Regular readers of this blog, for better or worse, know one thing that makes “Men’s Human Rights Activist” Paul Elam’s penis happy: The prospect of harassing feminists. He is, after all, the man who wrote of one feminist that “that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.”
Now Mr. Elam has given us a rather more complete account of what it is that pleases his penis. I’m not sure there was any great demand for this information, but he has chosen to release it, and so here we are.
In a post with the tasteful title “on tits, ass and fucktards,” Elam informs the world that he is in fact a fan of the first two items in this list – that is, tits and ass. He is also, he goes on to explain, a lover of
Sorry, I have to stop for a moment to remind you that you are about to read about things that give Paul Elam — yes THAT Paul Elam — a boner.
I will not think any less of you if you stop reading right here.
If you are ready and willing to continue, here we go:
I like well-formed thighs that lead up to the promise land, and smooth knees above shapely calves. Of course, all that combined with a woman’s pretty face is a crowning glory; full lips that promise supple kisses and great blow jobs, clear eyes and unblemished skin. All this combines to make a woman utterly fuckable, and visually that is what I like most of all. I like to look at women that are little fuckmuffins.
Yes, he actually wrote all that, attached his name to it, and posted it for other people to see.
But as much as Elam likes to look at “little fuckmuffins” he does not actually seem to like most of them very much.
After roughly 150 words devoted mostly to cataloguing his favorite female body parts, Elam evidently runs out of nice things to say about women, and so he returns again to his favorite pastime, devoting the bulk of the post to a rant explaining how much he hates “feminist fucktards,” traditionalist women, and women with Facebook accounts.
While happy enough with “fuckmuffins [who] are sexually liberated and adventurous” and who “like to please and be pleased,” Elam informs the world that he feels no such love for all those awful “fuckmuffins” who “liv[e] life with prudish sticks up their asses made from the same wood that forms the chips on their shoulders.”
He’s also mighty pissed at all those who aren’t interested in hearing him expound at length on what his penis likes.
Of the now almost endless list of things that have grown annoyingly stupid and sanctimonious about feminism is the Victorianesque shaming of my sexual programming as a man. Even with the so called “sex positive” feminists, the most hypocritical assholes of them all, the only positive sexuality they embrace is that of women. To them, male sexuality, in all its glory, is something to be buried, controlled and allowed to surface only when it serves the sexual needs of some narcissistic, horny, self-absorbed little “sex positive” princess.
Unfortunately, more traditional-minded women aren’t much interested in hearing about his penis either. And for some reason they, like feminists, think that there might be some sort of connection between men and rape.
Who are those traditionalists? You will know them by their obsequious silence while feminists shame men for committing the scurrilous act of looking at women sexually. Or better yet, as they join in with their “men can stop rape” bedfellows to twist and distort the natural inclinations of young men with Puritan sexual guilt that marches in lockstep with the feminist hatred of male sexuality.
Elam stops for a moment to reassure his readers that despite all that stuff about “well-formed thighs” and blow-job lips he prefers Good Women to mere “fuckmuffins.”
Now, all that being said, is woman-as-fuckmuffin all I care about? Hardly. As a matter of fact, I would throw fuckmuffin to the curb faster than you can say “patriarchy” to spend time with a woman of good character and intelligence. I have learned in life that my dick has a healthy agenda for humanity, but not necessarily for me. So as my values have matured, so has my taste in women.
Heck, it turns out he actually sort of hates “fuckmuffin.” After all, he tells us,
fuckmuffin … is prone to act indignant when she feels sexualized (by the wrong guy). She can become so angry at being “objectified” that you can see her tits shake right through that tight sweater with the neckline that plunges to the vicinity of her toes.
And then he compares her to a bug:
Time and experience will lead [men] to understand that fuckmuffin should be regarded with same respect as you would afford a stinging insect.
