TA is a liar and an drama queen

It’s been a while since I had a debate with the writer of theantifeminist.com . Basically, he said that he wants transhumanism to be used to remake the female sexuality into the male one from birth. He said female sexuality leads to many evils like high age of consent and false rape accusations. I don’t really have a problem with designer babies, and said so. However, just like men don’t appreaciate having their sexuality bashed, neither do women. Men don’t like being defined relative to what use they have to women, and neither do women. Men don’t like to be told their whole sexuality needs to change, because some men rape women, and men in prison. Women don’t like to be told their whole sexuality needs to be changed because some women accuse men of rape. The discussions of this issue happened here:

https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/female-and-male-sexual-interests-are-in-conflict-must-someone-lose/

https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/do-we-need-to-apologize-for-our-sexuality/

I understood that he has general dislike for female sexuality, and decided “whatever, he is who he is”. I haven’t attempted to talk to him more since then. He shut me up by telling me he is one of the few sex-positive MRA bloggers out there, and by criticizing his ideas I’m ruining the sex-positive MRM. I let it go, but he decided it was ok to create blatant lies about me. I sent him an email that warned him I would defend myself publicly if he continued, but he chose to go on. So now, I am defending myself publicly.

Lie1:

(http://theantifeminist.com/david-fraudtrelle-paedocrite-of-the-month-april-2013-stuart-hazell-david-futrelle-amanda-platell/comment-page-1/#comment-57126 )

Here she is just yesterday calling on other women to stop wearing make-up, as well as shaming men for masturbating :

https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/makeup-is-like-masturbation/

“Not only does she think that women shouldn’t make much effort to be attractive to men (and why should they, when they have 100% sexual power, even the old hags?) but that men are mentally ill losers if they choose to masturbate rather than be pussy slaves constantly seeing a woman’s vagina as the sole reason for their existence.”

Here’s what I actually said:

“Another thing I wish women could do, is not have to rely on makeup to look good. I think this is possible, but needs work, like makeup does. Lots of women say they don’t look good without makeup, but the same say those who are inexperienced with makeup, and thus make mistakes. If you spent all the money you spend on makeup, on a dermatologist and some procedures (no, not necessarily surgery, there is other stuff), you’d probably be happier now.”

(https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/makeup-is-like-masturbation/#comment-1447 ):

“Right. But as you can see, I don’t have anything against makeup for the sake of pleasing your man. He already knows what you really look like.”

See? I’m for women taking effort to look good. I just think relying on makeup is stupid, lasts only one day, and doesn’t make a woman any prettier! I think more permanent solutions are more rational! And here’s what I said about men:

(https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/makeup-is-like-masturbation/#comment-1476 ):

“I don’t think most involuntarily sexless men feel like winners. Those that are ok with no women – I have no problem with them. Whether they masturbate or not, they are free and don’t have a need other men have. I was not telling men they are losers if they masturbate. I was just describing observable reality.

Don’t tell me most sexless men would feel like winners, if only they were told masturbation due to sexlessness is winning. That’s the type of logic fat acceptance is based on. “If we only tell women fat is beautiful, they will stop having anorexia, bulimia, being so obsessed with their looks, etc.”. Yeah, right. I think men must have developed some bullshit meters against that. If you fall for it, someone else will be banging all the babes, while you sit and think you’re “winning”. But if you really feel like a winner then, good for you. You’re special.”

Obviously, I don’t shame men for masturbation. I just already know that men tend to feel bad and have low self-esteem, when they have to rely on masturbation! And I even accept that some men are outliers and are happy with just masturbation.

Oh, and that part where I call men mentally ill losers for choosing masturbation instead of sex? It doesn’t exist. Completely MADE UP.

Lie 2:

(http://theantifeminist.com/bernard-chapin-on-hugo-schwyzers-plea-for-men-to-stop-chasing-younger-women/comment-page-1/#comment-56614 ):

“Emma the Emo does this a lot, as do some others, something I’m very uncomfortable with. For example, Emma defends female sexual morality as being superior to male sexuality,”

Actually, as in my post (https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/female-and-male-sexual-interests-are-in-conflict-must-someone-lose/ ), I view the two sexualities on equal terms, and don’t put any one over the other.

So why is he doing all this? Perhaps he has poor reading comprehension. Perhaps he is willfully misunderstanding me. Perhaps he never forgave me for debating him that one time, and wants to jab me over and over, by spreading rumors like a 12-year old girl. I suspect it’s a mixture of projection and seeing what he wants to see.

Projection, because he thinks male sexuality is superior to the female one. He assumes, that since I argued with him, I must be of the completely opposite view.

And he’s seeing what he wants to see. It’s apparent to me in every of those comments I linked to.

You think makeup has a negative side, and using money on more permanent beauty is smarter? Shame on you! You just want women to stop taking care of themselves!

You disagree that every time an average guy masturbates, it’s a grand gesture of liberation from women? Shame on you! You’re just using shaming language! [ EDIT: these are not direct quotes obviously, just a presentation of how he thinks.]

And thus, I can no longer take theantifeminist seriously. He’s irrational, dramatic, petty and dishonest.

Still a good MRA though. Go check out his site! http://theantifeminist.com/

P.S.: I will write a post about my motivations for engaging in this, if necessary.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to TA is a liar and an drama queen

  1. Schopenbecq says:

    Just to clarify, Emma wrote the following words that appear in the article and are her own projection. These are NOT MY WORDS, though readers may think she is directly quoting me :

    “You think makeup has a negative side, and using money on more permanent beauty is smarter? Shame on you! You just want women to stop taking care of themselves!

    You disagree that every time an average guy masturbates, it’s a grand gesture of liberation from women? Shame on you! You’re just using shaming language!”

