Tuesday, 31 December 2013

Career men don't exist?

Gosh, I wonder if there's something called a salaryman with an equivalent meaning?

At yet, thanks to the Tender Years Doctrine, feminists made damn sure men could NOT just be parents.. and if they work and rear kids, then they'll get blamed for having to work long hours instead of being there for them.. catch-22.

Men must work themselves to death, thanks to feminism.

Women will spit on their corpses, thanks to feminism.

Other men will feel shame if they fail, and shame if they succeed - 

thanks to feminism.

Wednesday, 11 December 2013


She claims:
"Despite Urban Legend, Circumcision Has No Influence on Sexual Pleasure"

Complications of Circumcision

I guess she doesn't she death as a barrier to pleasure? I mean.. I guess it isn't.. a barrier to HER pleasure, as it's only baby boys that die. FGM, is of course, illegal, so she's safe.The way she puts is completely inaccurate:

"It's settled. It's done. We can all pack up our foreskins and go home now. "

Science doesn't work that way, it works by consensus, and it's never 'done'. There's just a general agreement that some theory best matches the facts.

And stuff like " no difference in sexual desire" rings alarm bells. If a penis is cut off entirely, men still want sex, they just can't bloody have an erection.

To simulate the effect, if it really is trivial, you'd have to have women cutting off their clitoral hoods, not the clitoris. No anesthetic. (i noticed the pain of it is completely ignored, i wonder why that is?)

I noticed KATE HAKALA isn't volunteering. Surely she knows it's more hygienic if she does? And it won't make any difference to her pleasure... right?

So let's go back to the science. This one starts by claiming everyone else got it wrong. That's a big claim. So what did the scientists say about that? Oh that's right, they weren't asked.

And i have to admit I'm surprised by the subjectivity. If you ask a man if he's sexual potent, most men are going to say "of course!!!1!" A smarter method is to measure responses via fMRI etc. This isn't the 1960s, we've moved a bit beyond relying on surveys. If you really want to be thorough, you can examine nerve paths in a systematic way.

Ms HAKALA comes across as having an agenda.

"Despite Urban Legend"?
RESULTS: The differences in the mean BMSFI scores were not statistically significant in any of the five sections. However, the mean ejaculatory latency time was significantly longer after circumcision (P = 0.02).

Oh right, these scientists are just spreading rumours for teh lulz.

So on the one side, there's a study that involves asking men if they are real men, and on the other, there's one that uses measurable quantities and statistical analysis.

I know which I'd trust.

I have to wonder what religion the scientists involves has, if any. From a Jewish perspective, there's a very strong motivation to find data to support the practice, as making MGM has been discussed as being banned, and this would mean many Jews would have to face either breaking secular or religious laws.

It can be very tempting to cherry-pick results you like, ones that reinforce existing prejudices. I could sit here spouting sources all day, like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Circumcision-DOES-reduce...

But the fact is, this is a dodgy write-up of a dodgy paper, and it has no credibility. If it was from Scientific American, say, they would have contacted other scientists to get their perspective.

So what sort of journo is KATE HAKALA?

>Just don't Google "smegma."<

Why the fuck not? I have the feeling she thinks that's some hideous male affliction. So what's her level of scientific expertise?


Smegma (Greek smēgma, "soap"[1]) is a combination of exfoliated (shed) epithelial cells, transudated skin oils, and moisture. It occurs in both female and male mammalian genitalia.

Both sexes can produce smegma. In males, smegma is produced and can collect under the foreskin; in females, it collects around the clitoris and in the folds of the labia minora.

In males, smegma helps keep the glans moist and facilitates sexual intercourse by acting as a lubricant.

So fuck Ms HAKALA and her body-shaming ways. I don't see her volunteering for the chop. She sees men as existing for the pleasure of women, and wants to use any dirty trick to accomplish that goal.

FGM was seen as perfectly normal once, too. It's still fervently argued by people in thos cultures that it is necessary, and all sorts of excuses are found as to why. But in the end, it boils down to "it's done because it's done".

And you know, it was once seen as freakish and foreign in the west. Something no good christian would do! Then it was promoted as a way of stopping male masturbation, which was seen as sinful to the point of damnation, by .. reducing penile sensitivity... hmm.

It wasn't introduced for medical reasons, but for religious ones, reasons which could be used to apply to FGM had they realised that women did those things they despised as well - but the vision that they had was that male sexuality was wicked, and women had no sexuality, and were purer as a result.

So either it was useless for it's stated purpose - or it is partial castration.

By both measures should be banned immediately.

