Category Archives: Radical Feminists

Thoughts on the MRA/PUA/MGOTOW Sites

Bhabi writes:

Robert, you’re now claiming to be an MRA?

I am an MRA, yes. But I don’t like a lot of them. I do like the posters and commenters on a blog called Antifeminism. The main thing I dislike about the MRA/PUA/MGOTOW sites is that the misogyny is just so extreme in so many cases. I’m actually a guy who loves women, or at least tries my best to, difficult as it can be at times, so blatant misogyny like that really bites me the wrong way. I hate feminists, but I love women. And there’s two kinds of women,  feminists and real women.

Also there is a lot of feminism mirroring and general victim addiction that you see in most nationalist/chauvinist movements – and yes feminism is just female chauvinism.

This is characterized by “They hate us!!!!”  And endless screaming accusations of misandry. For one thing it is mirroring the idiot victim addiction I mentioned in a previous post. Victim addiction is demeaning to men because it depicts men as weak and helpless victims – a bunch of whining bitches.

Mirroring the enemy is not progress, and the proper response to female chauvinism is not male chauvinism. Yes, some radical feminists hate men, but I am not really concerned about that. I’m laffin right now thinking about it. What are these bitches going to do? Come over here and fuck me up? Beat me over the head with their strapons until I die? Big deal.

On the other hand, I am not going to ally with a bunch of haters who hate me and my kind, i.e. feminists. Male feminists are basically pussies who apologize for being men and beg forgiveness from women by claiming they are not like the rest of those evil pigs. In response, feminist women give feminist men what? In many cases, precisely nothing.

Also, I don’t like the whining, screeching tone. “They’re discriminating against us men and boys!” Oh boo hoo! Those mean girls. Didn’t they make a movie about them? Even if these bitches are discriminating against men and boys (and there is little evidence that feminism has gone that insane yet) the proper response would not be crying into our hankies and screeching like a bunch of banshee bitches.

A man doesn’t act that way when challenged. When challenged, threatened or attacked, a man fights back. He goes out and fucks you up.

So I think that the Manosphere ought to be taking a much more aggressive, hostile, menacing and threatening tone towards these feminists. It should be like, “Look bitches. We are at war with you! Got it? And we mean it. You wanted a war with us? Fine. No problem. You got that war. Understand? We are taking you on!”

We should be threatening to fuck people up. I don’t really advocate doing it, and it’s illegal anyway, but it’s the proper male response to feminism. Not wailing, but instead pure macho violent rage complete with bellowing, chest beating and threats. Let them think twice about taking us on. Are we gonna fight back? Damn right, bitches. You want to start a war with us men? No problem, you got one. Are you down?

I don’t really think we live in a misandrous culture, and misandry is not much of a problem nowadays. What is a problems is female thinking ruling society = Female Rule = Feminist Rule = Feminist Totalitarian Dictatorship. Keep in mind that millions of male manginas assist with these women in enforcing female rule.

I don’t really think most women hate us, and I don’t think they are misandrous. Instead, they’re just being cunts. This is what happens when you empower women to the extent where they think they can impose their bullshit thinking on society when male thinking would do a lot better job of it.

Men and women compete and differ in many ways and have opposing interests. So the stuff that female thinking is going to push via feminism is inevitably hostile to men. Most of the feminist women pushing this do not even hate men at all. Many love men.

But it’s not misandry that’s the problem. It’s female thinking and in particular, allowing women to carry out their competitive war of interests with men into the social and especially legal arena.

Men and women struggle for power in various ways even in marriage and loving relationships. This is because they have different interests. When the pro-female agenda is imposed on society, the anti-male effects are obvious. Because what is pro-female is often anti-male. Because females (even feminists) hate us? No, many to most of them love us. What is pro-women is often anti-male due to differing and competing interests, values and agenda among genders.

66 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Masculinism, Radical Feminists, Scum

Define Gender Feminism and Radical Feminism

William writes:

I’d like to understand these two terms a little better, gender feminism and radical feminism. Can you express and/or define what they represent to you and what you think they might mean to the woman who fit these terms?

For all intents and purposes, radical and gender feminism are the same thing. Looking at it more closely, radical feminism is part of gender feminism, but more the extreme end of it. It’s possible that there are gender feminists who think that some of the radicals just take it too far, but in general, the radicals have a firm and hard place in the world of gender feminism. Surely, in Women’s Studies programs, the radical feminists are an essential part of the canon.

The radicals are quite extreme in their man-hating, and many have abandoned men altogether for a political lesbianism. Many have hatred of men that can only be considered pathological or extreme. They often hate pornography too and want to make it illegal. They are often associated with the left and in particular the Hard Left, but socialist feminism is actually a bit different.

Gender feminists are a different breed, and many are happily heterosexual. If the straights though are extremely pro-gay, which really means pro-lesbian. Lately, transsexuals have gained a hallowed place at the table. The straight gender feminists don’t necessarily hate men, but there is definitely a lot of anti-male bias there. They are mostly at war with the Manosphere types and the Men’s Rights crowd. They have very little sympathy for the concerns of men and they don’t understand men at all.

Gender feminism is in opposition to or an expansion of equity feminism. Equity feminism simply wants equal pay. Gender feminism takes it further into more of an objective war against men in general, who are seen as the enemy. The aspect of men that is defined as the enemy is typically the sexual self – that is, they are really at war with male sexuality itself, which they regard as evil. They also lack a good understanding of male sexuality, which they caricature.