    • emmatheemo says:

      Sorry, I will fix that and make it more clear.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Tsk tsk, theantifeminist. I see you lied some more in response to this article, on your own site.

      If you want to claim I lied, or said what you claim I said, post real quotes, and link to where you got them from.

      But that would be too much to expect, I know.

      • Schopenbecq says:

        WTF???

        This is the comment I made on my blog. In which part am I lying? Are you denying that you did these things???

        “She does things like shaming male sexuality by comparing it to a ‘gay bath house’ and claiming that civilisation depends on society living by the rules of female sexuality, then when I point it out replies ‘did not!’ like a pantomime character. Well I guess that proves I’m a liar.

        She came on my site and lied, claiming that I had written a piece arguing that women should be forced to have their brains re-arranged, then publicly called me a ‘selfish prick’ in an article on her blog, to which Eivind appeared to agree with, and then threatens me when readers comment about her.

        In this article she’s lying and making it appear I’m being directly quoted and saying absolute nonsense like ‘every act of masturbation is a grand gesture of liberation from women’.”

      • Emma the Emo says:

        “She does things like shaming male sexuality by comparing it to a ‘gay bath house’”

        You claim I shamed male sexuality by using the “gay bath house” word. So what is so shameful about that? I forgot now what I meant by it, but I suppose I meant that if everyone was like men, civilization wouldn’t be well. But then, if everyone was like women, I can’t imagine things going very well either. Things like that often have unintended consequences. But I’m still not against designer babies, so it’s a purely theoretical disagreement. In any case, I didn’t shame male sexuality when I said that.

        ” and claiming that civilisation depends on society living by the rules of female sexuality, then when I point it out replies ‘did not!’ like a pantomime character. Well I guess that proves I’m a liar.”

        You claim I claimed civilization works best when lead to the rules of female sexuality. Not true. Hard monogamy is a compromise between male and female sexuality as they are. And I do think hard monogamy is what works for a civilization. However, that doesn’t mean I’m for enforcing hard monogamy (too oppressive, so I’m not for it). Unlike everyone, including you, I don’t have a master plan for creating a perfect world, where everyone’s sexuality is free. I’m for legal freedoms (same ones you want), and that’s it. The principle is more important than the end outcome. I think you see me claiming something is a FACT (that hard monogamy works), and then decide that it is my OPINION also. But “what is” =/= “what should be”, fact =/= opinion.

        I suppose you aren’t truly lying about those two. I noticed you always claim I’m shaming male sexuality here and there. And any time someone (even a long-time ally) questions you on your blog, you hint they might be a feminist troll or something. You also conflated opinion and fact. Why do you keep doing that? At a certain point, when someone misunderstands you so profoundly, you start wondering if they are just outright twisting your words on purpose!

        “claiming that I had written a piece arguing that women should be forced to have their brains re-arranged”
        I don’t think I said that. Show me a quote. I know you aren’t for using force.

        “then publicly called me a ‘selfish prick’ in an article on her blog”

        I don’t think I called you a selfish prick directly. Was it this?
        “When doing this, these people try to convince you to be like them by telling you you will feel happier if you changed your values. That might sometimes be true, and not everyone who tells you your values should be changed is a hidden selfish prick. But sometimes they are. Sometimes they don’t even realize they are, and sincerely think they are arguing selflessly (possible because they evolved to argue that way, without knowing the ultimate purpose).” ( https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/do-we-need-to-apologize-for-our-sexuality/ )
        You weren’t even linked to on that article! If I publicly called anyone a selfish prick, it was everyone who argued for their self-interest, by appealing to morality. It’s very general stuff.

        “In this article she’s lying and making it appear I’m being directly quoted and saying absolute nonsense like ‘every act of masturbation is a grand gesture of liberation from women’.””

        Already fixed, and sorry it looked like that. I didn’t think anyone would think it’s a quote, without quote marks and block-quote function.

  2. Anon says:

    “However, just like men don’t appreciate having their sexuality bashed, neither do women. ”
    The only problem is, women’s sexuality seems to be all about controlling men and their sexuality. That’s just evil. A man might tell her woman what he wants from her. However, men as a group never teach women specifically how they should behave or pass laws that decides what women specifically should and should not do.
    Imagine if a law was passed that required every woman between 15 and 25 to go naked in the streets. And then imagine that men started to cry – “otherwise we feel very sexually deprived and helpless”. Imagine – if TV ads come with headlines – ” I am a woman. I respect a man’s sexuality. I go naked. Be a real woman like me and please your man.” Respect ! You understand? That doesn’t happen. Does it?

    Or ever seen those ads that tell:
    ” I am a man. I never hit a woman.”
    or
    “when she says no, it means no to me”?
    Now imagine an ad ” I am a woman. I never refuse a man when he wants sex”.

    “I just already know that men tend to feel bad and have low self-esteem, when they have to rely on masturbation! ”
    How can you possibly know what a man feels? You are a woman.
    And you are doing what women do best – playing psychological games.

    I agree with you on one thing though. I hate women with too much make-up. Women should try to be fit and healthy. Beauty = Health, especially sexual health.(to a large extent)

    • emmatheemo says:

      “The only problem is, women’s sexuality seems to be all about controlling men and their sexuality. That’s just evil.”

      What you are describing is the mainstream culture, held up by both men and women. You can say that some of those things are demanded by women due to their sexuality. And it’s SUPPORTED AND ENFORCED by men, because of their male sexuality. Thus, both sexualities are equally guilty. Without women, it wouldn’t start. Without men, it wouldn’t have gained any power whatsoever. Those people putting men in prison? Men. Anally raping men in prison? Men. There are two sides to this problem.

