So for some reason the fellas on the Men’s Rights subreddit are discussing an article by Australian newspaper columnist Clementine Ford in which she expresses her desire to see more dongs on television.
As she notes, there are plenty of boobs on display on HBO shows like Game of Thrones, yet “rarely are we treated to the visual smorgasbord of a well stocked meat platter. ” Ford is sick of it. “So bring on the parade of wangs, willies and woodies!” she demands. “I’m fond of a wand and I’m not ashamed to say it.”
I’m not terribly familiar with the writings of Clementine Ford, but evidently she’s not big on subtlety.
Anyway, the fellas in the Men’s Rights subreddit aren’t having any of it. Nuh uh. They ain’t buying it, ladies! You may write columns about how you want more wang on TV. You may talk about it with your friends. You may have gigantic collections of peen pics hidden away on your hard drive.
But the MRAs of Reddit know better. It’s all some devious feminist ploy, as Steampunk_Moustache helpfully explains.
Huh. That took an odd twist at the end there.
But it’s our old friend Giegerwasright who provides the real answer, in the form of a wall-o-mansplainin’ so giant that I had to shrink the text to even screencap it.
Huh.
So why exactly are women pretending to be interested in seeing more penises on television? So they can point at them and laugh?
Women are such an enigma, especially if you just assume that nothing they ever say is true and that it’s all part of some weird plot to screw with men’s heads.
(H/t to r/againstmensrights for pointing me to geigerwasright’s lovely comment.)
He’s a dolt: He thinks it’s credible that 1: he’s never encountered “feminists” before the time he appeared on manboobz (i.e. in that period) and yet he’s got experience which is, “fairly wide in this matter”.
Unh hunh. He’s also picked up some idiolectical quirks which are native speaker angolphone; and that idiolect is that of internet contriarian. Amazing. All from arguing with feminist for a mere six months or so.
Feminism, better than using a Rosetta Stone.
Well, you surely make him need a dictionary so maybe you are better than Rosetta 🙂 (yes, he’s a dolt, and seeing how I’m only half joking, I used to know some ASL, rectify the tense there?)
So we’re certain that the “reactionary” Asher is not the “reactionary” Brz, are we?
Brz: cool story, bro. Now fuck off.
I’m still trying to figure out what sort of odd personality defect would lead someone to spend a year trying to interact with a group of people who alternately ignore him and tell him to get lost.
Too cheap to pay for a domme?
RE: markb
Female pudenda I just barely tolerate.
Of all the terms, you choose that one?
the only thing that’s erotic is two or more svelte nymphs making tender, passionate love to each other.
Thank you for the update from your alien parasite, sir. Please leave now; I really could care less about your sexual preferences.
markb: cool story bro.
What is it with really obvious trolls today?
Thank you so much. All of us here were dying to hear about what gives you a boner.
(not)
This one sounds like Son of Meller.
Either Poe or needs to never spank anyone. Ever.
And it’s established around here that if I say no masochism for you then you’re doing something Very Wring, right?
markb — coulda totally left that at “well I don’t looking at either other men’s penises nor vaginaes”
*cocks head* is that really the plural of vagina? Cuz that one is also Latin and seeing vaginae in print…I think it is first declension feminine…
Ah well, that’s as useful as the plural of noptopus (it’s a verb or singular noun, there is no plural, there, settled that! XD )
He’s a nymphomaniac!
Thanks for the Boner Note, now run along, markb.
katz – GROAN
Katz makes me go XD
He’s not using “nymph” just to refer to young girls (ew) either. He’s actually only turned on by minor Greek nature spirits.
No wonder he finds penises gross, then. He’s probably only seen satyrs’, and ewww.
But only if there are 2 nymphs and they’re fake-lesbian-ing it up in the most un-threatening manner possible.
I was raised on Piers Anthony. Any use of the term ‘nymph’ in a sexy way just makes me D: like mad.
For added context, Piers Anthony had a book series devoted to nymphs as brainless, souless, constantly horny and inhumanly beautiful women, where it was fairly usual for young men to chase them. There was also one book where a ‘nymphomaniac’ would kidnap and imprison nymphs after forcing them to marry him. (Of course, he also would have sex with them, but the fun part about nymphs is that they’re mindless, so they can’t NOT consent, by the book’s rules.) The book ends with him getting a hot demon wife, winning, and turning out to be Such A Nice Man.
Yeah, the fakeness of that scenario was the most obvious thing. “Paid to put on what some straight dudes seem to think lesbian sex is about” is the thing.
Pathetic’s the word that comes to mind for this sad little troll.
I’m curious as to where this new batch of weaksauce trolls came from.
Must be spawning season.
MRAL’s probably bored again.
Twice? Mr. Al was bored on the Roosh thread, so this probably isn’t him. Which leaves us at troll spawning season. Please bring in 50 Shades of Bears to eat them as they swim upstream.