophy, where women, without any selfish desire for their own pleasure or bourgeois concern for their own well-being, were supposed to find a mystical joy of “surrender” to a superior being who owed them neither love, loyalty, nor any guarantees in return. Fortunately, a part of this dreary period did overlap The Pill. The Sexual Revolution was part of the Second Wave, and consisted of the simple assertion that women could have sex for pleasure, without any mystical surrender or one-sided, doglike loyalty at all. That’s the part that the MRA’s and their female prudes are hissing like geese over to this day.
Thanks, reymohammed. I knew the era of the Beats you mentioned was before the Second Wave and sexual revolution, it was more the issue of a similar criticism being leveled at it than the ideas being similar I was thinking of. I didn’t know about the whole superior being garbology (gag) but had more in mind the matter of women ending up pressured for sex and told they’re wrong for not ‘putting out’. Sigh. Different ‘reasons’ will emerge for why we’re wrong if we do and wrong if we don’t, but the whole blame game is depressingly similar down the years.
If that reads rather incoherently I plead late night posting! 😛
The EXACT opposite is true and this has been proven again and yet again in research:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/02/22/ok-cupid-data-on-sex-desirability-and-age/
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/15/paula-england-offers-data-on-hook-up-culture/
http://jonmillward.com/blog/attraction-dating/cupid-on-trial-a-4-month-online-dating-experiment/
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/06/21/the-promise-and-perils-of-hook-up-culture/
Given that I don’t feel like wading into that cesspool: If anyone could just dump these links with that guy, I’d be much obliged. He’s likely too stupid to read and understand them though.
” My comments are entirely about being approached, as in hit on, by strangers”
That was not stated enough clearly in the comment. If so, then I will not take exception to that comment.
“Then it should be equaly obvious that your momentary arousal is your problem to deal with and that its childish to dump your issue into the lap of a complete stranger and pester them to deal with it.” well of course it is
“Just because it’s assumed in almost any contact via dating sites that sex will eventually happen if things work out that doesn’t mean that it’s reasonable or polite for the initial approach to be of the “wanna fuck” variety, or that that’s at all the same thing as an assumption that sex will eventually be on the menu. ” No that is not what I meant.. That is message that doesn’t refence sex is problably some expression of romantic/sexual interest.
How come it’s the right leaning/Libertarian types who are always crying for pussy redistribution, while leftist Manginas like myself espouse free market principles when it comes to casual sex and relationships? I believe it’s because these dudes are frauds who call themselves libertarians simply because they’re mad with the world for not getting them everything they believe they’re entitled to.
You know why you’re not getting laid boys? It’s because no woman worth her salt would put up with sniveling, whiny, petulant little boys such as yourselves. Think about this next time you blame a woman you have never met for being hypergamous.
Talacris, what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
Yeah, I’m so confused at all this goalpost-moving I’m not even sure what sport we’re playing.
The goal posts have moved so much I think we’re playing six blocks from the stadium.
“Talacris, what exactly is the point you are trying to make”
I don’t think there is any point anymore. TKUH has explained that she was referring to complete stranger men approaching women in public for sexual purposes, and not in sex clubs &c.
Or maybe the point is that context should be stated more clearly.
The point is Talacaris is a goober.
Hmm. Talacaris, it is possible that you overlooked the part of strangers approaching, because this kind of behaviour does not happen to you.
That words, when properly arranged can form coherent sentences. Also, that coherent sentences /= coherent thoughts. Everyone please applaud our guest lecturer Professsor Talacris for so deftly explaining these issues. We’ll be right back after these messages.
This broadcast was brought to you by the letter S. The Letter S Foundation would like to take this time to wish dualityheart a short labour and a healthy baby.
Totally OT, but Shadow, who’s the adorable puppy in your avatar?
@talacaris
You thought she might be at a sex club based on her comment?
*stares*
@hellkell
Random black lab. t was rebelling during the kitty takeover 😛
talacris: This is a serious question. Why is it you were the only person to make that misunderstanding?
Perhaps it’s not that context wasn’t present, but that you did/chose not to see it. Since other people pointed to the context, and you denied their impression; requiring the OP of the comment to tell you everyone else got it right, I think that might be it.
Talacaris: the entire converstation was about strangers, about men looking on any woman who takes their fancy as a potential sex vending machine, not a human with her own life and own occupations and no interest in random men hitting on her.
Go fuck yourself with that rolled up sandpaper, you disingenuous piece of shit.
pecunium: Of course it was an experiment in willful contextomy. T the interesting part is the reactions. Rather than a short clarification like (context clarif.: stranger men in ordinary public places), It is assumed that II go justhitting on random women in the street.
And that is something I’ve seen here before: To make the worst possible interpretation of a problematic statement. Or simply: To attribute to malevolence what can reasonably by stupidity.
“And that is something I’ve seen here before: To make the worst possible interpretation of a problematic statement. Or simply: To attribute to malevolence what can reasonably by stupidity.” which i obviously did myself.in the original reply. Maybe non-charitable interpretions feeds the same reaction in others….not really good reasoning , but I think I can sense a point somewhere
talacris: So you admit to being a dishonest sack of weasel vomit? This isn’t really a surprise, but it’s nice to have you on the record as not being possessed of honest argument.
I’ll also point out the lack of self-reflection (stipulating that this is an honest comment):
And, credit where due, you seem to have admitted you might have done some of that. (apologies to one and all for the blockquote fail).
@ Talacaris
“There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil’s advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women’s Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that’s so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.” Melissa McEwan
And FYI I don’t buy it.