By David Futrelle
Nyasha Madzima is the CEO of a one-person “branding and media” company that doesn’t seem to have a working web page. He also doesn’t seem to have a working knowledge of biology.
In a recent Twitter thread, he attempted to explain why women shouldn’t have more than one sexual partner in their lifetime.
I’ve run across assorted misogynists making a similar, er, argument — claiming that when women come into contact with a man’s sperm, it essentially rewrites her DNA and makes her a little bit more like the sperm-depositor. (This is complete nonsense, of course.) But Madzima is much more mystical about it, and presumably wearing a condom won’t prevent that Life Force from sneaking into the vagina, or wherever it’s supposed to be going.
Either way, the result is the same, offering men another excuse to claim that women who aren’t literally virgins are man-contaminated whores who can’t love good men correctly because they’re so full of the collective Life Forces of other (bad) men.
Which, even according to the perverse logic of these arguments, doesn’t seem quite fair. If any of this were true, wouldn’t the onus be as much on the man to avoid sex with multiple women to avoid contaminating or confusing them? Wouldn’t it thus be the duty of all men to remain virgins until marriage to keep from damaging them? If contact with a man’s dick is polluting, shouldn’t there be some sort of cap and trade program for dicks?
But it’s pointless to try to argue any of this logically, because this isn’t about logic any more than it’s about scientific facts; it’s just another way to make women feel shitty about having a sex life. Or to try anyway, because there aren’t a lot of women out there who buy any of this bullshit.
Anyway, this all made me think of this old song:
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!
The over inflated opinion so many men have about how much effect their dick has on people will never stop cracking me up.
It’s funny in general how a lot of bigots create arguments to support their position, yet without a certain unstated premise which most people don’t agree with, it looks like they’re arguing against their own position. Like how some antifeminists appear to be saying “men have no personal agency or self-control, no real desires or goals beyond sex and murder, and are often quite stupid to boot! This is why men should have absolute power over everything!” Geez, misandrist much?
And here is an example of someone trying to argue that we should control women’s sexuality, and yet they appear to be arguing we should control men’s sexuality instead. Too funny. ?
No doubt in another life I might have found his arguments persuasive, but unfortunately none of my past male sex partners believed what he believes, and since my thoughts and feelings are determined by the dudes I have boinged, my hands are tied here.
I’ve taken to picturing essential oils every time they mention essence. It’s a better mental image to picture lavender oil.
Take your own advice, Mr. Madzima.
@Snowberry
I have yet to find a single modern feminist group that thinks as poorly of men as most antifeminists do.
It could also be read as advocating gay sex, as presumably men wouldn’t take the essence of other men and women wouldn’t take that of other women.
Or if life force is only transferred through vaginal sex, he could be advocating oral and/or anal sex.
Something something deny them my essence
It was reassuring seeing the Twitter responses dragging him for filth.
OT, but does anyone remember the Wizarding character with the £200 shirt and long hair?
I saw a post he made on r/PordanJeterson about the imminent destruction of the white race. Started engaging with him, and he explained how he knew about this – he lived in a formerly English town that had been taken over by Muslims.
On further inquiry, it turned out to be Leeds. Alan Robertshaw, can you corroborate or invalidate his claims?
“Women uh… women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh… I do not avoid women, Mandrake. But I… I do deny them my essence.”
@ Robert
Well I’m from Bradford, so that means I see Leeds on a par with Mordor*. However putting my bias aside for a moment…
Unfortunately we do see a lot of this ‘taken over’ rhetoric from certain quarters. Has he claimed there are ‘no go areas’ yet? That’s also a common one.
It’s all bollocks of course. The Muslim population of Leeds amounts to about 6%; and whilst I’m sure there are Muslims contributing to the functioning of the city at all levels, I think you’d have a hard time arguing they’ve ‘taken over’. I don’t think there’s even one Muslim MP.
(*even though secretly I quite like it as it’s gone pretty boho and chichi now)
Well I don’t want to make any assumptions based on names or skin colour, but I’m not getting a huge Ummah vibe here..
https://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/mgMemberIndexMP.aspx?bcr=1
Was it Cernovich who claimed that sperm had a magical essence and it would tie “your woman” to you forever?
Honestly, these guys and their mystical jism.
@Snowberry Of course it is really a justification for giving men all of the power and none of the responsibility, at least in relationships, as I am sure you have noticed. The notion that female + virginity = good is important in our culture, so these guys come up without all sorts of rationalizations for that idea. Meanwhile on the left we just acknowledge that sometimes society is wrong about things.
