Category Archives: penises
Men’s Rights Activist: “If women sucked d*** half as well as they suck at sports there would be no more divorces.”
The anonymous fellow (or fellows) behind the sites, or group, or whatever it is, has apparently decided that the best way to fight the alleged misandry of feminism is with raging misogyny.
I would call it fighting fire with fire, but it’s more like fighting an imaginary campfire with the flaming pits of hell.
The latest post on the Men Against Misandry blog takes on the issue of women athletes, and why they get less attention and money than their male equivalents. Mr. MAM has a fairly simple explanation:
Why are there no truly famous women in sports?
It’s because women suck at sports. Period. We all know there’s only one real professional sports team that anybody actually cares about – the men’s team. Men just let women have their own sports teams to feel better about themselves. That’s just the truth.
I didn’t put that bit in bold. He did. He wanted to make sure we understood just how much he thinks women really suck at sports.
And in case we haven’t gotten the message yet, he continues:
You know that old saying? you throw like a girl!
Well, it’s a saying for a reason. Women just plain suck at sports. If women sucked dick half as well as they suck at sports there would be no more divorces in the great US of A.
Yep, he’s the one that put that last bit in bold, too. Indeed, he was so proud of that last sentence he posted it — just that one sentence — as a separate post on his Facebook page.
It’s all in a day’s work for this noble fighter against misandry.
Thanks to the folks in AgainstMensRights for pointing me to this blog post.
Today, a little Evo Psych Pop Quiz for you all!
5 of the following 6 statements are actual quotes from a 2007 article in the open access peer-reviewed journal Evolutionary Psychology. Can you spot the quote that isn’t from the article?
- “The section on intra-vaginal anti-cuckoldry tactics focuses on sperm competition, providing fascinating descriptions of the semen-displacement hypothesis (Gallup Jr. and Burch) and the psychobiology of semen (Burch and Gallup Jr.).”
- “[I]ntra-vaginal battles demand men to become aroused to situations that are actually unpleasant for them, for instance the suspicion of their partner’s infidelity.”
- “This section also includes discussions of the interesting notions that … women should not be motivated to have sex with their main partner right after an extra-pair copulation because of the possibility of sperm displacement (the penis appears to be shaped to do just that), [and] that a man may manipulate a woman’s mood via semen content (Rice, 1996, has experimentally shown something similar in fruit flies) … .”
- “One of the mating strategies examined as an early prevention method is violence against women within partnered relationships.”
- “Despite this scrutiny, a man can still gain from deliberately ejaculating in front of his partner from time to time. Choosing each occasion carefully so as to display a good ejaculation can be a powerful way to advertise his continuing good health.”
- “Affirmative feedback did not increase men’s likelihood to allocate resources to self-morphed images, but men were significantly less likely to allocate resources to self morphed images when told the morphed image did not resemble them … . “
Answer: Number 5 is the ringer! But, lacking confidence in my own ability to come up with something as convincingly batty as the quotes from the real article, I cheated a little here, borrowing this quote from a real Evo Psych book — Sperm Wars, by Robin Baker, a popular title from a major publisher recommended on countless Pickup Artist and “Red Pill” reading lists. It’s a truly bizarre and often quite disturbing read. (If you have a bit of Google-fu you should be able to locate a pdf of it online with no trouble.)
And speaking of pdfs, if you want tp read the article in Evo Psych I got most of these quotes from, a book review by Kelly D. Suschinsky and Martin L. Lalumière titled The View From the Cuckold, you can find a pdf of it here. See, I really didn’t just make it up!
Matt Forney is desperate for attention; it’s as glaringly obvious as the giant MATT FORNEY that adorns the top of his blog, creatively named MATT FORNEY. And like some caricature of an emo teen “acting out,” the misogynistic manosphere blogger has decided that any attention — even bad attention — is better than no attention.
And so, perhaps at least dimly aware that his ideas are and his prose are both too lackluster to command much attention on their own, he seems to be trying to rile up as much of the internet as possible with posts that are deliberately designed to offend liberals and feminists and pretty much anyone who is not a woman-hating douchebag. He had a minor hit a this spring with a post entitled Why Fat Girls Don’t Deserve to Be Loved, which did in fact live up — that is, down — to its title.