      “How can you possibly know what a man feels? You are a woman.”
      I talk to, and listen to men, that’s how. I also read studies. It’s ridiculous to claim the other gender is unknowable, just because one is not a member (or else PUA would be nonsence and impossible).

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        How would argue against the results of this study:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/fashion/12bisex.html?_r=0

        According to this study, women, at least in the Anglosphere, mostly don’t find sex with appealing at all. That being the case, it would appear that female sexual power is NOT based in anything like mutuality; but as a weapon against men. That’s why men need to take the sexual power away from them.

        What you said about marriage being the best compromise might be true, but only if men hold the power. Otherwise, the result is a 2/3 divorce rate like here in the US; and women throwing responsible men away to chase thugs.

      • emmatheemo says:

        First of all, I will say that yes, it must be marriage 1.0, if you want a compromise between men and women. Now I will look at your study.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I looked at the study. It says women were aroused by anything sexual happening on screen, the more sexual the better. And they were not aroused by naked men. But that doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t know before. Men’s bodies are not sexual objects. Well, to gay men they are, but to women they are not. A woman is not aroused by a naked man, she’s aroused by the setting, the situation, to what the man is DOING. You know how they say a woman is a human being, and a man is a human doing? It doesn’t mean the woman is using sexuality as a weapon, it’s just that she’s attracted to you when you are doing something cool. A woman in love/lust with a man is convinced she is aroused by HIM because he’s special, but she often doesn’t realize he DID things to cause that attraction, that her attraction is grounded in his ACTIONS. She doesn’t think about the fact that if her special man did not present himself well, she’d overlook him.

        I believe this is something many people end up hating. They want to be loved/wanted for what they love/want people for. A woman complains “why did he fall in love with me for my body, why couldn’t attraction to my wit come first?”. And the man complains “why did she fall in love with my wit (alphaness) first, and only later my body?”

        Of course, women can still use sex as a weapon. But this study doesn’t have anything to do with that, I think.

      • emmatheemo says:

        tl:dr: The study doesn’t show women hate sex men.
        The study is consistent with previous findings that women are attracted to what men do, rather than their nude bodies.

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        But if ‘men’s bodies are not sexual objects’ how can an institution like marriage 1.0 make any logical sense to women? The object of either monogamy or even polygamy would be to reproduce—and with the best genetic material. True, that would be a combination of both intelligence and good looks in a male—maybe even intelligence and resourcefulness would appeal to normal women even more than looks. But you read in the study that women were more sexually aroused by chimpanzees than men—you have to conclude a radically defective sexual ideal is driving most women.

        Even more so when you look at things like this:

        http://www.clicktop10.com/2013/05/top-10-hottest-men-in-the-world/

        Nobody can look objectively at this collection of swabs: all of whom are bottom-feeding actors who portray thugs and defectives—and argue that a single one of them is suitable reproductive material.

        I also don’t see how any of them equate to your criterion of ‘doing something cool’ or ‘being attractive because of his actions’. I’ve seen several lists just like this one, and the only thing the males on them actually DO is read scripts, pose for cameras, or sing. There are no scientists, war heroes, prize winners, martial artists, adventurers, high-rolling financiers, or even ‘gentleman bandit’ types—NOTHING cool or exciting listed among a single one of them.

        “A woman…is aroused by a man because she believes he is special.”

        Then how would that explain why dangerous psychotics and cult leaders attract harems of females, while men who actually do outstanding and worthwhile things are shunned/ignored by women?

      • emmatheemo says:

        I think you should look at this article:
        http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/07/how-strong-is-the-female-sex-drive-after-all/277429/
        It makes sense to me. It says that female sexuality is simultaneously omnivirous and weak. It’s way more adaptable to culture than men’s. Women are not attracted to monkeys, gay men, lesbians and anything else than fucks. Rather, they don’t have strong sexual urges (like men) in any direction. I don’t completely understand it, but to me it seems women are most attracted to those men who are “alpha” in their own time and place. In 17th century it might have been the general. Today, in the age of instant communication and media, it’s some kind of pansy celebrity.

        As for hottest lists, I think women like a good performance, status or preselection. I’m not surprised at all that they like men who merely play heroes, as onscreen persona often gets transfered onto the actor in the minds of the fans.
        These guys are also safe – they are a fantasy. You can watch them play tough heroes who display all their emotions onscreen, without having to approach a real man and try to figure him out. But women love to find a tough guy and get him to open up. In real life, it sometimes backfires. In movies, it’s gratifying. Remember that the hottest lists don’t exclude other guys from being attractive enough to have sex with. A woman will drop her 700+ bullet point requirement list if you give her “tingles”.

        It’s correct there are no scientists on that list. But there are no serial killers either.

        Speaking of serial killers. Yes, there are women who love them, but they are not the majority. These women feel capacity to break rules and kill another person is “cool”, but I doubt they consciously think it.

        Perhaps you should ask Rollo Tomassi all that, he’d explain it better.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Last point. Marriage 1.0 makes logical sense to women, because without affirmative action, wealth redistribution and other artificial female empowerment, most wouldn’t survive without it. I suspect that removing “empowerment” would make the average man experience a jump in status, just from his natural male talents and drive.

      • Tim says:

        “Mens bodies are not sexual objects”

        The bitter inconvinient truth for men is that women are very much visual its just that it takes for a man with a body of a Greek god and a face of an Adonis for a woman to sexualize and objectify him and find him arousing. The bodies of overwhelming majority of men do nothing for women.

        What you see as “men attracting women” through their actions is basically “Men compensating for their lack of attractiveness” and these methods are only required when a man is not physically attractive enough to begin with.

        In real life, hot, handsome guys with great physiques are sexually pursued by women all the time. If you ask them, they will have tales to tell you. Its nothing but their looks that get them casual sex, flings, hook ups, FwB, one night stands etc.