Others take it a lot further into a hatred of masculinity itself, which is defined as evil. Only the wimpiest of men are acceptable to these women, and indeed, many strong male feminists are extremely wimpy men. Quite a few are actually gay men, others cross dress, are “male subs” and engage in other sorts of male femininity. Really male feminists are often men who are strongly opposed to masculinity in general. Logically, quite a few of them are gay or may as well be.

Those who like sex and men a lot are often “ballbreakers” who put down men a lot and insult their masculinity. Hence many men are logically afraid of them.

Also gender feminists tend to think that women and the female nature are simply superior to men and the male nature. They deny any biology of gender and tend to think that all gender is constructed culturally. There is a refusal to look at the downside of women and femininity and to blame everything on some unseen patriarchy which is increasingly irrelevant in modern feminized and feministed America.

Among the more radical ones, there is a bizarre obsession with rape. Obviously rape is a serious crime, but it’s really not very common, and the vast majority of men never rape anyone.

Yet many gender feminists essentially run around yelling rape for dawn to dusk. Males who want to get on board with them are also required to run about hollering about rape all day and night and making it clear to everyone how they are not rapists and how they are fighting the War on Rape (how a man fights this war is not known).

The opposite of gender feminism is equity feminism, which simply wants a place at the economic table. Equity feminists often feel that gender feminists take it too far. They don’t hate men, and many of them love men. They are not on board with a war on men. They think men and women are different, even on a biological level, and don’t think one or the other is superior. They candidly admit to the failings and shortcomings of the female and femininity in general.

4 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Radical Feminists, Scum

EU Makes Flirting Illegal

From a MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) forum. The MGTOW movement is an interesting movement. I’m not sure exactly what it’s all about. Could someone please summarize it for me? Sounds like men deciding to live single lives without women, or at least without marrying them anyway.

Also among the clauses is one that will outlaw ‘unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’.

This whole sexual harassment thing has gone completely insane. What exactly is it anyway? How do I know if I am sexually harassing a woman?

For the record, I’ve already more or less been accused of this a couple of times. Once I asked out a woman at work, and she apparently accused me of sexually harassing her on that basis. For asking her out! Another time, some female employees in a store accused me of looking them in a way that they didn’t like. I shouldn’t go into too much detail about this one because I don’t want my Internet enemies to use this against me (they’ve already tried to).

Sexual harassment is one of the areas in which feminism has gone absolutely berserk. The way I read sexual harassment is it means “some guy I don’t like is showing sexual interest in me.” As a man, how the Hell am I supposed to know whether or not I am sexually harassing a woman? I can’t. What are the rules about it anyway? At what point is a guy sexually harassing a woman? None of this shit is clear in any way.

The EU directive appears to attempt to make sexual harassment, which, incredibly, in this case means even nonverbal behavior, illegal or actionable not just in the workplace but all across society.

The comments on the forum are instructive. Posters note that this essentially makes all flirting, and all of human mating behavior for that matter, illegal:

Now approaching and asking women out will be a potential crime in all areas and contexts, not just in workplaces. No, this is not April’s fools…

Can someone please explain to me how this doesn’t outlaw all of human mating? The way people get together is that the one person takes a risk and makes a move to see if the person responds to it (tries to brush their hair, stares into the person’s eyes, winks, throws an innuendo, tries to step a little closer to the person to test intimate space)…This is how all of human mating works…But now it is illegal.

How are men and women supposed to get together? Write written forms asking for permission to flirt? But actually delivering the written form would itself be a form of harassment.

Others note that women increasingly complain that men won’t approach women anymore.

Wow, so they’re catching up to Canada, where the women now complain about Canadian men and how we never make any moves on them – duh…
…-> Men like approaching and introducing themselves to women, and being the initiator

-> Women bitch, moan, ridicule, mock and shame men who approach them, in many cases no matter how polite the man was

-> Men stop approaching women

-> Women wonder how come men are not approaching any more.

11 Comments

Filed under Britain, Culture, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Law, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum

Ti-Grace Atkinson – A Typical American Feminist

From the comments section, Comrade Jacob Bauthumley discusses a noted American radical feminist:

The price of clinging to the enemy [a man] is your life. To enter into a relationship with a man who has divested himself as completely and publicly from the male role as much as possible would still be a risk. But to relate to a man who has done any less is suicide. . . . I, personally, have taken the position that I will not appear with any man publicly, where it could possibly be interpreted that we were friends. – Ti-Grace Atkinson

Ti-Grace Atkinson is one of the most famous American feminists. An early feminist, she helped found the National Organization for Women (NOW) and served as director of New York NOW in 1967.

Her fall from grace and sanity began as it does with so many college girls, with a reading of Simone de Beauvoir’s toxic The Second Sex. It’s hard to say what made Beauvoir hate men so much. She was Sartre’s lover, and he didn’t treat her very well. Maybe that’s what did it.

Atkinson contacted Beauvoir, and Beauvoir put her in touch with Betty Friedan. So Atkinson was an intimate of Beauvoir and Friedan, two of the most famous feminists of all time. In 1968, she left NOW because they were not insane enough for her. She then founded The Feminists, a radical feminist (radical feminist means a seriously insane feminist as opposed to a garden variety insane feminist) grouplet.

Typical psychotic radical feminist positions taken by The Feminists included the dissolution of marriage as an institution that enslaved women to men (nowadays it’s more the other way around to be honest), the defining of men as the enemy, the characterization of women falling in love with men as the response of the victim (the woman) to the rapist (the man) and the desire to get rid of the horrors of uterine pregnancy in favor of some other mode of human procreation.

