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.
My comment was referring to Melissa coming to the thread and not expecting discussion and Ithiliana’s (I remembered the h that time, sorry about before) surprise at such.
(The page turned while I was typing and now my comment seems like it might be calling Ithiliana a troll, which is just wrong.)
@Jayem Griffin
A gal can hope, right? I love troll meltdowns and the oh-so-reasonable, JAQ-ing off ones are the best. (I’m still hoping we get one from Diogenes in time for me to vote for him for TOTY.)
M(elissa),
Do you think a majority of women deserve to be described as soul-sucking succubi? Do you think a majority of women are primarily interested in men for their income? If so, can you provide any citations? If not, will you concede that men who act as the the answer to both questions is ‘yes’ might deserve to be called misogynists? If the answer is no, please explain your position. Or, you know, go away. I don’t really care.
The thing that really bothers me about this is that paranoia is basically them co-opting what having sex as a woman is like. They’re just beside themselves, and you know it’s because, really, in their heads, that kind of fear of sex is only for women. They’re playing pretend and pissing themselves over what’s essentially everyday reality for women. They’re scared about their pocketbooks? They have a handful of cases like this? Gosh, that’s just awful. Try pregnancy. And motherhood. Contraception is great…if your body can handle it, and if you can afford it. Depending on your partner to keep the wrapper on? Hell, depending on him to wear it without bitching and moaning? Yeah, not so simple. Abortion is a possibility…if you can afford it and if you can find a clinic and manage the hurdles to obtain one. And gosh, having outpatient surgery is just LOADS of fun. Adoption’s another possibility, and everyone knows it’s so easy and totally not life threatening at all to go through a pregnancy.
Women deal daily with the threat of unplanned pregnancy in a way these guys can’t possibly comprehend. They’re grasping it when they say, “OMG you can even wear a condom and STILL she could get pregnant!” They’re just barely scratching the surface of real women’s lives where they’re asking themselves “Is it worth it to have the fight again about him wearing a condom, or do I just not have the energy to deal with his bullshit tonight? I mean, I just had my period, I can’t get pregnant yet, right?” And having a hint of these women’s worries, it’s enough to make these dudes hysterical. That they have ZERO sympathy for women who no more want to be mothers than they want to be fathers is …okay, not surprising, because they’re raging misogynists who blame women for everything, yeah, I know, just…boo.
My original comment was intended to challenge an incorrect statement by a previous commenter. People responded and I felt criticised, and I argued back.
cloudiah –
+1
You’ve spent a lot of your time arguing that MaunaLoona’s not a misogynist on the evidence of that one comment, and disputing the context of him being a men’s rights redditor, and ignoring the basis of all these “spermburgling” and predatory women tales. That’s getting rather trolly, you know. If you’ve read other threads, how can you not know that this is a mockery site AND that people coming on and defending MRM garbage are indeed going to get an argument thrown right back at them?
(My last comment is directed at Melissa, of course.)
Full disclosure: I am a soul-sucking succubus. I take the form of a woman in order to seduce a man, and I steal his sperm in order to impregnate human women. So I suppose hating succubi isn’t strictly speaking misogyny, since succubi aren’t women. Misdaimony?
There you go, M(elissa), I made your argument for you. No need to thank me. Clearly everyone on that thread loves and respects human women, it’s just the demonic pretenders they dislike.
Melissa, the whole premise of that thread on r/mr — shared by the OP and a lot of upvoted comments — is that a significant number of women are sperm-stealing monsters (specifically, succubi and boogeywomen).
If you went to the (I hope imaginary) GentileRights subreddit and found a bunch of people there talking about how afraid they were to visit New York city because Jews might throw dreidels at them, you would say that was ludicrous and anti-Semitic.
And it really wouldn’t matter if the people there could cite a case in which a Jewish comedian mentioned in his stand-up act that he had once, for real, thrown a dreidel at a guy’s head.
https://twitter.com/zenaccc/status/197203908966350848
http://www.daily49er.com/diversions/jewlicious-festival-entertains-with-culture-music-food-1.2707632#.UNvF3nfheSo
No, because even though this apparently happened once in the history of the world — probably more, when you think about it — the discussion would still be anti-Semitic.
Melissa, my statement wasn’t incorrect, it was hyperbole. It was like the time my husband asked me not to buy the store brand of peanut butter because “it was full of rocks,” when he meant that the peanuts were too crunchy. It’s a subtle thing, I know.
Thanks for making my point for me, David, while I ran off and ate dinner and stuff.
BTW, factual correction from MaunaLoona: Women aren’t succubi; women are hyenas.
So again, not misogyny. Mishyenay.
@M(elissa): You say that: My original comment was intended to challenge an incorrect statement by a previous commenter. People responded and I felt criticised, and I argued back.
I went back to check your claim, and I call bullshit, and strong likelihood that you are a troll, IF I have identified the comment thread directly (I could be screwing up from tiredness).
Here is the history with links (do all trolls not realize we can scroll up and read their shit?):
Is this the comment you are characterizing as incorrect, that you posted to correct, and then were responded to, which meant you had to argue back?
