Has A Voice for Men just declared itself in favor of marital rape?
In the midst of a long and otherwise fairly tedious piece complaining about wives asking their husbands to do their fair share of the chores, Clint Carpentier offers some rather startling thoughts on marital rape laws, and how he thinks they help to make marriage a losing proposition for modern men.
In the good old days, he writes, “sex was a wifely duty she was obligated to provide as per the terms of marriage.” But “since the advent of ‘marital rape,’ sex [in marriage] is no longer a loving duty, so it has become whim and weapon … .”
Yep. Apparently “being raped by your husband” is really just a way to fulfill your “loving duty” as a wife.
So, Carpentier concludes, if wives demand that you do the chores around the house, and you can’t rape them at will, what’s the point of even having one in the first place? After all, he argues, in an age of washing machines and readymade meals chores are easy, and men can get “once per day of blasé sex” from “any street-hooker” or splurge on “mind-blowing sex once a week [from] a well trained call-girl.”
And so, he writes,
If women are demanding that their husbands do their “fair share” of the chores, then why do men need wives at all? In man’s attempt to make their wives lives easier, they have reduced the wifely duties to next to non-existent. Why, women? Why oh why would you drive those final coffin nails of obsolescence in? Aside from children, there’s no benefit left to having a wife.
Well, if the only “benefits” you can see in having a wife are someone who will do the cooking and cleaning and whom you can rape at will, then, no, there is no benefit to you in having a wife now that marital rape is illegal. And there is certianly no benefit to any woman in marrying or dating or possibly even being in the same room as you.
Where have all the good men gone? Well… where have all the good women gone?
That’s right: A man who considers marital rape to be a husband’s right honestly thinks that he’s one of the good ones.
AVFM’s Paul Elam loves to rail against the evils of traditionalism and chivalry. Interesting that marital rape is one element of traditionalism he apparently has no problem with.
Today I feel an irresistible urge to post music videos. Above, an awesome interpretation of a rock classic that is sure to get you PUMPED for the weekend.
Today, some farm fresh misogyny, straight from the virtual pages of MGTOWforums.com, in the form of a sprawling rant on the blackhearted nature of the female of the species by a fellow known only as Hamish. I have taken the liberty of condensing the rant somewhat, and of breaking up Hamish’s walls of text into shorter paragraphs. The original director’s cut of his comment can be found here.
[T]he prettier a woman is on the outside, the blacker her heart is on the inside. Underneath that pretty exterior does indeed lurk a monster. That women are driven by their highly fickle “feelings” rather than by logic is the scariest and most dangerous part about them.
[W]omen are so fickle that they vacillate between wanting Nick the nice guy who will be nice and romantic to them one day and wanting Tommy the thug who will treat her like absolute crap the next day. Indeed sometimes they want both these things at the same time …
What cupcake wants is a composite male, the ingredients of which are a blend of The Rock, Matt Damon, Donald Trump, Justin Timberlake, Hugh Jackman, Mike Tyson, David Bowie, Tony Montana, Ronaldo and Michael Buble …
With women being so irrational, so utterly unreasonable and unrealistic in their demands, it is absolutely inevitable that … there will come a point where she will feel dissatisfied with her date/her fuck buddy/her boyfriend/her fiance/her husband, whatever. And remember what a women feels is her hamster, logic doesn’t get a look in.
For men morality is largely a logical, learned thing – ten commandments, thou shalt not steal/kill, whatever. But for a woman what she feels is the be all and end all … And if that means fucking over and grinding into the dust good, decent men … purely on account that she no longer feels entirely satisfied with him, then so be it – how she feels must prevail above all other factors. …
[A]nd what’s more many women seem to be thoroughly enjoy crushing such men too – the more decent and genuine a guy is, the more pleasure they take in crushing him.
The reason for this is women … see niceness and decency as a sign of weakness and they begin to look down on that male with utter contempt. ….
This explains why it’s always the nicest guys that women fuck over the worst – and why they take great pleasure in doing so and in twisting the knife. To onlooking men this kind of stuff looks like a horrible, unjustifiable act of black hearted pitilessness – but to women, it’s nothing … .
This illogical thinking and intrinsic fickleness on the part of women winds up in women becoming capricious, merciless tyrants. But of course to be tyrants women have to have power – sure they always had the power of the pussy, but much more sinisterly women are now armed to the teeth and dangerous – armed by the law/the state that is …
Women have the state/big government backing them up to the hilt at every turn – to the extent that women now have the power at their fingertips to destroy or at least seriously mess up/disrupt the life of any man they’re sexually involved with – and … many women … can’t … resist abusing this power. And not only to mess up men’s lives and defame their character … but of course to loot men too – often of their entire net worth.
The madness of all this is that the state has placed all this power in the hands of beings who are intrinsically fickle and capricious by nature. So having been armed by the state, women are now not only fickle and capricious, worse than that they have now upgraded to fickle and capricious tyrants, who have a licence from the state to ruin men’s lives on a whim.
Having been so armed by the state, women are now akin to the capricious psychopath boss at work, who fires people just because he’s in a bad mood, or the capricious psychopath dictator, who has citizens locked up or killed on a whim.
In the case of the psycho boss or the dictator, they behave in this manner because (1) they have the power to do it (2) they can do it without any comeback to them and (3) they get off on it.