Friday, 6 December 2013

Lingerie Football?!!

I have zero interest in football. Zero interest in most sports, really. But I'm glad it entertains most people and don't have a problem with that.

Apparently there's some program called 'lingerie football'? I have no idea how that works. The football is just an excuse, I'm guessing. Now it's been said that the existence of this is sexist. Ok, here's my argument why it isn't.

The test for sexism is to gender-swap the scenario.

If there was some TV show where, to appear, men had to wear male lingerie, would men refuse? Not for a heartbeat. Men like attention (and money!) just as much as women. I doubt there's any profit in it, however.

Feminists continually emphasise that women just don't care as much about male appearance as vice versa; it's usually in the context of why women are *better* than men. So a show based on the visual appeal of men is just not going to be as profitable, surely. However, the beauty of today's cheap cameras etc is there's nothing stopping a Feminist group from creating this show and broadcasting it, so long as they skip the radio waves. Kickstarter, IndieGoGo et al all exist for this purpose. Digital TV is dirt cheap.

And all you have to do in business is make more money than you spend, and you are a success.

So instead of doing this, Feminists want to ban the lingerie football thing on the ground men looking at women and having teh sexi thoughts means women lose out. That's right, every sexual desire a man experiences ruins the purity of women.

Why is that?

I confess: I like porn.

Shocking, huh.

I have no problem at all with male sexuality, male masturbation, etc. Not particularly keen on observing it, any more than football, but I'm not opposed to it either, just like football.

It does fascinate me how far people will go to repress it.

Look at circumcision. In the west, this was seen by non-Jews as an abhorrent practice, the ritual mutilation of babies as a limited human sacrifice. Then it was plugged as way to stop boys masturbating, and it achieved respectability. Then it was the norm, and almost no-one remembered why they had agreed to it.. it was done because it was done.

Why is it Feminists and other authoritarians are so violently opposed to liberty? To 'live and let live'? To others doing things they don't want to do for themselves? To burning books, instead of writing them, to slapping hatecrime laws on their opponents instead of articulating and refining their arguments? 

I saw someone last night, who believed, along with her audience, that arguments for the existence of the Patriarchy were unnecessary, because it was so true that it existed that any argument would only serve the Patriarchy. To doubt is heresy; to reason, satanic.

This is the mentality that lead to the Spanish Inquisition, to the re-education camps of the Communists, to the mental asylums and lobotomies of sane people whose crime was simply that they didn't conform.

We have to do better than that.

Tuesday, 3 December 2013

Rape is NOT a gendered issue, so stop treating it like one.


40% of rapists are women

The Predictors of Sexual Coercion Against Women and Men

Study of 7,667 university students from 38 sites: 3.0% of men reported forced sex

Study of US college women - 12% of the respondents reported ever using any type of force strategy while 43% reported using a coercion strategy and 92% reported using a seduction strategy to initiate sex.

Men often coerced into sex: study

Rape in the military is rampant, and it affects more men than women due to their disproportionate numbers.

Among inmates reporting staff sexual misconduct, ~ 65% reported a female aggressor (A few highlights)
Female inmates in prison (4.7%) or jail (3.1%) were more than twice as likely as male inmates in prison (1.9%) or jail (1.3%) to report experiencing inmate- on-inmate sexual victimization.

Sexual activity with facility staff was reported by 2.9% of male prisoners and 2.1% of male jail inmates, compared to 2.1% of female prisoners and 1.5% of female jail inmates.
Up to 15.7% of US prisoners experience rape in 12 month period

Men Outnumber Women Among American Rape Victims(about prison rape)

94% of sexually abused youth in correctional facilities reported being abused by female staff. Only 40% of the staff is female

2004 Study of teacher sexual misconduct. Those that are punished/reprimanded (96% male, 4% female) and those reported by students (57% male, 43% female)

3 in 4 B.C. boys on street sexually exploited by women

65% of the survivors who tried to tell a therapist, doctor, teacher or other professional were not believed the first time they disclosed. Overall, 86% of those who tried to tell anyone were not believed the first time they disclosed.

Male Statutory rape victims forced to pay child support

Female Pedophiles Cause Children More Harm, According to Research by University of Bergen, Norway
 According to multiple studies, 59% to 80% of male sex offenders were sexually abused by females.
“59% of the rapists had been heterosexually molested.”
Other studies showed: 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993).

Yet 99% of those convicted for rape, are men (page 27)

Men and women are both capable of being victims and perpetrators. Rape is NOT a gendered issue, so stop treating it like one.

(reblogged from Tumblr)