Old sexist adverts again – this time re men

HAPPY NOW.

A picture is worth a thousand strawmans. I’ve included ‘problematic’ implications.

ambitionpills
>Implying men are worthless without a fat wallet. Come on, we know what ambition means.
hemanvoice
>Implying bravado is the only true masculinity.
appeartaller
>Implying malnourishment (look it up) makes you less human.
artinstruction
>Implying men are useless if they do not take up an effete hobby.
marriedman
>Implying married men do no work around the house and are all lazy bums.
catchman
>Implying men are some strange hog-like creature which can be lured and trapped with fatty food.
improveface
>Implying ugly men are silly, socially clownish and don’t deserve respect.
drunkard
>Implying men are addicted, useless layabouts who need to be poisoned for the good of the family.
sexspoon
>Implying male sexuality is shameful, in your own marriage, like a schoolboy.

Pick-up scams are also old hat. There are much older ads that gave advice on how to talk, a coded phrase.
pickup1
>Implying the only thing a man cares about is women.
>Implying (all) men are desperate.
>Implying men value themselves based on how they please random people.
>Implying without sex, men are nothing.
trainyourwife
>Implying you married a dog. Who sides with an advert over their wife?
sexharmony
>Implying you’re doing sex wrong, whatever you’re doing, according to the male equivalents of spinsters, the bachelor. A random, single man knows your genitals and how to please your wife better than you do.
hypnotism
>Implying no conscious woman would willingly go out with you.
erectol
>Implying men must be ready and willing to have sex with anything at all times, like a pogo stick you can just hop on anytime the wife wants. Fuck consent, apparently.
avoidmarriage
>Implying love is a weakness, loneliness is a virtue, creepiness is male and men are users, sexual exploiters who don’t need women for anything like companionship.
gayboy
>Implying any man who takes pride in his appearance must be vain and well, gay.
millionlook
>Implying men are only valuable in marriage for their money.
magictie
>Implying a tie will keep your woman in line for when you inevitably fail to. A tie is more persuasive than you.
notopros
>Implying men are weak-willed and deviant.
learnyez
>Implying the only way to teach men anything is to beat it into them.
beatwife
>Implying domestic abuse is discipline, because a real man needs to strike a woman to lead her.
headachecap
>Implying a hat is brain food and men will buy this to be smarter. No, it literally uses the term brain-food.
manlybath
>Implying cleanliness is for sissies.
nervouspills
>Implying emotions are terrible. Feel shame.
malesedation
>Implying men need to be sedated.
husbandyouth
>Implying men are superficial and cannot appreciate personality and other invisible assets. Also, rather simple and visual, like a dog. About as much loyalty.
alonetime
>Implying a man who wants alone time is deficient in something, probably sex.
mustachetrainer
>Implying sagging mustaches are the male equivalent of sagging breasts.
meatjuice
>Implying … something about cavemen. I’m amazed that Juice Bro guy hasn’t tried to bring it back.

What if the secret behind degeneracy is terrible parents?

elitedaily.com/news/alexandria-vera-teacher-student-pregnancy/1695124/

The reason we have consent laws, and no, they don’t just apply to men.

There are plenty of female pedophiles too. Case in point.

Not once is the term rape used in connection to that poor boy. Because men can’t be victims?

Wow, so progressive to let a predator repeatedly rape your child, your legal minor, you have a duty to protect until 18.

Why are so many left-wingers acting like teenagers and thinking they are, for legal purposes?
She can’t even do her make-up like an adult. Why is she treated with any leniency?
The most soul-destroying comment I saw on heavy.com was this.

“Let her off….a woman having an affair with a teen male is ok by my book. The kid loved it! I mean, 10-year olds are having sex already. 13 is not that young! The guy probably have watched porn.”

And there it is. The justification for pedophilia.

  1. The victim enjoyed rape.
  2. Kids are ‘having sex’ with other kids. [False, they cannot consent and the law should reflect that.]
  3. Porn taught them how.

White Guilt rebrands as Norway Syndrome

And shuffles one step closer to naming the beast of Pathological Altruism.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/norway-syndrome-a-new-condition-for-western-victims-of-rape/

This anecdote is tricky, and no less worthy of sympathy alongside your just desserts of Schadenfreude. A genuine victim presents itself and we should be ashamed.