And this is exactly the dynamics involved when women fuck over men – women fuck over men because they have the power to do it (or more accurately the state has bestowed that power on them), they can do it without any comeback to them or negative consequences for them and they also do it because they just damned well get a sadistic kick from doing do.
So yes, underneath those physically appealing pretty girls (and indeed in many less physically appealing girls too) does indeed lurk an evil monster – one that is armed, dangerous, and utterly pitiless.
And … scene!
The truly weird thing about this rant is that, as some Man Boobz old timers may recall, the Hamish who wrote this rant is not the first MGTOW named Hamish I’ve written about on this blog. But the last one wasn’t actually real: he was a character who appeared, in cartoon form, in the dreams of a Man Boobz reader. As she wrote in an email to me,
after a day of reading a particularly large amount of your posts, I had a strange dream about this guy who sits on a train and describes some STDs he caught in great (and terrifying) detail to whoever is silly enough to listen. His goal is to dissuade other men from making the same mistake he did — having sex with women. Because to “Hamish the Lover” … all women are dirty and evil and should be avoided at all costs.
Now this mysterious dream lover Hamish has a namesake on MGTOWforums.com, writing long rants on how … all women are evil and should be avoided at all costs.
Kind of creepy, eh?
The dreamer also sent me a picture of Hamish the Lover as he had appeared in her dream. Here he is again.
He looks like a bit of a charming rogue. Too bad he’s an asshole.
Some people dream of going back in a time machine and strangling baby Hitler in his crib, thus preventing World War II, the Holocaust, any number of stupid memes. Our dear friend Heartiste — the repellent right-wing pickup guru — dreams instead of delivering the incredibly wussy teenage Hitler his own Sixteen Commandments of Poon, thus saving young Adolph from the horrors of Betahood and perhaps also preventing World War II, etc.
Heartiste, who evidently gets his news from seven-year-old stories in the Daily Mail, has been reading about a not-so-new book that tells the story of teenage Hitler’s unrequited crush on a girl named Stefanie Isak. To hear the Daily Mail tell it, Hitler was quite the beta simp, watching from a distance in fury as alpha male army officers charmed (and won over) the young lass. Heartiste is driven to comment:
What do women want? Dudes. In groups. Especially dudes who hate them.
That, in any case, seems to be the conclusion drawn by a blogger who calls himself Hipster Racist, and who seems to be a white supremacist of some kind. Anyway, he’s written a little post about the rise of Reddit’s Red and Blue Pill Subreddits and how they illustrate the Mannerbund Effect, a theory that helps to explain just why it is that the ladies allegedly like getting up in men’s business so much.
Two rage comics that capture well the true human tragedy that is FRIENDZONING, both of which I found in the awesome Blue Pill subreddit. The one above is by dont_buy_me_gold; the one below by SaltyChristian (who is, incidentally, a CERTIFIED ALPHA).
I have heard rumors that the entire Blue Pill subreddit is not actually a hangout for super alpha dudes but rather a parody of the Red Pill subreddit but I choose not to believe them, much in the same way I choose not to believe in the supposed “law” of gravity. It’s A THEORY, people!
(Note: These are both parodies, by the way, in case there is any confusion.)
After yesterday’s horribleness, here’s a bit of MRA pontificating that’s mostly just absurd. In the Men’s Rights subreddit, our dear old friend OuiCrudites spells out the Seven Step Plan that is destroying men today. He doesn’t explain 1) who exactly is taking these steps, or 2) why exactly they want to destroy men, but, you know, I think we can just assume 1) the evil feminist gynomatriarchy/women in general and 2) EEEEEEVIL.
Interesting that two whole steps out of the seven here involve complaints about “females” dating thuggy alpha bad boys instead of decent, hard-working nice guys like those you might find posting thoughtful comments on gender relations in helpful list form on Reddit.
So the Men’s Rightsers over on Reddit are getting worked up over the evils of women “friend zoning” men, and one especially angry fellow by the name of andreipmbcn has a warning for the ladies: if they don’t watch themselves, the men’s rights movement might just rise up and make friend zoning illegal:
What this means is not exactly clear to me. Would women actually be required to have sex with all men who are aggressively “nice” towards them? Who knows. But judging from the dozens of upvotes andre’s comment got, Reddit MRAs like the sound of it.
(Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this lovely comment.)
Warren Farrell, possibly pondering the mysteries of consent.
NOTE: This is the second installment of The Myth of Warren Farrell, a continuing series examining Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, the most influential book in the Men’s Rights canon. You can see the first post here.
Men’s Rights elder Warren Farrell has been accused of being a “rape apologist,” largely because of one now-notorious sentence he wrote in The Myth of Male Power:
We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.
This sentence is at least as puzzling as it is disturbing. Calling date rape “exciting” is pretty foul. But what on earth is “date fraud?”
Leave it to Roosh V’s Return of Kings blog to publish the most reprehensible thing I’ve yet seen related to the Boston Marathon bombing.
In a post with the lovely title “The American Woman Has Hit An All-Time Low,” guest blogger Samseau offers some thoughts – that is to say, wild, unsupported speculation – about the widow of bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and uses that as evidence in a case against American women as a whole, declaring her “a profound marker in the decline of the American woman.”
