By David Futrelle
The Nazi boys over at The Daily Stormer have made it clear that, in the realm of ideology in any case, they’re as bad as Hitler in almost every way possible. When it comes to the Woman Question, they’re arguably worse. While Hitler preferred women relegated to the sphere of ‘Kinder, Küche, Kirche “ (children, kitchen, church), he at least pretended to respect them.
Not so the Stormers, who have previously denied women’s* basic bodily autonomy, reduced them to baby-making machines, and compared them unfavorably to dogs.
Now they’ve launched a war against the deadly menace of the female orgasm. A recent post by “Pomidor Quixote,” the site’s go-to guy for misogynistic commentary, took issue with a survey conducted by a lingerie and sex toy retailer reporting that a significant number of British women are dissatisfied with their sexual partners and wish they could have more orgasms from sex.
As far as Quixote is concerned,
Women’s orgasms are so useless and irrelevant that they’re not even popular dishes among the incubi and the succubi — both of whom would rather feed on men.
Not a good start. In addition to the misogyny, Quixote needs to brush up on his sex demon mythology. Incubi are males and feed on women. Also, they don’t exist. (It’s the succubi, of course, who are the lady sex demons — and a popular topic amongst weirdo misogynistic men, many of whom believe they’re totally real.)
Quixote continues, suggesting that only male orgasms really count::
The male orgasm results in semen expulsion, which is intended to result in pregnancy.
The alleged female orgasm results in what?
Nothing.
Anyone who refers to women’s orgasms as “alleged” isn’t likely to be a very fun sex partner.
Not that Quixote cares about female pleasure — or even female consent:
This mirrors women’s absolute lack of authentic agency and relevance in general, as growing babies in their bellies is the only thing they’re good at and it can happen whether they orgasm or not, whether they like it or not, whether they agree to it or not, whether they do anything or not. It can even happen whether they’re conscious or not.
Even shitheads who hate women generally recognize that when women enjoy sex they have more of it and that this is a good thing, human-reproduction-wise. But Quixote isn’t having any of it.
Some would say that women’s orgasms are supposed to help with pair-bonding and stuff like ovulation and getting pregnant, but that’s irrelevant outside of virgin marriage and especially in the modern context of female empowerment, where the average woman is on sterility pills and has already lost most of her pair-bonding ability through meaningless sex with countless “sexual partners” by the time she enters her twenties.
Besides, he adds, women are never really satisfied about anything.
Would women even know if they’re satisfied? Can women even feel satisfaction?
What is the benefit of satisfying women?
He ends by referring to women as “mutant r*tards that drool from both of their mouths,” which I have to admit is a phrase I’ve never heard before. So points for that I guess.
*Note: if it’s not clear already, when Quixote refers to women he means cis women. Stormers are generally huge transphobes who don’t consider trans women to be women.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
So according to mr. quixotic:
(Cis) man spending a few minutes to climax: awesomest thing ever.
(Cis) Woman spending nine months to grow and birth an entirely new human being: meh.
I’m not convinced he has done the math correctly on this.
@Naglfar:
Re inccubi and succubi: According to the Malleus Maleficarum, inccubi and succubi are the same creature, who capture sperm as women and expel it as men. They have high moral standards, and as such will refuse to have anything other than penis-in-vagina sex. So there wouldn’t be any gay ones.
No. Doesn’t even seem to shorten the refractory period any.
Their fear of women is so obvious. And, the alt-right women’s self-hatred is even more obvious.
Honestly, what do Nazis and other conservatives find is wrong with enjoying sex? I think I can sort of guess, they’re worried that it might lead people to doing, in their eyes, fucked up things.
It’s easier for me to see what Nazis consider abominable – doing anything they deem to be harmful to the white race and its supposed superiority (if the white race are so superior, why can’t they be engaged in “degeneracy” lest they become “degenerate”?), but less so for conservatives who may be more racially diverse.
I think there’s a thing where sex is equal to loss of inhibition, and getting desensitized to sex. I’m not sure.
@Fishy Goat & Naglfar:
Not entirely true. I remember reading one Medieval example (wish I could remember where) of a man describing being sexually attacked by a male demon. Granted, not a common occurrence as this is the only one I remember–and I read pretty extensively on the subject.
Dormousing it,
Oops, yes I did! Maybe I’ll email David and ask him to change it. I don’t mind if regulars know my name, but I don’t want any possible trolls to!
@Weird(andtiredoftrumplings)Eddie @Moggie thanks for the recommendations! I’m really interested to read more into the subject so I’ll check them out
As far as I know, originally, incubis and succubis are two form of the same kind of demon.
The whole schtick of that family of demon is that, as a succubi, they seduce a man (and/or impersonate their wife), store the semen, corrupt it, switch to incubi form and seduce and impregnate a women (possibly, once again, by impersonating their husband). The corrupted semen then mean the children will be a sorcerer, an half demon, or something noxious in general.
Note how rapey that actually sound ; succubus stories were written to dissuade people to have all the sex, not to be fetish porn stuff. Also they served as a medieval “get out of jail free” for pregnancy that give unwanted result.
@Naglfar
Looks like Shadowplay beat me to it. Yeah, doesn’t have an effect on that capability.
Well, there go my plans for the weekend. :p
I recently watched a video by Innuendo studios that compared being a member of a hategroup to an abusive relationship or cult. Interesting channel in general (which also explains up to a point why members HAVE to be completely miserable):
I think the female orgasm exists because it makes both partners feel really good and helps them to get to like each other better. And depend on each other more. And want to hang around with each other longer. Works equally well with a same-sex or a hetero couple, BTW. Can’t prove it, though.
