By David Futrelle
Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer is giving out sex tips now, and they are pretty dire. He begins a recent lengthy disquisition on the subject by informing his male readers that, no, women can’t be good at sex — and that as far as he’s concerned the very notion of “good sex” is “absolute boomer tripe.”
It only gets worse from there.
I hear men talking about how “good in bed” a woman is and I’m like “wow so I guess she was really squirming around a lot, huh?”
Hey, squirming is good.
The only measure of “good” or “bad” sex is the physical fitness of the couple – much more so the man, because he is going to be the one exerting 95% of the energy.
Uh, what about, say, those positions in which the woman is doing the most work?
This modern “woman on top” style sex is just a disgusting porno myth and actually you can basically never get proper motions in that position.
I think a lot of people are going to have to disagree with you on this one, bub.
More importantly, having a woman “in control” on top of you like that is vile and degrading. No man should ever subject himself to being underneath a woman during the act of copulation. It’s virtually on the level of cunnilingus, and at that point, you might as well just let her peg you with a strap-on. …
Allowing a woman to “take the reins” by being on top is humiliating and emasculating. It basically creates a situation where you are the woman. Women don’t respect this.
Apparently there’s only one proper kind of sex, in Anglin’s world, and — somewhat surprisingly — it isn’t missionary position.
The ideal and appropriate position is to have her on all fours, and to enter from behind.
At least that way you don’t have to see the disappointed look in her face, I guess.
This is also the natural position of human mating, given that beds did not used to exist.
Huh? You can fuck all sorts of ways without a bed. Nazis have such severely limited imaginations.
As you have probably noticed, Anglin doesn’t seem much interested in women’s pleasure — and in fact he thinks the more a man pays attention to what his partner wants, the worse it will be for both of them. Anglin suggests, rather, that everyone will be the happiest if the man is completely selfish.
If you are exclusively concerned about your own enjoyment, this will lead to her having a higher opinion of you, because you aren’t acting like her servant. …
[M]en should never, ever stoop to thinking about how much a woman enjoys sex. If you do that, you are like some pathetic little dog. No woman respects that.
The only way straight women will ever be fully satisfied, Anglin asserts, is if their partners start slapping them around. You see, he’s under the impression that all women secretly (or not-so-secretly) want all sex to be rough sex with a lot of slapping and choking and name-calling.
Here’s the truth about what is considered “good sex” for a woman: every single woman just wants to be slapped and choked during sex. That is what women crave more than anything. That is what she will compliment you on, that is what will make her obsessed with you and keep texting you compulsively afterward.
Well, sure, some women are into this, just as some guys are. People are into all sorts of things. Some like rough sex, some like gentle sex, some like sex in which both partners are dressed like sexy pokemons. The key thing is to be on the same page with your partner. Going into a sexual encounter with a new partner assuming that every women is into choking and slapping is a recipe for disaster.
I’ve even heard tell that literal hookers will ask you to choke them, if you’re a muscly and aloof young guy, and they want to use the opportunity of you paying them for sex to act out their own sex fantasies on you in-between business sessions with old men.
I’m pretty sure sex workers are mostly interested in getting the sex over with as efficiently and safely as possible, even when their clients are “muscly and aloof young guys.” Choking is dangerous to begin with; having some stranger do it to you is risky in the extreme.
Not that he’s advocating giving in to women’s “vile” and “debased” desires.
Just so you understand: I am not encouraging anyone to do these sick BDSM type acts with a woman, ever. She will enjoy it, but you will feel dirty afterward, and that may stay with you for a long time.
Nah.. It’s reading the Daily Stormer that makes me feel dirty for a long, long time.
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!
He sounds miserable. In every sense of the word. Miserable to be around and miserable to be. He probably even disappoints his hand.
Holy shit. That… is impressively vile. And ignorant about sex, but mainly just vile.
Because you don’t want to see her face, you disgusting excuse for a man? Because you don’t want to be reminded that she’s a person?
a) no we fucking don’t
b) when this “works” that’s because it’s abusive trauma-bonding, literally the same kind of shit that torturers use
c) please just die
I’m sorry I can’t even with this garbage.
I can’t really say the writing has changed since he laid off half his staff. Same shitty Nazi stuff.