Now he’s got an even bigger hit in a post titled The Case Against Female Self-Esteem.
Sometimes I like to take a look through the search terms that people use to get to Man Boobz. Doing that recently it occurred to me just how disappointed many of these searchers must be when they arrive here and find no answers to their questions, nothing to slake their curiosity.
I thought I’d collect together some reccent search terms from the people you might call Man Boobz’ Least Satisfied Customers.
Warning: This list is extremely NSFW, as people are filthy perverts. And some of them are also terrible.
So over on MPUAForum.com the other day, some of the aspiring master seducers were dicsussing ovulation. You know, like guys do.
No, they haven’t suddenly developed a genuine interest in the literal inner workings of women. It’s just that they think knowing a bit about ovulation will help them get laid. Because according to the tenets of something called Peak Ovulation Theory,
girls will fuck with the bad boy during peak ovulation and the rest of the menstrual cycle, they will get it on with the nice guys.
So … if your style of game is the bad boy vibe, you’ll get to fuck the girl at her horniest days.
Don’t worry: it’s all very scientific. They have studies and everything.
Sorry. A LOT.
Let’s let him explain:
I don’t give a shit about sex. Any broad can spread her legs.
You know what I do care about? Holding girls to a higher standard.
Why? Because my seed is liquid fucking gold and I don’t give it out like its god damn tap water.
And … I’ve already lost my appetite for dinner.
A couple of days ago, Rachel Swirsky — an award-winning science fiction and fantasy writer who posts at Alas, A Blog and sometimes comments here on Man Boobz as well — sent along a link to a brilliant, brutal, and horrifying short story she’d recently published in Apex Magazine. Titled “Abomination Rises on Filthy Wings,” the story is essentially her attempt to get inside the mind of a violent misogynist.
As the editor’s note to her story explains:
Swirsky wrote this piece after talking to multiple editors who worked with horror stories, all of whom reported receiving many submissions about men murdering their wives or ex–wives. Despite the fictional veneer and supernatural justification [for the murder], many have the feel of personal revenge fantasies, and most characterize the women through disturbing, misogynist stereotypes. Swirsky wanted to see if it was possible to write a story that included all the markers of the trope but nevertheless subverted it.
In writing the story, Swirsky told me, “I drew heavily on Manboobz for mood and imagery, to try to get the sense of the narrator.”
So, enjoy. But first, I should warn you that the story is very violent, very disturbing, and could very well be triggering. So giant TRIGGER WARNING.
Here’s the LINK.
So for some reason the fellas on the Men’s Rights subreddit are discussing an article by Australian newspaper columnist Clementine Ford in which she expresses her desire to see more dongs on television.
As she notes, there are plenty of boobs on display on HBO shows like Game of Thrones, yet “rarely are we treated to the visual smorgasbord of a well stocked meat platter. ” Ford is sick of it. “So bring on the parade of wangs, willies and woodies!” she demands. “I’m fond of a wand and I’m not ashamed to say it.”
I’m not terribly familiar with the writings of Clementine Ford, but evidently she’s not big on subtlety.
Anyway, the fellas in the Men’s Rights subreddit aren’t having any of it. Nuh uh. They ain’t buying it, ladies! You may write columns about how you want more wang on TV. You may talk about it with your friends. You may have gigantic collections of peen pics hidden away on your hard drive.
But the MRAs of Reddit know better. It’s all some devious feminist ploy, as Steampunk_Moustache helpfully explains.
Huh. That took an odd twist at the end there.
But it’s our old friend Giegerwasright who provides the real answer, in the form of a wall-o-mansplainin’ so giant that I had to shrink the text to even screencap it.
So why exactly are women pretending to be interested in seeing more penises on television? So they can point at them and laugh?
Women are such an enigma, especially if you just assume that nothing they ever say is true and that it’s all part of some weird plot to screw with men’s heads.
(H/t to r/againstmensrights for pointing me to geigerwasright’s lovely comment.)