The evil scum traitors known as “women who live with men” were restricted to 1/3 of the membership in order to limit infiltration by enemy spies. Married women, the ultimate traitors to the sisterhood, were banned altogether.

They said that women liked men too much, and this was due to women developing false consciousness via living in a patriarchal society. At first they said that the only way to limit the paralyzing effects of patriarchy was for women to be autonomous of men. Later they said that women needed to separate themselves from us pigs altogether. Whether the members of The Feminists ever all took up residence as the YWCA is not known.

In order not to contaminate their precious pussies with the evil patriarchal cock, they advocated that women practice celibacy. As that was obviously no fun, they soon advocated political lesbianism. It seems radical feminists actually like to get laid too, just not by guys please.

Later they advocated matriarchy, a system that will fail everywhere it will be tried and has probably failed everywhere in the past due to the laws of nature which it violates. They also advocated women’s religion (Goddess worship?) which I suppose is rather harmless. These two silly ideas later morphed something dumb called cultural feminism.

The Feminists played a leading role in separatist feminism (which is really just lesbian separatism) where wymmyn separate themselves from us dirty male dogs in order not to soil their precious and dainty female selves by association with us. They also helped create an abomination called anti-pornography feminism on the grounds that porn is evil because it shows unsullied pussies getting contaminated with diabolical patriarchal cocks.

Thankfully, The Feminists disbanded, probably because God hated them too. Unfortunately, Atkinson is still alive, but lately she has more or less shut her trap, thank God.

A friend of my mother’s named M. was one of the founding members of California NOW if I am not mistaken. She went to a very early California NOW meeting in Laguna Beach, California in the late 1960′s. M. is an evil heterosexual woman. She told us that she was stunned to find that almost the entire founding membership of CA NOW were a bunch of lesbians. She eventually quit going to meetings because the other women wouldn’t stop hitting on her.

Feminism has a longstanding association with political lesbianism, which is truthfully just a lifestyle choice as the rightwingers say – a lifestyle chosen due to extreme hatred of men. There are many more women like this than you might think! All lesbians were not necessarily “born that way.” Don’t swallow the PC Koolaid on that line.

22 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Politics, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex

Great Article on Game and the Modern Dating Scene

Here.

It covers all of the stuff we have been talking about on this blog for a long time now. It also uses phrases such as Alpha, Beta and Omega and suggests that those categories are indeed valid. In addition, it analyzes the Game and PUA culture, suggesting once again that these guys are onto something, and that the evidence suggests that Game can in fact work when properly applied. It’s not a joke. This stuff actually works. Reviews Roosh, Roissy, Lady Rayne and some others.

Lady Rayne in particular comes off terribly. If you go to her site, she’s an ultra-feminist, liberally quoting Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto (which she praises) and other works of ultra-radical feminism. She wants to make it illegal for men to come onto women in public. Instead, there will be certain public spaces set aside (meat markets if you will) where men and women can mingle that way if they wish to. All of this is to protect women from being bothered by horny men all day, which is, like, a crime almost worse than the Holocaust or something.

Her partner in crime is a super-feminist therapist from back East named Denise Romano who rants and rails on and on about men and rape, men and rape. It never ends. She has also accused me of being a rapist due to confessions I made on this blog. I’m actually not a rapist; what I discussed was seduction and not rape.

Fortunately, seduction is still legal; the psycho bitches haven’t made that illegal yet. But in the minds of the nuts like Lady Rayne and her therapist pal, seduction and rape, well, it’s all the same, see. Game is seduction and therefore rape. Screwing a woman who is high or drunk is rape because she can’t consent.

We men are raping women all the time, and women are constantly getting raped, yet no one has a clue that any of this is going on! We think we are just screwing, but really we are raping and getting raped. How stupid we are!

But it’s so much fun…

Anyway, Lady Rayne and her nut friend want to make Game illegal, because it involves men taking advantage of stupid women. The Hell with it. If we’re going to make Game illegal, then let’s make stupid women illegal too. One can’t exist without the other. Making stupid women illegal would be great for the economy. It would open up a lot of jobs for us breadwinner guys, while women could learn the lost ancient arts of cooking and cleaning and whatnot.

Paradoxically, when she’s not quoting Valerie Solanas, Lady Rayne says she hates women, and she spends most of her time around men. She loves men. Except she wants to make most of us illegal and her favorite book is one that lays out the Final Solution for men.

Meanwhile, Lady Rayne acts like a whore. That’s because she is a whore, or she used to be one anyway. Snicker. She used to be a “stripper.” Snicker again. She’s also covered with tatoos. Triple snicker.

Some feminist man-hater. She hates us so much she can’t stop stripping for us, fucking us and covering herself with tramp stamps.

Lady Rayne is also raising her 7 year old son alone, and she is quite proud of this. In fact, she wants to purposely raise him as a single Mom. What an idiot! God knows what anti-male crap Lady Rayne is pumping into that boy’s mind.

The kid’s father was a no-good alcoholic bad boy.

When she is not brainwashing her poor son, Lady Rayne dates an assortment of men, who are invariably bad boy types who screw up in life and screw her around this way and that, leaving her all upset, bitchy and even crazier than she usually is while waiting for the next bad boy to show up.

She wants to make Game illegal, but she only screws Alphas. Uh huh.

For the life of me, I can’t see why any man would date this bitch, except that she’s hot. I personally wouldn’t take her out without a leash, collar and muzzle, and I wouldn’t fuck her unless I could tie her to the bed first. Ah, forget it. She’s too much trouble. Instead of dating her, just get a restraining order.

