It’s official: Men’s Rights Activists are more obsessed with their “precious bodily fluids” than Dr. Strangelove’s General Jack D. Ripper. Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, many of the regulars are celebrating Boxing Day by sitting around on their computers worrying about evil predatory succubi burgling their sperm. Check out this little post, which has gotten 90 upvotes so far:
Yes, he really did just say “It’s as if your penis shoots magic IOUs every time you ejaculate.” If this is true, a lot of guys owe millions if not billions of dollars to a lot of old socks.
In the comments, other Men’s Rightsers shared their deepest concerns about the specter of spermburgling. SuicideBanana warns that the enemy may already be in your bed:
Reconstrucht worries about the money-hungry sperm-hunters lurking in bars:
And one future veterinarian contemplates giving up dating, in order to protect himself from the hypothetical women — sorry, soul sucking succubi — who might hypothetically use his future sperm in order to cash in big on his future vet money. Ca-ching!
Gentlemen: To fully protect your Essence, I suggest you ejaculate directly into a paper shredder, douse the results with hot sauce and arsenic, and pour the entire concoction into the nearest garbage disposal. Then flee the country.
Claire, I was intentional rounding up and simplifying it, in part because I didn’t want to work out what percentage of female rape victims might be past menopause, on BC, etc. Basically, I decided to pad both sets of numbers in the same manner.
But yeah, I left out a lot of factors, and made it all kinds of gender binary. Using that 10% you came up with, the risk of sperm jacking drops to 0.525% from rape, plus whatever John’s adding for women lying about being on BC (aka “the percent that’s easily avoided with condoms”).
And the risk of pregnancy from rape would be 20-25% * 10% = 2-2.5%
That’s still the high end on both, for the reasons you noted. I fear we’re confusing John with all this math!
Hey John? There’s a greater chance of SJS on my latest med than chance of sperm jacking. If I’m being paranoid to worry about that, men worrying about sperm jacking are being silly paranoid.
“When a woman wears 4 inch heels, what she’s really doing is raising the criteria to qualify as a human being (in her eyes) by 4 inches. ‘You must be this tall to enter’ her slobbering crotch maw says.”
But she is, presumably, on the “fanny market”. Meaning he wants access to her “slobbering crotch maw” o.O?
Arks, like NWO, never made sense did he? What ever happened to Arks anyways? Last I saw of him was when I tore his statistics apart in agonizingly detail.
It did rather strike me that Arks was defining a woman not wanting to have sex with a man as treating the man as if he’s not a human being. That does explain the rage, though it does not explain how he and so many other men came to such a ridiculous conclusion in the first place.
I think both the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu are awesome human beings, and yet I don’t want to have sex with either of them.
@ John Anderson -“I suppose I could have gone with Wilt Chamberlains number. I think that was 30,000, but I think that was individual women. I guy with a girlfriend getting it 3 times a week would hit 1,000 in 7 years. Hell, there were days I’ve reached 2. I thought that number was fairly conservative. I forgot I was talking to feminist men.”
From 0 to miss-the-point-completely in 3.4 seconds. Can anything outrace the mind of an MRA when it’s heading in the wrong direction?
@ Pecunium
“This is a foolish conflation. It implies that the purpose of those rapes is to get pregnant. The evidence shows this to be not the case.”
It doesn’t need to be. I might lock my door because I fear being murdered. A person might enter my house with the intent to rob it. Find me there and decide to murder me. It wasn’t their initial intent, but it was the result. With pregnancy, the potential result is actually a logical consequence of sperm theft.
“Are we talking a single dude, or one with a partner”
I think it’s both. I think the fear these guys are talking about isn’t in just the one night stand. I think it refers mostly to people pre-marriage although a wife could theoretically unilaterally decide to have children with her husband and not tell her husband she’s off birth control.
Unless I’ve misinterpreted this, the CDC lifetime numbers account for cases where there has been AT LEAST one instance where a man has been forced to penetrate. Although I still expect the numbers to be small, it could be significantly higher.
If 2% is insufficient to generate a realistic risk, what percentage would be, In cases where the consequences for which are not minor?
New Pierre.
Is it just me who’s totally creeped out by the way John Anderson keeps equating consensual sex with rape in his failed analogies?
He seems to be equating everything with rape, apparently in an attempt to reach out to feminists in a way that he thinks he we’ll understand. Instead he’s succeeded in proving how little he understands about us (and about sex, women, and life in general).
Katz – love the new comic!
If those women John Anderson claims are all over him are real, I seriously hope he doesn’t have sex with any of them – for their sakes, not because of his sperm-burgling terrors.
@ Argenti Aerther
“Do you have an allergy to math? On the high end, sperm jacking might be a risk to 2% of men, while rape happens to, pay attention now, 20-25% of women.”
So now morality and compassion is dependent on the number of victims. Truly feminist logic.
“Also, a man being celibate to avoid sperm jacking would be comparable to a woman being celibate to avoid pregnancy. Do try to get your analogies correct.”
OK, would that make her misandric? People here seem to imply that a man avoiding making a woman pregnant is misogynist simply because he chooses to do it for his own reasons and not to benefit her.
“take it up with the people who say that if she accepts that ride she’s of course going to be raped so never ever take a ride from at strange man!”
So feminists support the patriarchy when it suits them.
Alright, so we want to stick with probabilities, here is a hypothetical. Men are killed at 4 times the rate of women. Men commit 90% of the murders. 30% of women are killed by a male intimate partner. 60$ of intimate partner deaths are women killed by male intimate partners. 33% of intimate partner deaths are men murdered by female intimate partners.