Insofar as there is a natural position, it seems mating face-to-face would be it, seeing as bonobos mate that way and humans seem to be able to facilitate face-to-face sex better than most species. Of course, the whole idea of a “natural position” is kind of BS, there are all kinds of ways to have sex.
I’m actually a bit surprised he isn’t into missionary. That’s the beloved one of all the fundies IIRC.
Evidently he hasn’t heard of the prostate, or doesn’t think that prostate stimulation is worth what he sees as so degrading. His loss, really, but I don’t care.
I might add, even if you do see being on the bottom or anal as degrading, some people are into degradation. Plus, IMO those acts aren’t inherently degrading unless one ascribes external value to them.
When did this become Penthouse Forum?
I mean i guess this guy never heard of thks so I’m gonna let him on my husband secret. He likes it when I’m on top because he get to lie there and watch my breast bounce for half an hour.
Then again I doubt these Nazi fucks have sex with the lights on
Someone’s clearly never had sex…
5 internets says that “Quest for fire” is one of his favorite movies
HahahaHAHAHA no. Wrong from the beginning, wrong all the way until the end, wrong on the unwritten parts which don’t exist.
Sadly, it’s probably going to be easier for him to hide right now.
@Snowberry: I for one would be perfectly happy to never hear Andrew Anglin’s name or see his face again.
The only “natural” sex position is standing up, face to face, with the man supporting the woman’s full weight the entire time, because it is independent of surfaces or furnishings. Any man who can’t hold a woman’s weight up that long doesn’t deserve to reproduce, obviously. At least, that’s how I understand the Nazi logic here.
They are all wrong. The only natural position is floating trough space embracing each other in a loving way. The rest is strictly earth-based. This whole thing reminds me of a lot of speculations where a couple of scientists and a couple of biology-interested nerds? imagined our per-historic sex lives and how they related to everything in our current situation.
It’s enlightening of course, but you can’t take it too seriously if you have zero data and lots and lots of hot steamy conjecture.
Also, since that might not be obvious: Fascism is bad, Nazis are worse, feminism is needed and everyone who hates humans and wishes to actively harm them is probably not a good person as well.
“Women enjoy the porn bitch treatment so much that you should actually refrain from doing it, lest you betray an unmanly interest in what she wants”
Sounds rather like the old joke about how to torment a masochist. However, I think this sort of rhetoric will be read (and is intended to be read) as reinforcing the common misogynist notion that a) treating women badly is culturally normal, traditional and masculinity-asserting and b) excusing it with “women actually like it” is a good standard dogwhistle.
@Cyborgette
Yes.
Of course he doesn’t want to see her face after he’s said what he said about women. He’s scared of her.
Oooo! Oooo! I love hot, steaming conjecture! I wanna play, too! Let’s see…
The only natural way of mating is rolling around on a floor covered in oil, because back in the Stone Age all those caves had nasty stone floors so the only way to have comfortable sex was to do it in a mud pit. Because science!
Do I win something?
The only natural way to have sex is in the trees. Ground sex = lion chow.
Wait, I think I went back a little too far…
Per Andrew Anglin (here and in the original), this is how a man has sex correctly:
1. Be in good physical shape.
2. Understand that what a woman really wants is to be degraded. This is because she is vile and disgusting.
3. Know that degrading a woman will harm your sensitive soul. Don’t do this.
4. Instead, enter this vile, disgusting creature from behind, and have no concern at all about her pleasure.
5. You’ll know that she’s enjoying the sex if she is enthusiastic about it.
6. Also, assume that if you enjoy the sex, she does too.
7. If you do not try to please her, she’ll be more satisfied with the experience.
8. But remember to have no concern at all about her pleasure.
9. Also remember that what this vile, disgusting creature really wants is to be degraded. No, having no concern at all about her pleasure is not an attempt to degrade her. You’re not paying attention.
10. Don’t be a stupid Boomer. Get with the neo-Nazi program.
TL; dr: The logic of hate propaganda is always tortuous and twisted.
Sex is only worth it if both partners have a good time, even in those situations where all one’s performance has done has made the other partner/s roll about laughing.
I would like to be able to say “well, at least he’s not advocating physically abusing women”, but honestly I feel like the last portion of the screed are a not-so-subtle wink and nod meaning “all women secretly want to be brutalized and put in their place, and you shouldn’t engage in sexual deviancy but if you do need to smack your woman around a bit, she’s actually into it so it’s 100% totally okay!”