Lady Rayne and Denise Romano both came to the blog a while back. Lady Rayne was throwing a temper tantrum, and Denise wouldn’t stop screaming about rape. Denise was screaming so loud, I thought maybe she  actually was getting raped. I was about ready to grab these bitches and jolt some sense into them, but they say to never shake a baby, so I decided not to. Instead I just banned the bitches and took a Tylenol.

Meandering around her blog a bit, you get the feeling that she is highly narcissistic.

As you can see above, she is also extremely self-contradictory, and her general philosophy paired with her lifestyle simply makes no sense at all.  Every now and then she ventures into politics, and her politics doesn’t make any sense either. It’s as incoherent and screechy as everything else about her. She’s the prototype for the insensible female.

Lady Rayne got so angry at Roissy that she outed him, along with photographs, as a 40 something guy who works in a cubicle at a government job somewhere in Washington DC. .

And so the Internet Game Scene has its share of drama.

Lady Rayne’s blog is here. Thankfully, it has not been updated since July, so the world can breath a short sigh of relief.

She links favorably to the unfortunate Black woman blogger Jamila Akhil and Chic Noir, who used to hang around her until I drove her off by not showering enough and stinking up the place. She also links to Red-Alerts, one of the worst bloggers on the Internet. He launched a campaign a while back saying I had been arrested for child molestation. He linked to a news article about some freak with my name. She links to In Mala Fide (which links here) and Roissy under “Sleaze, Sexism and Hate.”

The blog is basically endless drama, hysterics, histrionics, rants, drama queen bullshit, insipid gushing, off the cuff emoting, permanent violent mood swings, huge doses of narcissism, endless self-contradiction, stupid misspellings, incoherent punctuation, retarded syntax, first-class bitching and hate-filled  screeching at the “misogynists” in the Men’s Rights Movement and PUA scene.

Oh and did I mention narcissism?

It’s like some woman with permanent PMS. Maybe God got her periods mixed up; she’s on 28 days and off four.

And one more thing, did I point out that her site has a lot of narcissism?

4 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Romantic Relationships, Scum

Western Women’s Culture of Meanness

Repost from the old site.

In the comments section, Lafayette Sennacherib says, possibly jokingly:

I’ll go along with feminism this far: it’s ok for women to bring in a wage, as long as they still rear the kids, clean the place, cook, sew, provide regular sex, are totally faithful unless it’s with another woman and we can watch/share, and don’t mind their men having a bit on the side. Fair’s fair! We owe them that much!

I don’t know if he’s joking or not, but I won’t even go that far. I decided to ask Sexmaniacman his opinion of LS’ post, and here is what he said:

Bob, first of all, thanks so much for inviting me over so I can write about this. My complaint, Bob, is that feminism has cultivated a culture of meanness, at least here in the US. I would say that American women have cultivated a culture of meanness, but I think they reason they have is feminism. Feminism makes women pissed off at us men. Period. Full stop.As a het guy who chooses to deal with women as more than platonic friends, I don’t dig being hated on. It sucks, and it feels deflating to my cock.

I’ve gotten to the point now where I can have sex even with a woman who completely hates me and is making that clear as we are engaging in the sex act, but it wasn’t always that way. Angry, bitchy, emasculating women make men impotent. Either physically, psychologically, or spiritually.

I figure even non-feminist women are bitchy enough sometimes. Add feminism into the stew and now they are way bitchier even than they are normally. Fuck that. I hate bitchy women. Nothing worse.

One thing that I have noticed is that a lot of wimpy, leftwing, pro-feminist men love bitchy women. They sit back and cheer them on.

And these bitchy feminists are attracted to wimpy pro-feminist guys, but the truth is that these guys’ wimpiness drives the feminists insane, because even though they are feminists who say they hate macho men and machismo, they are still women, and most women hate wimpy guys and long for a macho man to reduce them to meek, wimpering Southern belles.

That’s why feminism doesn’t work in practice.

It creates what we’ve got in Northern California. The stereotypical Northern California male: so wimpy and/or feminized that a lot of people will think the guy is gay. And it concurrently creates the Northern California female: so butch and/or masculinized that a lot of people will think she’s a dyke.

These two things attract each other. That’s why you will find a fair number of these wimpy-type guys messing around with guys, and you will find quite a few of these dykey women either messing with women or just going full gay either part of full-time.

Macho guys create feminine female counterparts and vice versa. Wimpy guys create bitches at best and vice versa and create macho dykey women at worst and vice versa. At both extremes, normally het people will start moving into homosexuality and bisexuality.

This is another thing I have against feminism: it’s full of lesbians. Now, I have nothing against lesbians and gay men being members of gay rights organizations. But why should feminism, objectively merely pro-women’s rights, be full of a dykes? Reason is that feminism creates lesbians, and for some weird reason, lesbians love feminism.

Have you ever noticed that the women who scream most about rape are lesbians, probably really butch, dykey, homely and living in some gay community, IOW, just about the least likely women to get raped!

The women most likely to get raped are het women, women who are fully involved with men and men’s lives, and who have men in their lives. Straight men, not gay men. Often they are raped by their boyfriends, husbands, dates or just guys they know.

I go to a feminist site and typically it’s swarming with lesbians. My first reaction is why? I went to a feminist site, not a gay rights site. Second reaction is turnoff. I’m here to see what straight women think, not lesbians.

Final thought is even more disturbing. A lot of radical feminists and feminist separatists openly hate men. They’re into misandry. Yep, the very women screaming most about misogyny are often misandrists themselves. It’s it’s bad for the goose, it’s bad for the gander.