        Just look around yourself and you’ll see that the men who get the most attention, affection, love and sex from women are almost always good looking.

        Stop trying to perpetuate the misconception that women are not visual and men don’t need to be good looking. You need to look within yourself and ask why you feel the urge to downplay the importance of good looks in men…is it because you want women to be crowned the less shallower sex? Is it because you fear women being judged as shallow?

      • emmatheemo says:

        Tim, I see valid points in your comment, but I don’t think they contradict anything I say.

        In my post about who is shallower, I do say that women have higher standards for physical beauty than men. But at the same time, it can become less relevant if the guy has something else to attract her with. Having “game”/skills/colorful personality is not compensation for lack of hotness, it’s one facet of true hotness.

        Men, on the other hand, have lower physical standards, but these are not optional. They don’t become unimportant if she has confidence, or skills, or a nice soul or whatever. I ended up concluding that men and women are both shallow and non-shallow.

        Men’s looks matter, sure. But the role they play is not nearly as big as the role of women’s looks. The hottest looking man is never as hot as the hottest looking woman.

        As for hot men getting laid left and right… My impression so far is that a hot beta will actually get an ONS easier than a non-hot one, but he will not hold onto that girl. He’ll have easier time getting an ONS than a relationship/repeated ONS. It’s no more than an educated guess right now, but I’m hoping to look into it further.

      • Chin Up, Chest High! says:

        They don’t become unimportant if she has confidence, or skills, or a nice soul or whatever

        Sorry, I disagree. But then perhaps it is just me that I’m far more certain of what I am looking for. Of the women I’ve met through dating in the last year I have been far more attracted to the “7s” and “8s” than the “9s” and “10s” because we’ve had chemistry, because she’s thoughtful, intelligent, great company to be around or she has made me laugh or I just smile thinking about her.

        Looks are important to both genders but men tend to have a far broader range of things that we find attractive. Just because I dated a blonde last month doesn’t mean I am only into blondes – which is an accusation women are always so quick to level at men. All of my dates have been in all shapes and sizes: blondes, brunettes, redheads, slender, skinny, curvy, overweight, shorter, average height, taller than I am.

        Personally, I think women have a “type” and men have a “preference”.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I don’t disagree with you on men having a much broader range of looks they like. I would even agree that a woman in the mid-range (5-7, perhaps 4-7) can become more beautiful or more ugly in a man’s eyes, depending on how she acts. But I don’t think a 10 will become ugly because she’s bitchy (when this happens, guys still want to bang her, but reconsider if they want to go through everything it would require), and a 2 won’t become a beauty queen due to kindness. I have heard from men who said “she’s perfect for me, but I’m just not attracted to her”.

      • Chin Up, Chest High! says:

        Personally, if given the choice between a 10 with an ugly personality or a 2 who makes me laugh and blows my mind it is a no contest. But I guess that is just me being in my late 30s and having different priorities.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Well, you are but one man… A lot of men would love a sweet 2, but not be IN love with her. however, I have seen some very ugly women married with children, so it must mean they found someone.

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        “I hoping to look into it further.”

        It certainly a wide field for speculation. I would like to add that I’m beginning to believe that feminism has largely corrupted female sexual standards. Specifically when you say that male looks can be less relevant “if a man has something else to attract her with” that statement has entirely different construction for a woman who’s been brought up to hate men and consider us all as inferiors and subhumans. When women are repeatedly told things like ‘all men are pigs’ and ‘nice guys aren’t really nice’, the tendency would be what we see now: widespread sexual rejection of worthwhile men while Omega/Zeta type males have a virtual monopoly on male sex.

      • Eric says:

        ChinUp:
        I don’t think it has to do much with your age, just common sense. If a woman is a 10 in looks but a 2 in attitude; to my mind, that averages her value out at around a 6. When you start calculating women in the 7-9 range by that standard you see that most Ameroskanks rate between 2-4, at best.

    • Chin Up, Chest High! says:

      “I just already know that men tend to feel bad and have low self-esteem, when they have to rely on masturbation! ”

      Emma the Emo is right. From a young age we are taught that it is wrong – that we should feel ashamed of our growing sexuality. Later in life our peers (and this is something promoted in media such teen films for example) assume that we masturbate because it is all we can get. Inflatable dolls, “getting some kleenex” are all used as terms of derision, not as sex positive ideals.

      Are women ever made to feel bad for masturbating? No, we are constantly pushed the idea that a woman who does is sexually liberated.

    • Eric says:

      Emma:
      But if women have no strong sexual drive in any direction; how could they be attracted to whatever the culture defines as ‘alpha’?

      It would seem that the study you cited is correct about women’s sexuality. The very fact though that their sexuality is weak and omnivorous illustrates they shouldn’t be in control of social sexual power, or else they are bound to misuse it. However, I agree that destroying the welfare and entitlement state would go a long way to bringing back male sexual empowerment again. And restoring the sexual power of males is what is really needed.

      “I’m not surprised at all that they like men who are playing heroes.”

      That’s the problem—these actors are NOT playing heroes. They are playing vampires, thugs, and pirates, for example. Earlier generations of women liked celebrities too: like John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Audie Murphy—guys who really did play heroes (and Murphy was actually a decorated WW2 hero before he became an actor). What I think these ’10 Hottest’ lists actually reflect is female contempt and hatred for good and noble men.