Basically, he explains, the only problem with lustful young men who ogle women is that they haven’t learned to hate women enough quite yet. And so women shouldn’t complain when young guys stare at them. Or when they don’t. As far as I can figure it, he thinks women shouldn’t ever complain about anything.
Leave [young men] the fuck alone. There is nothing wrong with them. Nothing needs to be fixed. If you want to help a young man like that, just start encouraging him to connect the dots between fuckmuffin’s propensity to take her own picture and post it to Facebook four times a day and her ultimate tendency to make him miserable. Eventually he will get the connection. And if he doesn’t, maybe that makes him happy. Either way, it is none of your fucking business.
And so ends what’s probably the strangest work of erotica I think I’ve ever read.
Argh, stupid commenting on iPod.
You’re welcome. “Give plants water” is about the extent of my gardening knowledge!
That and “prune your tomato plant.”
Utterly irrelevant but pecunium how the fuck do you manage to “get better at” push ups when one is impossible? I am not built for this shit, but my mother’s cooking and my waist line have an unexceptable relationship (yes I’m aware push ups and my waist are mute, but I need a break from crunches killing me 🙂 )
Ok even my level of tolerance for potentionally bad stats has been exceeded, but maybe it’s just that half of me is a bit “so, you going to stop or should I turn to jello?”
Pell sock with that 7~8 pack, how’d you manage that while being a doctor and lawyer? Cuz I’ve got all the time in the world and it isn’t going to fucking happen.
““male sex deficit” (or how men in general get less sex than they would like),”
Gah, that horrible idea. It screams that men want to, and should be able to, prong who they want, when they want. The notion that the other person has any rights, let alone preferences, in the matter doesn’t seem to come into it. It also ignores that women (or anyone of any gender other than Straight Doods) may not be getting as much sex as they would like, or, shock horror, as much good sex as they’d like. It’s as if sex were a need or a right or both – but only for dudes, of course. Funny how sexual freedom never seems to include freedom from sex in these tropes – and that applies to anyone.
::barf::
…..damn, I must be male. I’m getting less sex than I would want.
Terrible how these things can slip one’s notice, isn’t it?
@anotherfrustratedchump
A wrong common conception. Some women have high sex drives. Some men have low sex drives. There’s a lot of variety in them. Also, ‘give it out to cable guy’? WTF? I think you probably watch too much tv.
@deoridhe
Same here, but I’m not in a sexless marriage, so it’s possible I’ll change if I get married? XD
@deoridhe
whoops, wasn’t trying to imply you were in a sexless marriage or w/e, I was just rambling a lot. Sorry.
It’s important to point out that Elam’s statement about getting aroused by fucking a feminist’s shit up isn’t directed at a named individual, the entire blog entry is directed at feminists in general, and strongly resembles a masturbatory fantasy. This makes it more bizarre and more pathetic, I think.
He also said that some MRA activity bordered on sexual excitement, I forget the specifics though.
A blog entry as nakedly misogynistic and utterly devoid of intellectual merit as this latest one has got the conspiracy theorist in me thinking. Elam’s been taking a lot of flak from within the greater MRM for appointing female bloggers to AVfM and allowing blog entries about leftist political ideology (some of the worst political writing I’ve ever read, incidentally). Could he possibly be trying to reclaim some supposedly lost ground?
@carnation
…he’s…reclaiming lost ground by blogging about what he finds attractive in women? I’m confused.
QFT
I couldn’t find a picture for the woman’s article, but the man’s article showed a black man. So yeah, I’m guessing this has more to do with racism.
FTFY
Also, as long as we’re getting into gender blank deficient, I do not have enough chocolate for my tastes. Not crappy chocolate, good chocolate with peanuts or walnuts or macedonia nuts… yum.
This is clearly a teenage female chocolate deficient
@Fade Nope. http://www.wkrn.com/story/20428337/smyrna-police-charge-man-with-girlfriends-murder
http://m.guardiannews.com/society/2013/apr/12/man-jailed-over-baby-p-returned-to-prison
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-22100135
These guys are all white. Same portrayal.