Though I suspect another big reason why men supposedly can’t control themselves is that conservatives don’t really see “free will” as a good thing. The most explicit example is Christian belief, God gives humans free will and a choice, but that choice boils down to either be good and go to Heaven or be bad and go to Hell. Theoretically there can be a lot of variation within the virtuous space, but in practice any deviation from being completely “normal” is viewed as suspicious.
One way I have heard to view it is under conservative morality is that there is “one true path” and any deviation from the “one true path” is a moral failing to be punished. In in theory the details of the one true path come from from divine revelation, or respected thinkers, or common sense, or obvious truths, but in practice they are just copying their behavior from the people around them, from whatever feels the most familiar and normal. They learn moral rules from all of phenomena your learn in sociology, and they never feel the need think twice about any of it. They claim their morality is absolute over and over again, but really it is societal moral relativism. It is true because the community says so. Of course communities where everyone thinks alike are going to usually be a lot more right-wing, or rather more “authoritarian”. I been reading a free book discussing the science and psychology of these sorts of people, and I have sort of been freaking out.
https://www.theauthoritarians.org/
@QuantumInc
I feel like there’s more nuance than that. They like free will when it’s for them, but hate when other people exercise any sort of freedom. “Rules for thee and not for me,” in other words. This gives them an ability to claim they’re for freedom, but restrict it to those they deem worthy.
If any of this were true, wouldn’t the onus be as much on the man to avoid sex with multiple women to avoid contaminating or confusing them? Wouldn’t it thus be the duty of all men to remain virgins until marriage to keep from damaging them?
If women consume part of a man’s life force when they have sex, shouldn’t men who have lots of sex become shrivelled up raisins as they give more and more of themselves away?
Also, what happens when men have sex with other men? Will they eventually body-swap each other? Will the same thing happen with women who have sex with other women, or is their life force contained?
Also, what happens when a nonbinary person has sex? Maybe it depends on what sort of nonbinary person gets involved? Does a genderfluid person absorb or donate life essence depending on how they’re feeling at the moment? Do agender folks not receive or give life essence? If they have sex with a man, will there be some kind of backfire?
Inquiring minds want to know.
@Viscaria – ha, nice one 😛
Well, a key issue seems to be having sex with “low-quality” men. So maybe the implication is more that such men shouldn’t have sex at all and only the “high-quality” ones should. (Following this logic would lead to the sort of world incels imagine.)
I’m wondering: in his very weird little world, what happens when men have sex with other men? Do they absorb each other’s life force and energy? Do gay men with multiple sex partners end up being all alike?
It somewhat reads like there’s this implicit “‘life force’ is a male attribute” in the person’s myth—perhaps it’s the sense I get, from the text, that the transmission of LF is not reciprocal.
Gross, that—very depersonalizing if the implication I’m reading is truly present.
So, women in marriage start to resemble their husband? Is this phenomenon in any way related to dog owners starting to resemble their pet?
Out of topic, but i just read that Alexis Ohanian, co-funder of Reddit, resigned and had asked to be replaced by a black person to his post. Steve Huffman seems to have said this will be done. Explosions of angry criticisms expected in 3… 2… 1…
Link in french
Wait, so when Stacy is doing her business with Chad, they are really a gay couple, because, she has by then so much other Chads essence in her, that she is mot so much a woman anymore?
It’s all in the sperm. People without sperm have no couriers to pass on their life force. The recipient of the brainwashing bicycle messengers gets the life force whether male or female, and naturally condoms interfere unless there’s a breach. If there is no sperm transferred during sex between women, then no life force transfer either. But lesbians don’t exist anyway, so that’s a moot point.
You see, I understand all this due to all the low quality men I’ve whored around with.
I would think a close look at the opinions and personalities of any couple that have been married 20+ years would refute this silliness.
The only way I see it having anything to do with science is exchanging microbioms, and it works both ways. And I don’t mean pathogens causing std or uti, just getting different strain of normal, healthy bacteria. And even if the couple uses condoms, they still rather kiss?
Honestly, if this theory was correct (and if I were the type to want to have sex with men), I’d probably want to scratch the itch by banging as many different dudes as possible. Because apparently sleeping with one guy repeatedly grants him a level of mind control over you??? Fuck that, I’d be limiting my exposure to any one dude as much as I feasibly could.