      “There were no serial killers on the list…Of serial killers, there are women who love them, but they are not the majority”

      I suppose in the interests of discretion, the editors didn’t allow serial killers to be selected. But I’m also certain that dangerous psychotics are more popular with women than you assume. Practically not a week goes by over here without a story in the news about a woman murdered by her boyfriend—invariably too the man involved has an extensive history of mental illness and/or criminal behavior. Just today there was just a story in our local news: a beautiful 20 y/o Latina girl—who could have had her pick of men–was murdered by her boyfriend: a white supremacist who’d done terms in a psychiatric prison! She, and other fatalities like her, couldn’t possibly have a high opinion of men to involved with such cretins in the first place.

      • emmatheemo says:

        “But if women have no strong sexual drive in any direction; how could they be attracted to whatever the culture defines as ‘alpha’? ”

        I think it’s because sexuality evolves the way it does for a reason. Why would women evolve to have omnivorous sexuality? If it evolved to be molded like putty in just about anything culture wants, women wouldn’t reproduce very well (say, someone told them pure lesbianism is the way to go). But I suspect SOME flexibility in female sexuality evolved to serve the purpose of just that – women’s reproduction. Somehow, it helped them in the evolutionary past to be somewhat flexible. I suspect this flexibility is nothing but a compromise. Figuratively speaking, I imagine their sexuality “thinking” something like “Ok, I will be as flexible as possible, as long as I reach THAT ONE important goal, that will lead me to most effective reproduction”.

        So, what changes from culture to culture? I think the top men, and types of men who are on top.

        On the other hand, women’s reproductive value doesn’t change much from culture to culture. It’s the same thing – youth and beauty. So for men, beling flexible would have been a disadvantage.

        This is my interpretation of this, and it’s based on everything else I’ve ever learnt about the sexes. But still, there is a lot we don’t know about this, and it could happen I’m wrong about this particular study. However, I’m 100% sure female sexuality is designed to propagate women’s genes, just like male sexuality.

      • emmatheemo says:

        “they shouldn’t be in control of social sexual power” + “And restoring the sexual power of males is what is really needed”

        How would you achieve those goals? I agree with you, if you mean that men should be allowed to be men, and remove all sorts of welfare that I already mentioned. Then men will be more sexually attractive, too. However, men as a whole can’t have as much sexual power as women under patriarchy, anymore than women as a group can have more physical power than men simply through having the state backing them up. Until nature changes, sexual power lies with women, and physical power with men (and without feminism, public power also mostly lies with men).

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        Well, I would agree that the shortcut to bringing back male sexual power would for men to eliminate the welfare state and restore patriarchy to society (or at least some of its elements). However, given our current social climate, I don’t see that political solution on the horizon anytime soon.

        The best course of action men can take now is passive resistance: refuse relationships with feminist women and deny them their sexual power openly. As you said: ‘until nature changes, women will have the sexual power.’ Well, feminism HAS changed that nature and female sexual power is forfeited. When men realize this, the women will have no power over them.

      • emmatheemo says:

        “refuse relationships with feminist women ” – seems agreeable to me

        “deny them their sexual power openly” – that I’m not sure about. Feminists already pretend women have no more power than men do! In fact, insisting women have power antagonizes them, and doesn’t fit into their idea that the only power that counts is the male one. Their refusal to admit that women have this power aggravates anyone who’s ever faced the effects of sexual disempowerement. It allows them to push for more state-enforced power redistribution, since women have “no power”.

        On the other hand, if you can convince women you have more sexual power than them, you can become more attractive. It can work for an individual. But I doubt most men would agree to deny women sex, or act like they don’t desire it as much as they do. Even today, with all the danger that sex puts men through, they keep doing it. They even keep fucking willing teens, while knowing they might end up in jail (it’s not a secret).

        Maybe sex bots/VR porn will take care of that and shift the sexual power.

        “Well, feminism HAS changed that nature and female sexual power is forfeited.”
        I don’t think feminism changed nature. It takes longer than that to evolve natures into a completely different direction. The whole reason for why feminism is not achieving its goals is because of nature. Mostly women’s.
        I don’t think female sexual power is forfeited either. Strong as always. Modern feminism seems to be partially about increasing it, too.

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        I think what has shifted in female sexual evolution has been the social attitude connecting sexuality and reproduction. There aren’t very many MRAs who still admit that sexuality and reproduction are related concepts—but I believe that they can’t separated. Both men and women may sexually experiment with others, but the natural inclination is to seek out the best and most desirable for mating and propagating the species.

        Feminism has broken that concept among women and the result has been that women no longer see sexual value in men. Why should they if reproduction isn’t important to them? Abortion. lesbianism, and thug-chasing are considered virtuous and good men are despised.

        To be completely fair, this was also a criticism I had of Antifeminist’s position on transhumanism. While I think that transhumanism has some potential, it hasn’t worked out all the contingencies. Sexbots &c. might change things and enjoy some popularity, but without the ability to reproduce, sex becomes meaningless. I think it could become just as meaningless for men under such conditions as it is for most women today.

      • emmatheemo says:

        “I think what has shifted in female sexual evolution has been the social attitude connecting sexuality and reproduction.”

        But that is what I meant by “nature” – people know consciously sex can be reproductionless, but their instincts act as before. You said it here: “Both men and women may sexually experiment with others, but the natural inclination is to seek out the best and most desirable for mating and propagating the species. ”

        “but without the ability to reproduce, sex becomes meaningless. I think it could become just as meaningless for men under such conditions as it is for most women today.”

        I disagree that sex without reproduction becomes meaningless. I know some PUAs eventually suffer from the hedonistic treadmill and becoming bored of women, but you have to keep going at it for quite a while before it occurs, I think. Our sex drives evolved so we could make good babies, but we aren’t consciously aware of that. We don’t stop wanting/needing sex when we’re using condoms or pills… But apart from that, I think humans in general like love and this stuff feels meaningful to them on its own.