I mean, it’s possible that the nazi is shameless enough to actually come out and say that if that’s what he meant, so maybe he really isn’t suggesting slapping and choking one’s partner. The bar is in the floor here.
Actually, I think that you’re all missing one small nuance here, and it’s connected not with sex as pleasure, but with Nazi Racial theory.
Anglin is, after all, trying to explain this to not-Nazis (as he would expect fellow Hitlerophiles to understand the subtext already). Thus he’s describing it in terms of perversion, or pleasure, or things like that there.
But you may notice that there are hints of a rather rather clinical intent, after you get past that part. Ideally, not only should the woman have little to no pleasure in the act– neither should the man. At least, that’s how I would interpret this.
Why would I interpret this in such peculiar terms? Because of the primary function of sex in a purely biological sense– to reproduce. Oh, yes, there are social, emotional, even other biological reasons for it, but the reason it exists in the first place is propagating the species. (At least, as far as I can tell. Pretty sure that plants, which also reproduce sexually, don’t have orgasms.)
And the primary duty of any Aryan female in Naziland is to bear many, many healthy Aryan babies. The primary duty of Aryan males, after killing or subjugating other humans who aren’t Aryan, is to sire many, many Aryan babies. (Fucking for the Fatherland was a really big thing during the Third Reich.)
Now, the Nazis during said Reich weren’t nearly as pure as what Anglin proposes here. Most of them had fairly healthy sex lives, as far as I can determine. (Not that I’d be opposed to evidence otherwise. Not a fan of giving them too much credit even when it’s due, personally.) But Anglin is sort-of-subtly implying a more extreme version of the Prime Reproductive Directive of the Nazi Breeding Plan.
Especially since to the mind of those who espouse a National Socialist outlook, there are few enough “pure” Aryans out there. (There never were any, since the Nazi concept of the Aryan is utter myth, but meh.) Far more important to Anglin et al is increasing the number of potential goosesteppers of the Future.
Therefore I find myself supporting, surprisingly Mr Anglin’s view– not because I agree with any of it, but because it’s pretty much reducing his ilk’s chances to breed.
Ok, so apart from disgusting and depressing nazi sex for joyless procreation which you are probably right about, Robert,
@Another Laura
I would really love to gift you a pen or some token. Have a virtual A plus (sadly, I don’t have a formal degree yet) and please keep up your conjecturous way of thinking.
You too, @Snowberry — even though tree sex has its own problems, namely gravity.
Once again, Anglin does us a public service by displaying openly and clearly how unpleasant his ideology is in practically every way. Thus reinforcing the message (which I had already taken to heart) that you should take steps to ensure someone isn’t a Nazi before engaging in sexual activity with them. Well, possibly any activity, but – given this insight into the mindset – certainly sexy stuff. Don’t just assume that someone isn’t a Nazi because they’re physically attractive, can make you laugh, or enjoy some of the same books/films/etc*. Check with questions and the “no” test**. It’s the only way to be sure***.
* That is not to say you have to have sexy fun time with anyone who checks out as not-Nazi. Consent is still a thing.
** For anyone unaware:
https://medium.com/@Shesreallyfat/the-easiest-way-to-avoid-falling-for-an-abusive-partner-24eee209b4ef
*** And no, I’m not ruling out nuking the entire planet from space as an alternative approach. It just feels a little “sledgehammer to crack a nut” in this context.
@Robert Haynie
I am very much in support of Nazis not having babies. We don’t need more Nazis, plus they’d be horrible fathers.
I would also recommend not having sex with TERFs. Graham Linehan doesn’t think the female orgasm exists.
@Naglfar
I once read some book or something about the things that this whole biped-thing changed for our ancestors, anatomy-wise. One thing there was that as the vaginal opening moved forward(?), this meant that mating was easier from the front than the back, but since I don’t remember the source, it could just as well have been some sort of missionary position propaganda.
But considering that people actually differ in their anatomy and ability, saying that there should only one sex position is ridiculous.
If Andrew Anglin ever tried anything with me, I hope I would be able to taunt him with a fiercely delivered “Break free, Aryan.”
…This isn’t even a slippery slope argument. It’s a lubed staircase argument.
Pretty sure they still had grass, though.
I don’t know how people can claim with a straight face that human beings wouldn’t be able to figure out how to fuck in a particular way. If there’s one thing we’re good at, it’s that.