However, does everything need a reason to exist? Why look a rainbow in the mouth? Why pour weedkiller over Queen Anne’s Lace? Why complain when instead of a quarter you get a Susan B. Anthony dollar back in change? What for? What’s the point of behaving that way, and what purpose does it serve? Hunh?
I’m vaguely reminded of a scene in one of my favorite historical novels, by Finnish historian/author/feminist Kaari Utrio.
A young medieval noblewoman is confessing to an old priest, basically seeking help with/escape from her abusive husband. The priest says something like this (I’m paraphrasing/translating from memory):
@bekabot : I am pretty sure their standard answer is “if it exist, natural selection mean it exist for a reason !”
Which is a load of bullshit who fly in the face of actual evolution theory, but they don’t care. Evolution-wise, it could totally be A – a random side effect of another mutation ; or B – something whose usefulness isn’t at all what they expect (maybe orgasms help exercice muscles used for digestion or miction ?) ; or C – something so unimportant it wasn’t selected for or against.
@Shadowplay, Katamount
Oh well. I didn’t think so, but thought it was worth asking.
Re: things existing for a reason
Most things exist for no reason, and that’s just fine. There doesn’t need to be a reason.
Anyway, next time some internet misogynist says that female orgasms have no purpose, point out that he has no purpose either. Really, I don’t think there is any good purpose for people like Pomidor Quixote.
Oh, and FWIW in another thread I recall we found several possible evolutionary purposes for female orgasms in addition to more desire for sex. Like contractions to draw sperm into the uterus.
Wasn’t Merlin the son of one of those sex demons?
Welp. Sorry for the language, but my first reaction upon reading this was:
“Jesus Christ, how horrifying.”
That said the dude’s callsign is weirdly appropriate given his penchant for windmill crusades.
@Ohlmann : Pretty much the version I remember, as well. Merlin, in the latter versions of the Arthurian myth (eg. Vulgate Cycle, La Morte d’Arthur) was the product of such shenanigans.
But frankly, I am appalled at the depths of misogyny needed to consider the female orgasm “useless”. If pleasure is useless for the conception of offspring, why not genetically modify men so that they don’t feel any pleasure when ejaculating? Of course, he’d probably answer with a long diatribe that it’s an “intrinsic necessity” and that doing that to guys would be “defiling their virile essence” or some shit (insert General Ripper* “precious bodily fluids” joke/comparison here).
Then again this is a dude who thinks that because women can be impregnated without consent of pleasure that means they have no agency. Ugh, I feel like I need a shower just from typing that.
*A sociopathic, delusional military man from the movie “Doctor Strangelove”. One of the best satires of all time, maybe even THE best, period.
PS: As a a dude myself I sure as hell want to keep sexual pleasure. I also think that women orgasming is one of the greatest things ever.
@Lainy – LOL yup, you beat me to the punch!
@Naglfar – To me, his purpose is to serve as a living counter-example.
@Paireon
Maybe, but could we have a slightly less appalling one? Mr. Quixote here still seems to exist to an unnecessary degree. I hope that he doesn’t have any children; these genes should not be passed on to the next generation.
@ Lainy
Yep; the most common romances have his mom being a human princess and his dad being an incubus, although the Arthurian Romances being what they are, his character and nature change considerably over time and between authors. For example, some of the older sources (most notably Geoffrey of Monmouth) have him being a prophet of great renown and uncanny accuracy, but a number of later sources reduce or eliminate his prophetic nature and play up his magic/supernatural abilities (like shapeshifting).
@Nequam
Dammit, you beat me to the ‘two-pump chump’ thing.
@Pretentious Pseudonymous Misogynist:
Oh lord, the depth of this dumbth is damn near unfathomable.
If, to underscore your laughable “point”, you must rely on the imagined sexual tastes of imaginary sex-demons whose existence was posited by notoriously superstitious and utterly unscientific medieval “philosophers” (note the quotes, there for a reason), you’re already arguing from a position of incredible weakness. Nothing you say thereafter will serve to pull you up out of your own cognitive sumphole. The fact that you haven’t gone into the matter in any greater depth than is provided by Grade 7 Sex Ed, circa 1960, isn’t going to help you there, either.
You might do better to throw yourself at a windmill and go splat, like the tomato you named yourself after. You still wouldn’t be able to make any woman cum, mind you, but you might at least amuse some of us.
@naglfar
One I haven’t seen (though I think ‘more sex’ probably has a larger roll to play than what I am proposing) is that the female orgasm assists in mate-selection.
Not in like a ‘chad genes ruined the gene pool’ way, but in a ‘this person’s sex ability indicates potentially useful mate-traits’ kind of way.
TMI warning: timid discussions of my experience with female orgasms.
In my experience (and what else is evo-psych based on anyway) a female orgasm requires a partner that has some degree of stamina, some strength, and a fairly well developed theory of mind (in that, there needs to be the ability to ‘read’ a partner and anticipate what might be pleasurable to them).
Strength, stamina (and most importantly) a developed theory of mind are also the traits of:
good hunters (i.e. can anticipate animal movements, has the stamina to pursue them, and the strength to harvest the meal);
good gatherers (same as above except switch out “anticipate animal movements” with “anticipate bloom-fruit cycles”);
good community leaders (strength/stamina to engage in collaborative decision making plus the developed theory of mind necessary to anticipate what others may want); and
good fighters (strength/stamina to have the fight plus the more important sufficiently developed theory of mind necessary to anticipate an opponent may do in a fight or (more usefully) determine what can be done to avoid the fight)
being evo-psych, this is all conjecture. But I enjoy thinking of these thought experiments.
@Bina
Not sure about that one. Some women might have windmill fetishes and might cum at the sight of a man attacking a windmill. It’s a long shot, but people have all kinds of fetishes.
All this mention of windmills is making me think of one thing (warning: gif does change brightness slightly):