        Although if we were ALL infertile, I think the world might become a dark depressing place (i think they even made a horror movie about that), but who’d make us all infertile? We aren’t now.

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        To clarify about sex becoming meaningless: feminism has taught women essentially two things: one, that there are no good men; and secondly, that motherhood and marriage is a curse and not a blessing. The result of these two lines of thought is that women routinely have sex with scumbags whom they couldn’t possibly love or form meaningful relationships with—just for the sake of having sex. If women were still focused on reproductive success as at least a potentiality, sex would be meaningful to them and they would choose better men for partners (even if they were just experimenting).

        Could this happen to men? I think that it could, in fact I think it’s already happening. Eivind mentioned recently that impotence is starting to appear in teen and twenty-something men today. I do disagree with him that porn is causing this (I think these guys are turning to porn as a form of self-therapy instead); but I think these younger men are feeling, at least subconscious level, that if even if they achieved sex it wouldn’t serve any purpose and the quality of the women they’d get anyway (both in looks and temperament) makes it not worth doing anyhow.

  3. Chris says:

    I posted on theantifeminist for the first time last week what I considered to be reasonable, reasoned comments in response to one of Angry Harry’s posts he republished on the site. Some responded fairly and engaged me in debate, however others (including theantifeminist himself) resorted to ad homs against both me and the people whose evidence I had used in support of my arguments, and called me a troll. He then, I am 99% certain, blocked me (all my recent posts have not got through and he apologised to his readers for allowing me to ‘run rampant’ for so long) before I got a chance to respond to some of those who had actually answered my points. Hypocritical that, considering how he accuses feminists of stifling the debate. He also wished that I be the victim of a false rape allegation. Surely, if his views are valid, he should not need to block someone like me who disagrees, as he should be able to demonstrate why my arguments are wrong? It is telling that one of the commenters actually said he was not interested in genuine debate.

    (Apologies that this is not strictly relevant to this post, but I just thought I’d share my experience of his site.)

  4. Schopenbecq says:

    @Chris – If I allowed every feminist comment on my site, I would quickly have more feminists ‘debating’ there than mras, and my ‘work’ and time spent on my blog would chiefly consist of constantly defending, over and over again, the basic justification of men’s rights. You’re really comparing the feminist universal control of the mainstream media to my comment moderation policy on my little blog?

    And you were not ‘debating’. You were employing the schoolboy trick of constantly and crudely questioning every statement and argument myself or my readers made to you (why? how? who?) without providing any substantial argument of your own. A style of ‘debate’ (together with threats) that Emma also tends to employ.

    BTW, any criticism of feminism is likely to be made illegal throughout Scandinavia shortly, with the rest of Europe no doubt to follow, something triggered largely by the writings of Emma’s boyfriend Eivind, who was arrested for appearing to stupidly make violent threats against random policemen, and who I, out of a misguided sense of loyalty which I now regret and disclaim, continued to support even though I risked having armed police bursting through my door as a result.

    @Emma – why do you make personal attacks on me in actual blog posts, consciously starting the blog title with ‘the antifeminist’ in order that anyone Googling ‘the antifeminist’ finds your article at the top of the search results, for the supposed reason that I or my readers have made criticisisms of you in the comments section of my blog, when you (and Eivind) have allowed comments attacking me from feminists and the likes of Clarence on your blogs?

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Criticism of me is ok. Bashing me is even ok. But claiming I said what I didn’t say is not ok. You are, despite all the flaws, still a respected MRA. Your word against mine might mean you win and everyone believes I’m a feminist who hates male sexuality.

      If women were allowed to post on your blog (and I know they are not), I could have simply corrected the misconceptions you created right there, on your blog. But since I can’t, I’m forced to do it here. If you want I’ll change the title, but I’ll leave the article. I didn’t know anything about Google search, and it was not my intention.

      And we (me and Eivind) allow everyone to comment because we’re very into freedom of discussion. Yes, even for trolls, feminists, other people we don’t like. We ban NO ONE. It’s just a principle. You are still allowed here, and will always be allowed.

    • emmatheemo says:

      whoa whoa, where did I ever threaten you? You mean the warning I was nice enough to send you in the email? I could have simply avoided this extra step, and posted this blogpost right away. Here it is:

      “Hi, it’s Emma. I have not talked to you since our “fight”. I have not even mentioned you by name in my posts which were sparked by our disagreement. I did this because I don’t want to direct negative attention to allies. But you have chosen to spread lies about me on your blog. Here is how it was, on your page:

      “Emma the Emo does this a lot, as do some others, something I’m very uncomfortable with. For example, Emma defends female sexual morality as being superior to male sexuality,”

      This is not true. I do NOT see the female sexuality as superior to the male one, as I have stated many, many times. If this is a misunderstanding, I will understand, and will appreciate if you stop spreading misinformation. But if you willingly misunderstand me, I will be forced to defend myself publicly. Don’t think of me as petty. If you were someone very important, and useful to the MRM beyond writing a blog, I would gladly take a reputation hit for it.”

      You could have stopped me by saying, for example, that you did way more for the MRM beyond writing a blog. Silence was your response, and more untruthful talk about me.

    • Chris says:

      So you’re not interested in debate with feminists then. Of course it’s your blog so you have every right to allow/block whatever you see fit, but I don’t see how you can justify blocking someone who disagrees with you and still expect your blog to be taken seriously. You should expect to defend your point of view, and if your opinions are valid, it should be easy, without having to resort to blocking.

      I was debating. Read my posts again. I did ask some questions (by no means ‘every statement and argument’) but also made arguments (look at my exchange with Eric, and my reply to Human-Stupidity’s post about gyms, for example). I asked questions in the hope of getting an explanation and justification for some of the points you made, and also giving you a chance to explain the basic tenets of your view to someone unfamiliar with it. You thus responded at length to my question about male/female sexuality in a perfectly civil manner. I also questioned Alan Vaughn’s view of The Good Men Guide, as I believed it to be false, and provided evidence in support of my view. Is that not a fair question to ask?