Short version: women who kill are significantly more likely to choose an intimate than a man who kills although men are more likely to kill and more likely to kill an intimate. So theoretically he would be safer if he avoided having intimate relationships with women. He would reduce his chance of being killed by a female by a whopping 33%. A woman on the other hand would not have as great a safety increase and may be more at risk as a man is more likely to kill a stranger. (I haven’t done the math so correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure it won’t be 33% safer).)
So if he faces significant risk, but doesn’t see it and incorrectly advocates a position where he doesn’t face significant risk, but thinks he does, is he still misogynistic when he tells people that he’s not entering into relationships with women because it’s dangerous?
Something I’ve always wondered about the whole douse your used condoms in hot sauce thing. Is hot sauce a spermicide? Because if not then all you’re doing is making the woman uncomfortable, not actually preventing the spermburgling.*
*If spermburgling via used condoms was actually a thing that happened and that had a reasonable chance of success in the first place.
“Is it just me who’s totally creeped out by the way John Anderson keeps equating consensual sex with rape in his failed analogies?”
It isn’t just you. It’s like all analogies must be between John’s pseudo-point and rape.
Yeah, the whole refusal to see the difference between consensual sex and rape, the deliberate introduction of the latter into a conversation about MRA paranoia about the former … oy.
And “THIS” to your point about his apparent belief (which fits perfectly with his general ignorance) that PiV is the only type of sex there is, even between cis het men and women?
“Couldn’t find his arse with a map” is the term that comes to mind.
NWO made more sense than Arks. One can predict what NWO will say, this was not true of Arks.
Arks was in the same category of geekboy gone horribly wrong as Abnoy, but more so, and with a dash of wannabe meta troll.
@ Shiraz
“I dunno, I guess all the TMI is to make us aware that women are constantly grabbing at you for sex,”
If you think a woman would be safer walking in a bad neighborhood with a feminist man than with me, it would depend on the feminist man. I’m basing my evaluation on the average feminist guy I’ve met. Aside from the guy who volunteered at IMPACT (That’s how I heard that they recreated the scenarios where these women were raped. I know they’re trying to empower them. I wouldn’t have the heart to do it.) and he didn’t identify as a feminist, there are few I would think could better protect a woman than I. If that is what you meant then LMAO!!!
Like I’m really going to try and score points talking about the sex I don’t want. You can’t get sympathy from people who think male rape is hypothetical. Why would you think I’d even bother? The fact of the matter is the one thing a feminist man can probably do better than I is avoid attracting women sexually even the women they don’t want (if there are any).
Jo: Like I’m really going to try and score points talking about the sex I don’t want.
Then why brag about it?
And why brag about it in the comment you said that in, because this The fact of the matter is the one thing a feminist man can probably do better than I is avoid attracting women sexually even the women they don’t want (if there are any). is an attempt to insult feminist men, and by comparison brag about how studly you are.
I’m basing my evaluation on the average feminist guy I’ve met.
No, you are basing it based on the men you think are feminist.
As to with what man a woman is safest, it’s got bupkis to do with feminist/non-feminist. It has to do with the man. Feminist men can be dangerous douchebags (see Hugo Schwyzer).
You can’t get sympathy from people who think male rape is hypothetical.
Got any facts to back that up
What people here are saying is so rare as to be a non-issue (sort of like being hit by lightening) is “sperm-jacking” with the intent of getting $5,000 a year in child support.
What our friend here is overlooking is the fact that some women may see him as the man they need protection from, not the one they want to protect them.
” People here seem to imply that a man avoiding making a woman pregnant is misogynist simply because he chooses to do it for his own reasons and not to benefit her.”
That’s the imaginary feminist that lives in your head talking again. You should really stop having conversations with her, it’s not healthy.
Oh, and as to the idea of your being Mr. BadAss Martial artist.. taekwondo? It’s a nice physical fitness regimen, and pretty good at the self-confidence, but it’s not the best hand to hand on level ground art.
It’s core model is unarmed person on the ground dealing with armed person on horseback. It’s slow, linear, and has far too many attacks which are large. A significant number of it’s moves require time to limber up the groin and back.
Against an attacker with a grasp of “close and batter” or who knows to step off the line of motion it does poorly. It’s also not much good against a weapon in hand of a person on the ground.
Then again, the “attack from the bushes” rapist you are conflating with the “woman who has the chance to steal sperm from any one of a thousand social interactions,” isn’t going to attack a woman who has a companion, so all that knowledge you may have about how to fight is pretty much irrelevant, since any schlub is as good as you are at being the second person needed to foil such a rape.
But it’s a nice fantasy, sort of like all the women who swoon at sweaty dudes in gi’s who work out at the park.
Well, well, the thin veneer of not-being-a-misogynist-douchebag is cracking up. (Damn these cheap lacquers.) You think feminism is some sort of marker about whether a man is a Manly Man with Dudely Muscles who can and would protect someone in danger? That’s as dumb as Otis the Skidmark and his blather about chinups and upper body strength making men superior beings with the right to abuse women.
Like Pecunium said, Citation Fucking Needed for claiming anyone on this site says male rape is hypothetical. You couldn’t read for comprehension if your life depended on it. And what is it with your determination to turn everything into talk about rape? I’m beginning to think you’re typing this one-handed.
It’s the conflating everything with rape in part that makes me wonder if it’s ever occurred to him that he himself may be seen as more of a potential threat than a potential rescuer.
DING DING DING we have a winner!
Also, is anyone else now picturing John as the bad guy from The Karate Kid? It’s the combination of stupidity, malice, and an emphasis on brute strength that doesn’t make any sense coming from a martial artist.
Bruce Lee weighed 125 pounds when he died. He could have taken your boastful ass down no problem.
Can we organise a fight between John and Otis?