As feminism has cultivated misandry (something many feminists now admit), it’s turned lots of feminists into a bunch of lesbians. A family friend was one of the founding members of NOW, and I was a member myself for years. She eventually quit going to the meetings because the feminist women wouldn’t stop hitting on her and propositioning her. Even back then, the movement was swarming with lesbians.

I’m perfectly willing to help raise the kids, clean the house and cook the food, but I am sorry that I cannot sew. I’d be glad to learn if it was easy. I’m not sure I even mind if women cheat. I never used to mind and often had open relationships.

I was raised in the androgynous 1970′s. In part I was never comfortable with the macho man thing, so I rejected it because it just wasn’t me, and though I was always into masculinity deep down inside, I was also influenced by feminism wanting to make us into “New Men” – sensitive, vulnerable, all that.

I turned into a straight Mick Jagger – Steve Tyler – New York Dolls androgynous surfer – rocker – punk rocker – doper – dope dealer – compulsive womanizer.

What did I get for this? Guys tried to beat me up for “being a fag”. I even got beat over the fucking head with a baseball bat once. Nicer people were continuously suggesting that I was gay or bi, much to my consternation. Usually it was guys saying I was gay. Females, being more intelligent, usually thought I was bi, because gay men have no interest in women.

I was attacked by my very own girlfriends, heads full of feminism, for being gay, bi, wimpy or just not much a man. Screw this. What did I get out of going along with this feminist “New Man” shit? Not a damn thing. Hell with it. I’m gonna be a macho pig, and the feminists can fuck off if they don’t like it.

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Not Robert Lindsay, Radical Feminists, Reposts From The Old Site, Scum, Sex, Sexmaniacman, Women

Do We Live In a Patriarchy?

Repost from the old site.

In the comments section, two of my favorite bloggers, k&y of to the ambient void suggest that we live in a patriarchy today. I think that these two guys are both gay, but that’s fine with me, in fact, I think it’s great! I decided to call Sexmaniacman over to ask him what he thought of the notion that we live in a patriarchy today. Here’s what he wrote:

It’s easy for gay men to side with women in the War Between the Sexes because they’re not trying to fuck women, so they don’t have to put up with women’s bullshit that is inevitable in those of us who do.They’re trying to fuck guys in a gay culture that seems a Hell of a lot more sex-friendly and sex-positive than this chilly het culture with these censorious female and mostly feminist Comstocks wanting to beat us with rods every time we get a hardon.

Like to look at porn? You’re a woman-hater. Can’t get laid, poor guy? Haha, say the feminists, you loser. Now, me, a masculinist, I side with the guy. The guy’s not getting laid because of women. Women don’t put out that much, and they’re collectively refusing to fuck this guy, and then ridiculing him for it.

Like to girl-watch? You’re a woman-hater. Like to look a pictures of pretty girls in magazines or on TV or like to watch beauty pageants or have girlie pictures on your walls? You hate women. Excuse me, feminist ladies, but that is one chilly anti-sexual turd you’re laying on our sex parade. This society of yours, where 90% of the time guys get hardons, it’s due to “sexual objectification of women”, sucks.

I don’t know if we have a patriarchy or not. I go to the feminist sites and read about really horrible, obnoxious, and, yes, misogynistic behavior, and I feel tremendous empathy for these feminists in their frustration, depression and rage. Really I do. Now, these feminists probably hate me for being a dog, but I want to tell them that I feel your pain, ladies.

Thing is, if we have a patriarchy, I, being a male, am supposed to be on top and winning the race. Instead I feel like I’m getting fucked, and have been getting fucked for much of my life.

I don’t feel like I’m winning, or like I’m a member of some male ruling class, or anything like that. A lot of my non-rich male friends feel that way. They feel like an oppressed class, not some member of some ruling class called a patriarchy. I can’t think of one benefit I ever got in my whole damned life due to having a dick.

So a lot of us are pissed at feminists. Feminists are sitting on the sidelines, screaming that we’re a ruling class that’s oppressing them, and we don’t feel like we’re oppressing anyone. As for being a ruling class, a lot of us can hardly pay the rent, much less take out one of these expensive things called females.

In the same way a lot of White guys are mad at White Privilege Theory and the notion that we live in a White Supremacist society. What did I ever get from being White. How was I ever privileged in life? I can barely even pay my rent and bills. I’m privileged how now? I’m oppressing who now? It’s the same thing – they say we are in a White ruling class but a lot of us feel like an oppressed underclass.

It also kind of pisses off us het guys that so many women are still gold-diggers, I mean whores, I mean, well, what do I mean? They want money, our money. Much of it, most of it, all of it, whatever. They go for the guy with the most money. If we don’t have lots of money, we don’t get laid. Worse, we are not even men.

The number of women who have abandoned this collective gendered money-grubbing thievery of us men is small, although some middle-aged women start to leave it behind, because they lose their looks and are not much wanted anymore, so they can’t sell their fucking pussies anymore. If you’re a woman going for the rich guys, you’re a whore. You’re selling your pussy for money, real simple. If you’re not a whore, what are you?

What does feminism say about this ubiquitous behavior? Nothing, nothing, nothing. The silence is deafening. You see the charts about how women make less money than we do. Are they including the zillions of dollars women steal from men by selling their pussies to us?

Nowadays a lot of women make as much money as we do, or more. My girlfriends always seemed to make more money than I do, and that, by the way, pretty much ruins any het relationship nowadays. Even though these bitches made more money than I did, I still had to pay for every single fucking thing when we went out anywhere.

All her money’s for her, and all my money’s for her. Nice arrangement. Nice rip-off arrangement. Rip-off of me that is.

