The Great Penis Size Freakout Debate continues. On the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, one of the regulars has dug up a Youtube video from a random woman who doesn’t like small dicks.
Never mind that men worry a lot more about the size of their dicks than women do — hell, one survey found that women tend to be far more concerned with proper pubic-hair grooming than the length of their partner’s dingle dangles. Reddit’s MGTOW army saw this video as an example of rare female honesty on this perilous topic.
“[T]his is just proof if you’re not above average you are nothing,” one Reddit MGTOW moaned.
[I]f she complains and you aren’t small, next the bitch, she’s either got something wrong with her pussy or she got her head filled with some of her girl group bullshit, and it’s not worth the trouble.
Naturally, it didn’t take long for someone to blame feminism for the size queens of the world. ShitfacedBatman reassured his fellow MGTOWs that only sluts and feminists complain about small penises.
Date short and cute feminine women and you’ll never need to worry about your penis size. Date a woman prone to getting FAT, a woman close to your height, a woman with a big-ass ass, or a sex-industry woman who’s been cored out a few times and it’s “possible” size is a factor in those cases.
You know, women being “cored out” by large penises isn’t actually a thing. The sturdy vagina can recover from childbirth, and there aren’t really a lot of men out there whose penises are literally larger than a baby.
But, as ShitfacedBatman sees it, size queens are only lashing out because they are losers in the “tight vagina” contest that apparently all women are competing in.
Here’s the dealio tho: women that say size matters are saying they have sexual liabilities. To be submissive, pretty, and feminine is actually a competitive sport racing towards female smallness. Women by nature should be competing to be small, tight, and “innocent” – which means size should never matter and if it does it’s her problem. (Western feminism producing masculine women is incredibly likely to be at the root of the problem.)
Apparently the most “masculine women” are the ones with huge vaginas.
I think the whole “huge vagina” argument made a lot more sense when Larry David explained it on Curb Your Enthusiasm.
I’m sure some of them do. Some of them also support Hillary Clinton. I’m sure there even some who support O’Malley. That doesn’t change the fact that the organization has not thrown its support behind anyone and doesn’t plan to.
I want them to endorse a candidate, they refuse to. How is that difficult to understand?
I’m not opposed to BLM. I support them for obvious reasons. But I don’t agree with everything they do and think that their tactics aren’t very effective. That’s all.
Policy of Madness, please enlighten me about all the black people harassing uninvolved white people during the civil rights movement.
Google Nat Turner, Walt.
Walter, I’m going to copy-paste something I said in another thread because it’s just as relevant here:
Just, y’know, replace pride parades with BLM. Anyway. You don’t need to appropriate and rewrite the civil rights movement for a historical look into how this deliberately-oppressive tone-policing double standards bullshit works when we can see the exact same song and dance being aimed the LGBT+ rights movement right now.
Go back to the ridiculous knobsession. At least that was funny rather than rage-inducing. Or, alternatively, just:
http://i.imgur.com/n2l7xwZ.gif
*Aimed at. Wow, took so long to notice that I missed the edit window. XD;
Frank Torpedo
The Nat Turner rebellion didn’t happen during the civil rights movement.
SFHC
Barging into a library and throwing around racial/gender slurs is not the same thing as a protest march or parade.
Walter – You can’t be racist towards white people. And yes, this is coming from a white person.
Go Google “Stonewall”.
And go read this.
Here. Educate yourself.
Walter, the Civil Rights Movement, as you call it, was not merely a small interlude during the ’60’s, where MLK Jnr. spoke soft words and told everyone to remain calm.
I would go as far as to say that it – in regards to African-Americans, at least – began when the first few slaves began to rebel against the masters and escape or fight their way out of chattel status.
Walter — go read a comic strip: http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/
Don’t come back to discuss the Black Lives Matter movement until you’ve read and digested it.
Not-Walter — you might like it too, or want to bookmark it for such occasions.
@PI
That Washington Post article was awesome, thanks for the link! =)
Paradoxical Intention
MLK and his movement provoked violence, but weren’t violent themselves. They sought out confrontation, but did so in a peaceful manner that allowed them to gain sympathy from the white majority. Black Lives Matter, in the case of the library situation, were the aggressors. They were the ones verbally assaulting and threatening people who weren’t a threat to them. That’s the difference. Has it been like that every time BLM has had a protest? No, of course not. Has BLM been the victims of violence more often than they’ve initiated it? Yes, I believe so. Were they in the right in that Dartmouth Library? No, they weren’t. They were in the wrong.
To say that black people, or any non-white person, can’t be racist is ridiculous.
Frank Torpedo
Anything before the end of slavery would have to be considered part of the abolitionist movement. You really can’t call anything that happened before 1865 part of the civil rights movement.
In terms of “tone policing”
After reading the definition in that comic, I don’t think it’s possible for me to “tone police.”