Here is what you’re responding to:
Clairedamnit quoting a comment from one of the merry misogynists in David’s post:
, and then responding with:
Claire’s comment: Why yes it is “predatory.” As in, not really predatory. BECAUSE IT DOESN’T HAPPEN.
“It” in the sentence clearly refers back to the immediately quoted piece–SPERMBURGLING.
Then, as far as I can tell, your first one which you characterize as challenging an “incorrect statement”:
Your comment is here, with a basic quote, and no attribution, only of Claire’s comment, and not the referent for “IT”, meaning you’re taking C’s quote out of context, which is shitty arguing tactics.
Your challenge to her claim that the over the top scenario proposed by one of the creeps is:
there was one case where a man was passed out and unconscious, and the women obtained sperm by raping him in his sleep.
The two examples do not compute: your example is lightyears away from Reconstrucht’s the Claire was quoting.
And you continue to insist on this same warped perspective throughout–that actual cases of rape are reason for the kind of hyperbolic bullshit spouted by the creeps in this post, as if they are the same.exact.thing.
Why?
And why did you completely ignore the legal article I linked for you to see?
You keep this up, and my conviction that you are a troll will only grow stronger–the reading comprehension fail is strong in you.
@Some Gal: Well, if she keeps going the way she is going, she might get an honorable mention, and a “try again harder next year, I’m sure you can fail harder!”
I especially like her claims about how she really just challenged an incorrect statement, and didn’t MEAN to argue (until she was challenged).
I don’t have time, but this merits reply: will catch up in the morning:
First of all I don’t think that that is the real problem. I have already said several times that I consider MaunaLoona’s concerns about “spermbergling” to be exaggerated and disproportionate.
Well that’s his real point… women will stop at nothing to “steal” 100,000 dollars from a man, even if it means they have to rear a child alone. When you defend him, with the claim that the cases of strict liability give him a legitimate point, you are granting cover for the spermburgling bullshit.
I’m just posting this in the most recent thread because it’s a fucking amazing visualization of USian history AND photography.
This sets of my sockpuppet detector like whoa. First of all M(elissa), you made the effort to post in this thread tonight under two different usernames. Second, your comment here doesn’t seem to be in reply to anyone, so why bring this up? Also, there have been no Melissas posting before today. (Maybe my Google skills aren’t as good as I think they are, so if I’m wrong and you’ve commented here before as Melissa, drop some links.) Why not just claim to be new here then? I suspect it’s because you aren’t.
Very cool, cloudiah.
So somehow at Christmas I ended up talking to my parents about the MRM and explaining their “sperm-stealing” theory to them. YAY, THEY THINK IT’S RIDICULOUS TOO!
Melissa, you honestly didn’t seem that trolly to me, until I checked your IP and found that you seem to be posting from the middle of a forest in northern england — the very same forest that one now-banned troll here seemed to be posting from. If you can explain this to me in some vaguely convincing fashion, and tell me a bit about your favorite shops in Low Snaygill, I might not ban you.
I want to be a boogeywoman! I’ll hide under beds and scare children with my feminist rhetoric! =D
Also, hrrugh. The complete self absorption and lack of understanding of what it takes to raise a child. For fuck’s sake. How can any person ever not acknowledge that, over the whole cultural, women unfairly take on the cost of child bearing and rearing?
So basically a guy says that men should be careful not to impregnate women and that has the feminists panties in a bunch. Had he said use a condom or get a vasectomy so you don’t impregnate a woman, feminists would all cheer, but he said don’t impregnate her so you don’t need to pay child support, now it’s an issue. It’s not the first time that feminists have advocated for the rape of men, since some guys could guard their sperm by abstaining. That is indeed what is implied when feminists believe that they are entitled to a man’s sperm even if he chooses to abstain from sex. Oh yeah, he doesn’t have a feminist approved reason for abstaining.
Feminists continue to judge a man’s masculinity by the amount of sex he has and then wonder why some guys might not take no fir an answer. Virgin shaming of men. If men take responsibility for family planning for their own good it’s a problem, but if you do it for women it’s great. The only problem that I have with that post is that it’s difficult to guard your sperm if you’re raped.
May I just say that Melissa stunk of dirty socks from the first post.
@ Some Gal Not Bored at All
I’m assuming that troll is defined as someone who says things most users on this site don’t agree with rather than the traditional meaning of someone taking a contrary position they don’t believe to stir up trouble. I had a whole article dedicated to me. That makes me the front runner. Does anyone know whether it made it to 200 comments? If not, could you add a couple?
Well, I can’t and won’t speak for men from your part of the world, but I personally have no problem if women seek to have MY children, even if they have to use such sneaky techniques to do it. In fact, it’s quite flattering actually. *For certain males, especially in “traditional” cultures, children are like land or wives or cash, the more the merrier! In my country, there are several famous male celebrities, many of whom are still living, whose children (by various conquests) have reached into the double digits!
*Provided they are BIOLOGICALLY your children. Cuckoldry/Paternity Fraud is a fate worse than death!