What does feminism say about this grasping whoredom? Nothing at all! Well, I’m a guy and it pisses me off. My friends and I regularly refer to women as “whores”, because from our vantage, that’s what they are.

We’ve discussed this with some women. Those who responded civilly suggested that when you get married, the woman’s not whoring anymore, but then the conniving bitch gets 1/2 my money for the rest of my life.

Does this sound like patriarchy to you? Sounds like women on top and us lowly males as some kind of Underclass.

I’m tired of a lot of feminists, though I do support a lot of, or most of, their goals.

What I’m tired of is this anti-sex shit. They seem like they don’t want me to get laid. And they don’t want my friends to get laid. They don’t even want me or my friends to look at women in public. God forbid we look at pornography. I’m not allowed to look at any sexual depictions of women whatsoever. That’s reducing women to sex objects.

Well, fuck.

If I’m horny, women are sex objects to me. Sorry.

I’m not gay. I’m interested in fucking women. Have been my whole life.

My surfer friends on the beach used to fuck everything female that moved. They’d rent a house on the beach, have permanent kegs of beer, sell dope, and screw 100 women a summer, three a day. These guys were my idols, but I could never quite do it like they did, no matter how hard I tried. It seemed like they were trying to set new world records. I understand that feminists hate this behavior and regard it as misogyny.

Well fuck me.

I guess I’m a boys will be boys, girls will be girls type. I notice 3rd world women take the attitude that all men are dogs and nothing can be done about this, so don’t worry about it. That seems a lot more helpful.

I’m basically a dog anyway when it comes to women. I’ve always been one. I may not even be capable of monogamy. At various times in my life, I’ve been a compulsive womanizer. I understand feminists hate compulsive womanizers and say we’re misogynist.

Well, fuck you, feminists.

Leave a comment

Filed under Europeans, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Masculinism, Not Robert Lindsay, Pornography, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Feminists, Reposts From The Old Site, Scum, Sex, Sexmaniacman, Whites

Sexmaniacman is a Rapist

Repost from the old site.

I thought this definition of a the crime of sexual violence was interesting:

Regarding the “incapable of giving consent” hypothetical you posited, my response is, violence and/or a crime occurs when anyone’s body is touched beyond incidental contact or for more than a brief instant unless the person being touched affirmatively gives permission for such contact.It is not the “responsibility” of the person being touched to give permission. It is the responsibility of the person doing the touching to ensure that the other person has voluntarily given permission. If the other person is “incapable” of giving permission, for whatever reason, that means no permission has been given, and a crime has been committed.

Along the same lines, the feminazis says every time you have sex with a drunk woman, you are raping her. I decided to ask Sexmaniacman his opinion on this definition of rape.

Sexmaniacman:

According to that definition, I’ve been raping women and girls all my life! I’ve always touched women, I’ve reached around and jumped them and started kissing them, I’ve grabbed them, thrown them up against walls in public and kissed them, I’ve done all these things. I always grabbed women or touched them, and I never asked permission first.In general, most of the time, permission was granted, though sometimes, when I tried to go beyond kissing, she stopped me.

I picked up a hot 20 yr old woman at a Hollywood nightclub, the Anticlub, two minutes after walking in the door, then had sex with her in my car while driving around Hollywood at 1 AM (to the extent you can have sex with someone while driving a vehicle) then after the show, she tried to weasel out of coming home with me.

I pointed to her, pointed to the car, and said, “You are going home with me. Now get in the car.” It was an order, but she was free to refuse, and I was laughing. I sneered at her like Johnny Rotten. She smiled, sneered back, and said, “Says who?” I said, “Says me.” Women love guys who give them orders and they love to follow orders. So she got in the car. Quite willingly.

I drove her home and we had sex on the 5 Freeway in Downtown LA at 3 AM while going 55 miles an hour, to the extent one can do such a thing. Good thing I didn’t crash the car. I deny that this was either kidnapping or rape, but it was pretty fun.

Another time I had sex with a drunk 14 yr old (I was 16) on the rooftop of an apartment building at 2 AM, and later she went around telling everyone I raped her. I didn’t rape her; she was drunk. I deny that this was rape.

Another time I went to a punk rock show with this beautiful 20 year old named Linda and we both came back, drunk, to my house. I got her on my couch, pulled up her top and started feeling her breasts. “Pleease let me go home,” she whined unconvincingly in her best little girl voice.

“No!” I said. “You’re staying right here!” I was pissed that I went to all this damn trouble and she was trying to weasel out of the dicking, like they always do.

Plus, earlier in the evening, both of us drunk, she had put me in a shopping cart and raced me up and down some 2 AM streets. She kept “dropping her lighter” on my groin in the cart, and then “having to fish around to find it”. Now she was trying to get out of the boning. Well fuck that. The Hell you are, woman.

She was free to leave at any time, as the cops say. “Now get over on that bed right now!” I said, half-smiling and not really threatening. I’m not sure what happened later. Finally I just said, “Fine, you don’t want to have sex, I’ll just sleep on the couch. You take the bed. See you in the morning.”

Then I lay back on the couch and closed my eyes. Next thing I remember, she was saying, “Come on over to the bed.” And so it went. I deny that this was false imprisonment or rape, but it was pretty fun, except when she started to puke in bed while we were having sex, grabbed her mouth, and ran to the bathroom and puked for a while.

Basically, with women, you have to read their minds. At some point, via telepathy, you figure you can make your move. At that point you just grab her and start kissing her. You can do it really aggressively or you can do it real soft and nice. Most of the time, it goes just fine. Having to ask permission for everything you do sexually is insane. If we had to do that, no one would ever get laid.