MLKJr. and his group were verbally aggressive. MLKJr. made many speeches that absolutely castigated white people. This rewriting of MLKJr. into a meek person who never raised his voice, and who never shouted so that people had no choice but to hear him (usually to contrast him against Malcolm X) creates a completely false narrative about him. He was a firebrand. He forced white people to hear him. He didn’t ask quietly and politely for his and others’ rights. He demanded them and was quite verbally aggressive about it. That was – and still is – the only way to get white people to hear.
Again, you’re displaying your absolutely negative knowledge here. You not only lack information, you have absorbed and you cling to falsehoods. Sit down and be quiet. You are actively sucking wisdom out of the world.
PolicyofMadness, have I ever told you how much I love having you around?
@ Walter
I posted something for you to consider in the “Donald” thread (meant to post here but cocked up)
As for the general conversation about “protesting nicely” and history, it’s probably worth bearing in mind that it’s in the interests of the powerful to support the mythology that peaceful protest was what worked.
So we hear lots about Ghandi but less about Jinnah and the role of the Indian armed forces. Same with MLK, the role of people like Malcolm X and the Panthers is shoved to one side.
There may be room for diplomacy and polite discussion on some issues but I can’t think of any major social injustice that was overcome by the oppressed people being nice and the oppressors suddenly deciding to do the right thing.
He doesn’t think it’s possible for him to tone police. That says it all right there.
Til that the white majority was sympathetic to the civil rights movement.
I guess that’s why there wasn’t a stampede of conservatives switching to the Republican party after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.
I guess that’s why the southern strategy wasn’t a thing.
Oh wait. No. Tons of white people actually did have a problem with it.
I’m tired of the revisionist history of MLK. Sorry fellow whites. He wasn’t one of the good non threatening black folk. He was a radical.
That’s it, time for this to be settled once and for all…gentlemen, prepare your tally, and mosey up to your assigned step stool for ULTIMATE TALLYWHACKER FLYING NINJA FIVE FINGER SHAOLIN DEATH MATCH!
It’s the only way. Once the dominance order is decided you’ll all feel much better, I’m certain of it!
Oh, don’t worry about the death thing, that’s only for whoever is the loser of all losers.
@weirwoodtreehugger
Exactly. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Any white person who views BLM as a disruptive movement that exists solely for the sake of causing chaos but claims that they would have naturally stood by MLK and the Civil Rights movement is simply enjoying the benefit of hindsight. Well of course slavery was bad*, the whites back then were pretty evil! Well of course Jim Crow was bad, what were the whites thinking? And MLK was such a nice guy, for shame, white people of old! What’s this, black people are vocally opposing police violence and institutionalized racism in the modern world? What a bunch of thugs and whiners, why aren’t they fighting for a real cause?
Yeah no, I don’t think whites opposing BLM – just like men opposing “modern feminism” – would have been on the right side of history, had they been born decades earlier. The rhetoric of the privileged back then was just too similar to the rhetoric of the privileged right now.
*In the examples, I’m trying to represent the position of the more liberal anti-BLM people. After all, there are plenty of white folks who have even less “progressive” views…
Glad to know you didn’t read anything I linked you, because I’m sure that putting children in the line of fire so police would beat them and sic their dogs on them to force a national response would be considered violence. Even Malcom X thought that he was going too far with that.
Not to mention that yeah, MLK did “verbally assault” white people. Did he say the same things that BLM said? No. But he still verbally castigated white people at the time.
Not according to the Vice Provost for Student Affairs for Dartmouth, Inge-Lise Ameer.
That’s not what I said.
What I said was you can’t be racist to white people. You can have racial bias or prejudice towards us, but you can’t be racist to us.
@Walter you clearly lack either reading comprehension skills or a desire to actually engage with the arguments people are making. Either way, you’re not going to get far here with that BS.
Policy of Madness
You can’t see the difference between criticising white society in a speech and verbally assaulting individuals minding their own business in a library?
Anarchonist
Yeah, most of the white people opposed to BLM would have been against the civil rights movement or abolition. So? I’m not using white people’s opinions as a metric to judge the actions of BLM.
Paradoxical Intention
There is a difference between initiating violence provoking violence. Even when he put children in harms way, MLK did not initiate the violence. That’s the difference.
Yes, black people can be racist towards whites. It’s ridiculous to say otherwise.
Interesting, the way you spelled criticize there. Are you British? Are you actually a British person trying to explain American politics at Americans?
I don’t fuck even with Walter at this point. The goalposts are dancing all over the place, the historical bias is absurd, and then the goalposts do a tango and it’s not actually relevant how anyone responded to previous movements, cuz history doesn’t matter except when it comes to the nitpicking only Walter can do of the exact differences between how the same opposed group handled things then and now.
And then, just to top off this shit sundae, he doesn’t think he can tone police!
Policy of Madness — iOS set to English autocorrects to criticizing. Just FYI there. So yeah, I’m guessing British, cuz that’d be a hard one to do accidentally.
I can’t tone police on this issue. At least not according to the previous definition given.
I’m also not British.
Are you claiming to be from the United States, then?