      I wished to respond to your point in response to me about Keir Starmer’s comments (the one that ended with you wishing me to be victim of a miscarriage of justice), but by that time I had been blocked. I was also unable to reply to your post about the rape/burglary point I had made, even though I tried a different email address (in actual fact the comment has been visible on the page for me for days, ‘awaiting moderation’). In both cases I had what I considered to be reasonable counter-arguments, which you evidently did not want to hear.

  5. Liz says:

    I’m reminded of an organized anti-US protest in Okinawa a couple of months ago. (hold on, this is relevant)

    Thousands of Okinawans attended, and they had some valid concerns, but then a few Okinawan protesters drove up wearing Chinese military fatigues, in a car plastered with anti-U.S. military placards and portraits of North Korea founder Kim Il Sung, current leader Kim Jong Un and the father of Chinese communism, Mao Zedong. They blared loudspeakers railing against the United States and blasted slogans for China and North Korea. People within the group started to question…”wait, is this an anti US rally or a pro-DPRK/CHina rally?” They quickly and quietly dispersed, not wanted to be associated with or lending support for this radical group of idiots that entered their protest.

    Sometimes the things I read in the “manosphere” remind me of that rally. A bad “ally” can do more damage for a cause than an enemy (look at how many times stupid commentary from Jezzebel is cited for support against feminism…that cuts both ways, they’re looking at the manosphere for support for their paradigm too). The kicker is….those radical protestors that crashed the rally were actually a pro-US support group. They knew offering such “support” would undermine the cause. Think about that one when reading internet material, especially when it fails the reasonability test. Not everything is what it seems to be. Nuff said.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Thanks for that interesting tale, Liz.

      • Liz says:

        You’re welcome!
        FWIW, I have never read TA, and have “no dog in this fight”, it’s just something that comes to mind when I’m perusing blogs around the net.
        The manosphere is growing in relevance and there’s going to be a lot of disagreement within.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Yes, there will be disagreement. I personally don’t think this little fight will make a blip in the history of the manosphere (or anything else), so it’s not so serious.

  6. themakeupartist says:

    Shouldn’t that be “A liar and an drama KING”? Queens are usually old hags, and Mr. Anti is certainly not Baba Yaga material.

  7. Jerinos says:

    Regarding the study referenced in this article that Eric posted – http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/fashion/12bisex.html?_r=0

    The article specifically mentions that the women had physical signs of sexual interest but doesn’t mention the mental aspect. I’ve read the actual study, and the heterosexual women marked down that they were not interested in sex other than the heterosexual porn, but the study measured how lubed up they got also. The women were getting wet no matter which porn they watched but were only consciously interested in the hetero porn.

    This most likely has to do with the fact that women have only had a choice about when sex happens over roughly the past 2,000 to 4,000 years while home sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years and I’m sure we have some shared behaviors from ancestors going back farther than that into the millions of years. The women who lubed up no matter what didn’t have vaginal tearing from being dry and were more likely to get pregnant and pass down their genes. It’s going to take quite a while for that physical response to evolve into something else because there’s no real reason for the response to change in the same way that we still have toes even though toes aren’t really used for anything. Unless there’s a reason for women to stop lubing up so easily, it’s going to stay that way.

    This goes along with rape fantasies, wanting alpha males, and every other thing that gives women the tingles. The women who are more okay with all that were less likely to put up a fight against the men which resulted in more pregnancies. Women can only get pregnant and pass down their genes when men are knocking them up, so they less resistance they put up to men with evolutionarily useful genes, the more prominent those genes are going to be in the gene pool..

    • Eric says:

      Jerinos:
      ‘every other thing that gives women the tingles.’

      Which largely seems to exclude males. Feminism has instilled such a hatred of men into women, that the results of the study illustrate to me that the female sex drive has mostly atrophied.

  8. Jerinos says:

    By the way, chronic masturbation to porn causes depression through dopamine depletion. You don’t need to go any further in your explanation than that. Anyone who has masturbated 3+ times a day for years and then gone for 2+ weeks without masturbation can tell you that. Brain scans show that masturbation to porn causes the same effect in your brain as heroin. People who are addicted to porn frequently pass up sex in order to use porn instead. Studies have shown that imagining something in your mind causes the same circuits to fire as something you see happening in real life and it’s hard to beat 10 hot babes of your choice doing whatever you want them to.

    • Eric says:

      Jerinos:
      Anyone who is masturbating more than three times a day already has deeper problems than dopamine depletion. If they pass up sex to use porn, that proves they already have psychological problems unrelated to porn.

      Most of the opposition to porn comes from the fact that women today are lower quality than virtual sex offers. That’s not the problem with men, but with women’s failures.

  9. @Jerinos I would be wary of pointing to feminist junk science and pop sci studies that ‘prove’ that masturbation makes you go blind, oh sorry I mean ‘reduces your dopamine levels’ or whatever, especially when such studies are being justified to bring in yet more anti-porn laws that will lead to yet more millions of men being criminalized, and thousands more raped in prison cells. I’ve read that it’s hard for men to get sex when they are locked away in jail – at least the kind of sex they would want…but perhaps you think that masturbation over homosexual sex is also an evil…

    “Brain scans show that masturbation to porn causes the same effect in your brain as heroin.”

    I’ve seen that quote almost turn into a meme now. I’ve seen it quoted several times by feminists lobbying for porn to be outlawed per se. And what a load of meaningless junk science bullshit it is. For all you and I know, even if the statement is true, it could be equally true of one’s brain when, say, looking at a beautiful sunset, reading the climax to a gripping thriller, or indeed as you might even agree, having sex.