I’ve been having sex with drunken women most of my life, and I hope to continue doing so. A lot of women are way less inhibited when they’re drunk.

I’m embarrassed to admit that there have been quite a few times when I grabbed at women and they did not want to do go along, so they pushed me off or said no in some way or another, along the lines of, “Hey! Knock it off, asshole! Get your hands off me!” Most of the time, I did just knock it off right then, though sometimes I kept trying my luck, and she kept knocking my hands away, raising her voice.

I deny that this is rape or attempted rape or any crime at all. It’s actually something called “dating”, and I never got any sex any of those times anyway. Once they brush you off once, you might as well give up, because you aren’t getting any.

I don’t believe I’ve ever raped a woman according to the legal definition of the word. If she’s not interested, no problem. She has ownership of her body and the right to decide not to do this or that with me. As far as the feminist version of rape law above, well, they can just fuck off.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Not Robert Lindsay, Radical Feminists, Reposts From The Old Site, Scum, Sex, Sexmaniacman, Women

Sexmaniacman Is A Creep

Repost from the old site.

It’s official. Sexmaniacman is a creep. And a pervert. And he’s proud.

Sexmaniacman just learned the definition right here. First of all, “creep” is a woman word, and no real male would commonly use such a word as a noun or a verb. Sexmaniacman just doesn’t use it in general, because he’s a real man, not a pussified ally of the females, but every now and then, it’s appropriate.

For instance, Sexman’s Mom works at a college. There was a male student there for a while, socially inept, who used to hide under and behind cars out in the parking lot and jump out at the college girls. I guess he thought it was funny or something.

The girls were not amused and they kept complaining to the administration. With some regret, Sexmaniacman will admit that this guy’s behavior is creepy. But really, it’s only creepy in that they don’t find him attractive.

If Leonardo DiCaprio was hiding behind cars and jumping out at them, about 50% of these fine upright examples of innocent American feminine goodness, purity and light would have fucked him already (Not that they’re sluts or anything like that!), and most of their “sweet and innocent” friends would be waiting in line.

So it’s not necessarily the behavior that these silly little woman-children don’t like, it’s the fact that the guy is unattractive, unwanted and unappealing, and then he’s trying his luck with them.

He realizes this was frightening to the girls, but Sexmaniacman happened to know the idiot who was doing this, and it’s just his opinion that the guy’s completely harmless, though obviously a social retard.

These strong, modern, rough, tough, feminist puffed-up ladies should have just told him to fuck off a few times, and probably it would have all stopped. But apparently they kept running away like the little girls they really are deep down inside, so the behavior continued for too long.

So, yeah, Sexmaniacman is obviously a fucking creep according to the definition above. Plus he’s a pervert. He never was one, but then he hit 47 or so, and now he can’t look at young women anymore in case he gives them a heart attack or induces post-traumatic stress disorder or molests them with his eyeballs requiring years of weepy and bank-breaking therapy sessions to untwist their poor fragile psyches.

Sexguy is perfectly aware that the vast majority of young women don’t find guys his age attractive anymore. That’s very painful for him to realize. He looks at younger women, and he doesn’t think, “Wow, I have a chance with her.” Instead, she often reminds him of so and so who he dated or slept with back in 1978. So he’s looking at them and reminiscing, wistful memories of days gone by. And if that pisses you little bitches off, well he says too fucking bad.

They looked great then, and they look great now.

Beauty contestants focus on females aged around 18-20. Other than the fact that they probably can’t use minors, the reason they do this is because at this age, females of all races, in all cultures, and at all times, are at the peak of their physical beauty.

It’s a common myth that a guy hits 45 and 50 and can’t get an erection anymore. Actually, many of us guys still can and do, believe it or not, Sexmaniacman noted. We may be old, but we’re not dead. You can’t touch a 16-17 year old girl with a 10-foot pole and an 11-foot extension, but they sure are nice to look at. If acknowledging this makes Sexdude a pervert and a fucking creep, then he will wear that badge proudly.

Sexmaniacman probably wouldn’t want to sleep with them even if it were legal, because it’s impossible to have an intelligent conversation with these silly girly things. Not that older women are much better!

Good.

From the site:

I think I’ve generally come to the conclusion that a lot of women’s definition of a “creepy guy”/pervert is: 

A guy they find unattractive, who checks them out.

Most straight women, of course, liked to be noticed by guys they find attractive, and a lot of women will dress to attract men they fancy. The problem a lot of women seem to have is, is that there’s an unwanted side effect. If they dress sexy, they not only get looked at by the sexy guys, they also get looked at by the guys they don’t fancy.

Well, yeah, duh. If you don’t want us to look at your fucking tits, Sexmaniacman suggested, then don’t walk around with your boobs hanging out. If you’re showing cleavage, or God forbid have your tits halfway hanging out, Sexbro is going to look right at them, Goddamn it, and fuck you if you don’t like it. If it pisses you off so much, dress like a lady for Chrissake.

It’s like during the 1980′s when all political correctness issues came to the fore with a vengeance. In a work setting, a bloke could chat a woman up. If she fancied him, it was fine and dandy. If she didn’t, it was called sexual harassment. 

Yeah.

Sexcat figure that’s probably what’s going on in a lot of this sexual harassment bullshit. He remembers he worked at a place once where the whole office freaked out because some poor schmuck asked a woman out. To look at the guy, Sexman figured he probably hadn’t been laid by a non-professional in at least months, so he had a God-given right to ask, and Sexguy felt deep sympathy for his sex-deprived brother.