Meanwhile … http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1077266/He-seduced-Married-housewife-sex-boy-14-walks-free-court-judges-extraordinary-ruling.html
*offers Fade dark chocolate with chili peppers*
I think carnation was trying to say that Elam is attempting to appeal to other cranky misogynist men through a misogynistic wankfest. In an altogether too literal sense.
Who even has milkmen anymore? I mean, there was one on Doctor Who a couple seasons back, so maybe the UK still has them? Because the US doesn’t afaik.
Argenti and Marie, what I meant was this. He’s been accused of “going soft” and letting AVfM have too much if a female influence. Could this incredibly misogynistic, paranoid and intellectually groundless blog entry be an attempt to prove something to his estranged fan base?
*noms the chocolate*
I’ve never actually had it before, but I bet it would be good. XP
@carnation
ah. I was just a little confused. And I have no idea what he was doing with the entry ::shrugs::
Chump: Are you going to address the “male sexuality is worthless” meme anytime soon?… Any chance you’ll be doing a post on this?
Why? Is it misogyny?
You want to see it discussed, start a blog
RavenLaight: Compare the two?
No. The critique I made before stands. You don’t have any valid reason to compare them.
Are they in the same jurisdiction?
Is it the same prosecutor?
Is it the same crime?
Is it the same judge?
Hell… Is it the same news organisation?
No.
So they aren’t legitimate counterpositional arguments.
Get some real data, then we can talk.
Chump: This ties into the common meme that “women hold all the power in sex” due to the principle of least interest (“they’re not being tormented by testosterone like men are, so why would they be craving it like us?”)
I won’t argue that lots of people think this. The question is why? It’s not always been the case
When women wanted sexWhen Women Wanted Sex.
For millenia, across any number of cultures, women were seen as more sexually driven than men.
In the 1600s, a man named James Mattock was expelled from the First Church of Boston. His crime? It wasn’t using lewd language or smiling on the sabbath or anything else that we might think the Puritans had disapproved of. Rather, James Mattock had refused to have sex with his wife for two years.
So the question to address is why this was believed, and why it’s not believed anymore.
Honestly (from my moderate experience) women are people, and their sex drives vary. Same with men.
Go figure.
Argenti: Utterly irrelevant but pecunium how the fuck do you manage to “get better at” push ups when one is impossible?
Modify them.
The most common is to do them from your knees. What I do is use a counter. I set an angle, lock my back/legs and then push. By adjusting the distance/hand placement you can work different muscles.
But push-ups are hard (not in the same way pull-ups are, but hard). Do the modified ones in reps of 5-10, three or four times a day; with a bit of time (not less than 30 minutes) between the sets.
Thanks pecunium. Yet another reason I miss theatre, lugging stage weights around is a good work out!
@pecunium – Apr. 13 – 1:26 PM
No, the assertion by itself isn’t misogyny, but it does fuel some of the misogynistic beliefs, namely that since male sexuality is worthless or has a negative value, the only way heterosexual men can satisfy their sexuality is to somehow convince a woman into doing so against her better judgement.
I believe Holly Pervocracy did a blog piece about this back in March 2010. Some excerpts follow below, but she didn’t go much further into the subject:
Eivind Berge for his part wrote something touching on this before veering off in Oct. 2009:
And this sort of thing is treated as self-evident by too many people, which contributes to misogynistic attitudes and the belief that women have to be tricked into sex.
Chump: No, the assertion by itself isn’t misogyny, but it does fuel some of the misogynistic beliefs, namely that since male sexuality is worthless or has a negative value, the only way heterosexual men can satisfy their sexuality is to somehow convince a woman into doing so against her better judgement.
Where is the misogyny? What about that is hateful to women?
As to the rest of it… absent context it’s gibberish.
Off to a party, take your time in reply, I’ll be gone for a bit.