    As far as the dopamine is concerned, if you take away a highly pleasurable pursuit that you engage in every day, then it’s no surprise that the result is that you are unhappy. If I was denied my morning jog in the park, I would suffer from ‘lower dopamine levels’ for a while. Does that mean my daily jog in the park can be compared to heroin addiction? No of course not. The latter is a meaningless neurochemical addiction to another chemical substance. Jogging is a real activity that promotes health, allows me to appreciate the beauty of the park etc. Masturbating to porn is not to be compared to heroin either. A man is having his basic sexual needs satisfied in a way very similar to the ‘real thing’ but through a (typically) even greater visual appreciation of female beauty – probably to a level that only kings and emporers would have been able to experience for 99.9% of prior human history.

    Is choosing masturbation over real sex on occasion (or even always) a bad thing? A few days ago I was chatted up by a 35 year old American woman in central London, a fairly attractive woman for her age, and who was making it fairly clear she wanted me to fuck her (telling me her hotel room was ‘just down there’, and that she wanted to take a short walk around the area but was afraid she would ‘get lost’ etc). I decided that this cougar was of little interest in me, and although I was sure I could fuck her, I thought the investment of even several hours of my time was not worth it and I would rather pursue something younger, and if that failed, I could go home and wank. In fact, later that same day I attempted to chat up a much younger woman of about 18 or 19, and was immediately blown out by her. If I recall correctly, I did masturbate later that night, knowing that if I had made a different choice, I could have been having sex with that 35 year old cougar. Did I regret it? No not at all. Why on Earth should I? The pleasure I derived from masturbating was probably better than I would have gained from banging the aging cougar’s body. Naturally, from the cougar’s perspective, her pleasure was diminished by my passing up her indirect offer of sex in favour of masturbation. Agreed. But that has no relevance to me, and no relevance to men’s rights. It has every relevance to feminism, and their Sexual Trade Union attempts to artificially inflate women’s sexual market value through the never ending criminalization of men who refuse sexual relationships with women.
    I wonder also if you think the 19 year old girl, assuming that she was not going to be fucked by a boyfriend that same night, and especially if she went home and dildoed herself that night, was mentally ill for choosing not to take up my offer of sex? Or is this a ‘female resource’ issue, by which women have an intrinsic right to choose whether to grant sex, but a man is clinically insane if he ever elects not to take up an offer of sex?

  10. Pingback: A short reply to the ‘masturbating to porn is like heroin addiction’ pop sci meme | Anti-Feminist Theory of Men's Rights, Male Sexuality, Feminism

  11. Jay says:

    I love masturbating. Chill out about it its no big deal. Unless of course, masturbating to porn is seen as a threat to women in some way??

    • emmatheemo says:

      I suppose to some it is. Not to me, if that is what you are asking. But yes, I think threat is one reason why many (here, somewhat more than half?..) women want to ban prostitution, for example.

  12. Jerinos says:

    lol. I’m not a woman, or a feminist. I know I feel a whole lot better when I’m not masturbating. It’s the physical kind of feeling, not a value. That’s all I need to know. There have been plenty of studies which this kind touches on – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AeZn6MvZZg

    I also can’t really fathom why it’s considered liberating to get your jollies from watching some other guy bang the woman you wish you were banging.

    Don’t think I’ll be spending much time on antifeminist.com after my little exposure. I can’t ridiculousness.

  13. handbanana says:

    I think the real issue is that taking away a man’s right to pleasure himself is what is causing “friction” (lol?). what we need is a proper trade off, to justify the loss of a man’s rights in this area. it’s only fair after all, if we have to give something up, maybe you should too.
    1. women tend to let their mouths get them into a lot of trouble. first step will be to fix their mouths. knock out all their teeth, cut their tongues out, and staple the whole thing shut.
    2. women also tend to create unnecessary drama whenever they leave the home. shatter women’s ankles and sever their achilles tendons. this will prevent them from walking, and greatly hamper driving!
    3. women are notoriously bad when it comes to spending money, as we all know. make it illegal for women to earn or spend money.
    4. most importantly, if men are giving up the right to masturbate, women are going to have to give up the right to turn down sex. women should not be allowed to wear clothing.
    there, that’s a fair trade.

  14. ScareCrow says:

    He does tend to attack people who are not his enemies.

    I have noticed this – and I do not get bent out of shape about it.

    When somebody is used to dealing with constant attacks, pretty soon, that is all they see – are attacks, even when there aren’t any.

    Ever heard that joke?

    A Cop, a Psychologist, and an Engineer are sitting in a bar – the Cop sees two criminals. The Psychologist sees two crazy people. The Engineer sees two problems.

    And of course – the engineer is the most correct…

  15. CaptainFogy says:

    par·a·noi·a
    n.
    1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.

    2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

    For older men, this problem can be life-threatening as higher levels of stress can lead to heart attacks.

  16. LokalJoker says:

    Denne TA ser ut til å være avviker på linje med denne mannen

  17. This was a fantastic read. I found myself enchanted, something rare for me
    these days, and I cannot wait to hear more.

  18. themakeupartist gameshowhost says:

    TA thinks early/mid teen girls r hawter than adult women.
    lawl.

  19. Pettersen Olsen (poorly evolved primate) says:

    lol. old barren hags angry because super alpha male TA doesnt want them
    http://community.babycentre.co.uk/post/a25793295/female_beauty_peaks_at_16?cpg=1&csi=2137350387&pd=-5 Stop complaining, you will be replaces by robots! Deal With it!

  20. :-p says:

    Jeg leste bloggen til TA og ble feminist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s