She was being nice to him and talking him, and all the silly bitch had to do was say no and that was that. The guy was civilized, he would have just taken it like a man. But oh no, Ms. Silly made it into a capital fucking offense, and it was the talk of the whole office for a while.

Being a real guy, not a wuss, of course Sexbuddy took the guy’s side in this skirmish of the War Between Men and Women, but most of the “men” in the office sided with Ms. Silly, like knights running to save her honor.

Afterward the poor guy told Sexpal that management told him that sexual harassment guidelines said that employees should not be dating. Great. Here it is, in the modern US, where so many of us are working long hours, and we can’t date at work. Great. So how are we supposed to get laid?

Sexmaniacman finally had to adopt some new rules to deal with this bullshit, but he realized he was not the only one. He read a sociology paper about guys who moved down to Costa Rica. One guy said when he was 50, an uppity 17 year old girl spit at him for looking at her. I guess that was the last straw, and he high-tailed for the sexually relaxed tropics.

His 43 year old sick, perverted, creepy brother had some advice: “Sexguy! Look. Invest in some sunglasses! I look at them all the time. That’s one of the great things about being in junior college – I’m surrounded by 18-20 yr old hotties!”

Sexdude’s new rules were to avoid looking at obviously underage girls or sometimes even those around 18-20, but it was so hard to tell ages. He’d look at em a bit, see if they looked back, and if they didn’t, he’d try not to look at them too much. Kind of hard to do when they are young and beautiful!

Sexmaniacman also noticed something disturbing about this bullshit. As much as these silly little twats claimed they hated it, he could not help but notice that a certain number of them (Definitely not all but for sure some!), often the better looking and older ones (18-23 or so), relished the attention they got from him.

They deliberately strutted, tipped, weaved, swayed and sashayed, flirted and winked, stole glances and battled lashes. At the stores, they shoved the others out of the way so they could ring up Sexman and reap the harvest of his loving eyeballs. They smiled at him coquettishly and made bullshit excuses to get up and strut in front of him, to nowhere and to do nothing, and then traipse back, basking in the warm, delicious rays of his sick, pervy, aging gaze.

They looked at him out of the corner of their eyes and winked. When he wasn’t looking, they moved way too close and pretended to look at store things they weren’t interested in. Sexmaniacman would look down, notice a 16 year old just about brushing her tits up against him, and pretend nothing was happening.

It sure was an idiotic little girl game these female things were playing, but females often don’t make much sense to Sexguy. Some were jockeying for the eyeballs and others were bitching about illegal looking. Were some of them one and the same? Who knows?

Sexmaniacman thinks we can look at them all we want, that’s his position. If they don’t like it, they can call the cops, or take pictures of us with their bitchy cellphones and post them on their screechy blogs, or sit around and carp to their girlfriends about us.

There’s also a right and wrong way to look, Sexman thought. You look a little bit, you look away, a while later, you look again. Staring is pretty uncool.

Sexmaniacman can’t remember the last time he catcalled a woman. That’s rude, and he’s not rude.

Sexmaniacman doesn’t rub up against women, but when he was a lot younger, especially at bars and rock concerts, women were always rubbing up against him and touching him, because he was drop dead gorgeous guy, especially when he wore a beat-up 1950′s James Dean leather jacket.

Touching and groping is rude, and he’s not rude.

Jerking off in public is illegal, and guys who do that deserve cuffs.

However, he objects to the whole Feminazi mindset behind this bullshit movement, mostly because they haven’t specified where harassment begins and where it ends. Supposedly the females get to make up the rules here, on an individual, case by case basis! Great!

Webpage here, and most of these guys portrayed here are idiots, Sexguy agrees, but he’s still worried that there are no boundaries here. Sexman is particularly disturbed by the modern notion that he can no longer talk to teenage girls or young women in any way or at any time or about anything, since they automatically assume he’s trying to pick up on them, when usually he’s just trying to make some innocent conversation.

Also, the silly feminist bitch idea is that all women hate being looked at. Bullshit.

Sexman’s beautiful aunt was in the Castro District of San Fransisco eating at a cafe with Sexman’s Mom. His aunt is a silly woman, like most women are at least sometimes.

She’s getting all upset. “None of these men are looking at me,” she pouted huffily. She’s beautiful, and male looks are like vitamins for her soul.

Duh. They’re all gay.

Sexmaniacman also knows some older women who love to be or would love to be looked at. One, 50 years old, mournfully told him that she wishes men or even boys would look at her. One delighted in telling him how young men and even boys continued to check her out, and how she loved every second of it, being 50 years old.

Leave a comment

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Law, Man World, Not Robert Lindsay, Radical Feminists, Reposts From The Old Site, Scum, Sex, Sexmaniacman, Women

What Is the Radical Feminist Line on Womanizers?

On the Are Most Womanizers Gay or Bisexual post, BAG perceptively poses a couple of questions:

Are most womanizers gay or bisexual?

Short Answer: Hell No!

Slightly Longer Answer: This is simply more radical feminist BS.

Really? Is that the radfem line? Is this how the Fempire Strikes Back?

A pox on those shrews, dykes, bitches, misandrists, hags, maids and witches. I hate them so much. They’ve taken the feminine principle and ran nuts with it. They’re long past the goal line, so far away we can’t even see them anymore. They are truly producers of nothing, following Weininger.

Au contraire, this theory is just wrong. Many or most true womanizers are actually philogynists (which is what I am). There! I made up a new word. Someone give me a MacArthur Genius Grant, will ya? Or is gynophile better?

4 Comments

Filed under Radical Feminists, Scum