I do wish people would stop making fun of him, it’s flogging a dead horse. Or at least, dead eyes. Look at those things. Damn. 

omg why no facepalm god ugh wut

Where was I?

Oh yes, can this part of the internet grow the conscience we’ve been acting as if we possess? If we’re such stellar examples of moral fibre, might it not be wise to lead by demonstration?

I don’t care for rape humour on an individual level but I expected better of the sycophants who reflexively pull the Male Rape card whenever the subject comes up. Where’s their sympathy? I had tried to explain this would happen either last year or the one prior. This won’t be the last male victim of Middle Eastern rape culture. What if this is a coping mechanism? We can’t well undo it without first seeking to understand. If we can deprogram this one, tactically, there may be hope for the others. Think logistics, people.

There’s no such thing as ‘rape fantasies’

‘Rape fantasy’ is having a moment as an idea. Change the record.
wrong dr house urgh shut up idiots

They don’t exist. It’s an oxymoron. The only possible exception for mental states including self-destructive fantasy up to suicidal ideation are made for the mentally ill, but these are the same people who can chew on their intestines (please don’t ask me how I know that story). The mentally diseased have no bearing on healthy populations, like diabetics on what blood sugar should be.

Rape is legally and morally defined as non-consensual. That’s it. Rest is details.

When you choose to fantasize, that’s psychological consent. It doesn’t require another person, it doesn’t require actions. You are allowing scenarios to play out and furthermore, far being being submissive, the person is in complete control (unlike, say, rape).

It’s a frame laid and exploited by feminists as an excuse to get paid to talk about rape in academia and their supposed rape culture, as few men would find them attractive enough to ever target them (we all know rape is a sexual crime), it can become an obsession. That isn’t an obsession with rape although it seems that way to an outsider but a pre-condition of it (desirability) and functions in much the same way as men fantasizing about a starring role in a porn scenario. Other outlets might include comfort eating or comfort drinking in undesirable men.

So the next time somebody starts using this phrase as if it’s anything other than a non-sequitur, please correct them.

Idiot isn't as much a person as a process of doing things wrong

Rape – legal term, crime. Real.
Fantasies – fictive construct, common. Real. Harmless, frequently.
These things are like oil and water.

I think some men get off on the idea women have ‘rape fantasies’ as a kind of permission for their own fetishes because they have domination, pain-inducing fantasies. If they actually do want to rape a woman, that’s screwed up and they need professional help. When sex goes from something pleasurable to something intended to inflict pain, sex is instrumental and it’s a lot worse than say, torture with medical implements, it’s more personal, more psychologically scarring because it ruins intimacy for the victim (male or female).

I think the feminists laugh at male rape prison jokes from a similar motive, that the male domination fantasies (willing in porn, unwilling in rape) make it kind of okay because their own fantasies lend permission to the concept of being dominated regardless of the individuals and specific scenario involved (hence the reason all rapists say it was consensual, they don’t know what consent is or they delude themselves with this BS that ‘she really wanted it’).

It’s dangerous for both sexes as both are at risk of rape and both are at risk of mistaking consent and becoming a rapist with these myths flying around.

Nobody calls it a domination fantasy although that’s what really goes on in both sexes, it has nothing to do with rape. Rape sounds edgy to certain, terrible types of people.

It’s as ridiculous as saying that men have burglary fantasies or women want to be murdered. There are insane people, but we don’t think their delusions are real. There isn’t really an evil chicken on the ceiling. There is never a reason given for why sex and the other side, rape, is supposed to be an exception, yet there is an appeal to this exception.

First fake sex rape case (transsexual/transgender rape)

That isn’t what it’s being called, but materially, that’s what it is. Forney predicted it.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/08/woman-allegedly-tricked-friend-into-having-sex-pretending-to-be-man

A blindfolded woman was raped by another woman pretending to be a man. Five times. She removed the blindfold and understandably lost it.

This might also involve a change of law to help protect male victims (amending the penetration clause, as if women can’t rape too).

Statistically, most trannies are male. So lesbians in particular will be following this story with interest, and that’s why it’s in the Guardian.

Everyone with pets must play favourites some of the time.

UPDATE: conviction: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/15/woman-convicted-of-impersonating-man-to-dupe-friend-into-having-sex